Call me a cynic, but when I heard that Barack Obama's congratulatory call was being put through even as the door of 10 Downing Street closed behind David Cameron, one word came to mind: Afghanistan.

Margaret Thatcher warned George H.W. Bush against going ""wobbly"" after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Obama wants to be sure the UK's new prime minister does not go wobbly about Afghanistan.
The same sentiment was conveyed by Hillary Clinton's invitation to William Hague. Britain's foreign secretary had scarcely navigated his vast new Whitehall office before he was crossing the Atlantic. The U.S. secretary of state wanted to make the point face to face: this is no time for Britain to think about drawing down its forces from Afghanistan.
Some of Washington's anxiety reflects the place in Cameron's government of Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats. Clegg's party opposed involvement in the second Iraq war. It has been circumspect in its support for the Afghan campaign. Clegg, who carries Europe in his DNA, has challenged Britain's default Atlanticism.
As it happens, he is not an anti-American. Rather he believes that a close relationship with the U.S. should not be deployed, as it sometimes has been, as an excuse to retreat from Europe. Curiously enough, plenty of people in Washington agree Britain would be a more useful ally if it were a leader on its own continent.
Close U.S. observers of British politics will have noticed that while Cameron has backed the deployment of British forces in Afghanistan he has struck a certain caution. He represents a strand of Conservatism that is skeptical about foreign adventures.
Opportunity
The U.S. administration is right to say that this is not the moment to cut and run from Afghanistan. Washington and London share the same strategic objective. That said, as a new prime minister, Cameron has a big opportunity. The slate can be wiped clean in favour of a fundamental look at the strategy and tactics that inform Britain's role. Those fighting, and dying, in Helmand province deserve no less.
Of course, the troops must have all the helicopters, armored vehicles and other kit they need. This is one area of spending that must escape the Treasury axe. It should also be said, though, that the heavy casualties the army has taken in Helmand cannot simply be pinned on penny-pinching politicians.
Cameron's priority must be to address the strategic issues. Recently, David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, had begun to set out some new ideas, notably on political reconciliation with important elements of the Taliban insurgency and engagement with Afghanistan's neighbors. These ideas are not a bad starting point for Cameron's government.
The encouraging news is that the combination of more troops and the intelligent counter-insurgency strategy framed by General Stanley McChrystal has provided Nato forces with a coherent framework. The bad news is that President Hamid Karzai remains an unreliable partner, and efforts to build Afghan governance are still hampered at every turn by corruption and local rivalries.
The West's goal has narrowed to that of creating a government in Kabul stable and strong enough to prevent the country becoming again a safe haven for Al-Qaeda. Even this limited objective will require more than the military victories promised by the surge or a national army that has so far largely excluded the Pashtuns of southern Afghanistan.
Cameron said before polling day that the present approach in Afghanistan must be given ""the necessary time and support"" to succeed. He added that the U.S.-led coalition should go ""further and faster"" in forging a political settlement. There, if there is such a thing, lies the key.
Stability cannot be imposed by outside military force. It requires an internal political bargain that embraces the Pashtuns and secures, at a minimum, the acquiescence of Afghanistan's neighbors, including Pakistan. The commitment of western troops cannot be open-ended.
Obama has reaffirmed that he wants to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the middle of 2011. Cameron should tell the president Britain wants to do likewise. Then they should start talking about that political strategy.
(Source: The Financial Times)
Photo: New British Prime Minister David Cameron