LONDON (AFP/Reuters) - The international military mission in Afghanistan has delivered 'much less than it promised due to the lack of a realistic strategy, an influential committee of British lawmakers said Sunday. In a report, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said without a clear strategy stabilising Afghanistan had become 'considerably more difficult than might otherwise have been the case. Lawmakers criticised US policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan and warned the 'considerable cultural insensitivity of some coalition troops had caused serious damage to Afghans perceptions that will be 'difficult to undo. We conclude that the international effort in Afghanistan since 2001 has delivered much less than it promised and that its impact has been significantly diluted by the absence of a unified vision and strategy grounded in the realities of Afghanistans history, culture and politics, the report said. Although Afghanistans current situation is not solely the legacy of the Wests failures since 2001, avoidable mistakes, including knee-jerk responses, policy fragmentation and overlap, now make the task of stabilising the country considerably more difficult than might otherwise have been the case. As for Britains roughly 9,000 troops in Afghanistan - who in July suffered their worst month since the 2001 invasion with 22 deaths - the members of parliament (MPs) said their role has seen 'significant mission creep. They were initially sent to counter international terrorism and are now working on areas like fighting the drugs trade and counter-insurgency, it said, adding the military had not been given 'clear direction. We conclude that the UKs mission in Afghanistan has taken on a significantly different and considerably expanded character since the first British troops were deployed there in 2001, the report said. The UK deployment to Helmand (province) was undermined by unrealistic planning at senior levels, poor coordination between Whitehall (government) departments and crucially, a failure to provide the military with clear direction. Britains role as lead international partner on counter-narcotics was 'a poisoned chalice, the report said, adding there was 'little evidence to suggest that cuts in poppy cultivation were down to deliberate strategy. It called for British troops to focus on security alone. The 'Global Security: Afghanistan and Pakistan report also looked at problems caused by the use of airpower, particularly by the United States. Drone attacks by US forces in Pakistan have 'damaged the USs reputation while some of the blame for problems in the international mission in Afghanistan must be put on the Bush administrations early focus on military goals, it said. The report also warned that the reputation of NATO - in command of international troops in Afghanistan since 2003 - could be 'seriously damaged without fairer burden-sharing between member states to ease the strain. Britain has long called for other NATO countries to contribute more to the military effort. The conditions of prisoners and detainees being held by the Afghan authorities were 'a matter of considerable concern, it added, while also saying there had been 'no tangible progress on tackling corruption. Responding to the report, the Foreign Office said it would study its conclusions and submit an official response in the coming months. There is a real possibility that without a more equitable distribution of responsibility and risk, NATOs effort will be further inhibited and its reputation as a military alliance, capable of undertaking out-of-area operations, seriously damaged, the report added. Britain has more than 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, the largest foreign contingent after the United States, which had 41 of its soldiers killed in July. The legislators did not specify which NATO allies they thought should contribute more, but Germany and other European countries have been under pressure from the United States to send more troops to Afghanistan. Many have been reluctant, citing public opposition to greater involvement in the country. The legislators also said Britain should give up the lead role in combating drug-trafficking in Afghanistan and focus on improving security. Meanwhile, a British Foreign Office spokesman said they would carefully consider the reports findings and respond to Parliament in the coming months. The Foreign Office looks forward to further discussions on Afghanistan and Pakistan with Parliament and all interested parties. These issues deserve the widest possible engagement. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said the report should be 'a wake-up call to the government. It confirms what we have been saying for months: Britains objectives in Afghanistan should be realistic, tightly-defined and subject to regular formal assessment, he said. Monitoring Desk adds: The report by the British Parliaments Foreign Affairs Committee has said that Pakistans tribal belt is a haven for terrorists, which needs to be stabilised first for a peaceful Afghanistan, reported British House of Commons website - parliament.uk. It also demanded strict control over mushrooming religious seminaries, funded by Saudi Arabia, as these are ensuring constant supply to different militant groups. The report said that both the UK and the US perceive Pakistan to be crucial for a successful Afghan campaign. In the wake of 9/11, tribal region of Fata became the new base for Al-Qaeda and the displaced Afghan Talibans centre of gravity. It also sights Balochistan as an area of strategic importance both in the context of Afghanistan and in relation to Pakistans own internal security, as it borders Helmand and Kandahar provinces. It claims that Quetta is home to the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar and is considered to be a 'sanctuary of the Taliban leadership. The report goes on saying that the Pakistani government has little authority in Fata and only limited control in NWFP and Balochistan. Fata being the poorest and least developed part of Pakistan with its inhospitable terrain helps to ensure that Pashtun tribal communities are excluded from markets, health and education, it added. It says Al-Qaeda has exploited the problems in Pashtun lands to establish a safe haven among people who do not support its ideology but whose poverty, isolation, and weak governance leave them vulnerable. And surprisingly, terrorist attacks are on an alarming rise. British MPs also argue that the porous border is causing unremitting flow of militants across the Durand Line. Again citing Prof Shaun Gregory, it says Afghan Taliban are planning and conducting raids from northern Balochistan, it also refers to the intimate connections between the insurgency in Helmand and that in Waziristan, and between the criminals, spoilers and terrorists who operate in Kandahar and Quetta, Peshawar and Nangarhar. The committee also states, For every successful insurgency, you need a safe haven, a sanctuary, and that is what the tribal areas provide. Another witness is Langan who says, The symptoms may be in Afghanistan, in Helmand, but the causes are in the tribal areas, and without dealing with that [...] the counter-insurgency strategy [in Afghanistan] will not succeed. The report also recalls former head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, who claimed earlier this year that Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) had reached a 'merge point with Al-Qaeda. But it is confident that notwithstanding the recent increase in violence and the expanding influence of Taliban and other militant groups in these areas of northwestern Pakistan, the consensus of our interlocutors during our visit to Pakistan was that there was no real sense that the civilian government was in danger of collapsing. Pakistans status as a nuclear weapons state, the report says, also generates significant strategic concern. Many analysts believe that if there is a nuclear 9/11 carried out in the West, it will have its origins in Pakistan. The report warned, If present trends persist, the next generation of the worlds most sophisticated terrorists will be born, indoctrinated, and trained in a nuclear-armed Pakistan. The British Parliamentarians say, We conclude that it is difficult to overestimate the importance of tackling not just the symptoms of terrorism but also the root causes that enable this situation to persist. Although it praises civilian governments resolve to bring the tribal areas back under state control and the government, the army and others have got their work cut out. It also gives an indepth look at religious seminaries (madrassahs) and demands tighter state control over them. It says, the thousands of madrassahs that still exist, funded in part by Saudi donors, are churning out cannon fodder for the Taliban. Although a number of radical madrassahs were identified during Presidents Musharrafs era, controls were not forthcoming, prompting Christina Lamb to comment, Again and again, there has been talk that Pakistan will regulate the madrassahs and crack down on them, but nothing happens in practice. It says in spite of the return of a civilian government and its commitment to tackle militancy much depends on the commitment and ability of Pakistans military to deal with the insurgents, adding, the military continues to play a pivotal role in the areas of defence, foreign, nuclear and internal security policy. In Sean Langans opinion, Clearly, [civilian] politicians are in office, but not in power. It alleges that for most of its history, Pakistan has sought to assert control in Afghanistan by fostering friendly regimes in Kabul and supporting insurgencies, including that led by the Afghan Taliban, in a bid to prevent Afghanistan falling under Indian influence. Overt support in the form of diplomatic recognition to the former Taliban government was combined with more clandestine backing for proxy terrorist groups in Afghanistan, in many instances created and shored up by the ISI, it said. The approach of Pakistani governments has been to support the Afghan Taliban but to crack down on the home-grown Taliban. However, by encouraging and supporting extremists, as a tool to retain and hold influence in Afghanistan, Pakistan has inadvertently introduced changes that have undermined its ability to maintain its own writ within its borders and which have resulted in wider domestic instability, it added. It also said, The military and ISI, rather than civilian politicians, control and determine foreign and security policy in Pakistan. It opines that in recent years, military action against insurgents in has tended to focus on groups, which threaten Pakistans internal security, and not on the Afghan Taliban or its former proxies including Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, or LeT which have relocated to the Fata. But it accepts the fact that the ISI is on board institutionally, and that the leaderships of both the Army and the ISI are supportive of the president and his strategy, which is reflected through the meetings that we have had with Gen Kayani. There is a difficulty, that within the ISI, there may remain individuals who have some sympathy with these groups. It especially quotes President Zardari who in a recent address in Brussels had said, I do not consider India a military threat...............India is a reality, Pakistan is a reality, but Taliban are a threat, an international threat to our way of life. And at the moment, Im focused on the Taliban. Its something that has been going on for a long time and of course went unchecked under the dictatorial rule of the last president. It welcomes civilian governments recently taken important steps to counter insurgency and increasing recognition at the senior levels within the military of the need for a recalibrated approach to militancy. But it also expressed its concern that it might not necessarily be replicated elsewhere within the Army and ISI. It also shares its doubts about whether the underlying fundamentals of Pakistani security policy have changed sufficiently to realise the goals of long-term security and stability in Afghanistan. It says, We are encouraging Kabul and Islamabad to build on recent improvements, which are a product of political and personal relations between President Zardari and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai. But it cautions that there has yet to be sustained and substantive improvements with regard to intelligence co-operation, border control and counter-narcotics, and that both the countries continue to have a tendency to blame the other for a failure to take action on a range of issues. It says at the moment, Pakistans priority is its own domestic problem. There is talk about the fact that militant activity is being seen in southern Punjab too, and even in the northern part of Sindh. If that problem continues to expand, that will be the biggest challenge Pakistan faces, rather than looking eastward or westward to Afghanistan or India. It suggests that an amicable resolution of the Durand Line dispute would go a long way to improve border co-operation because it would help to allay Pakistani fears that a strong Afghanistan would revitalise past claims on its Pashtun regions. A recent report by the Afghanistan-Pakistan Taskforce has concurred that it is imperative to address longstanding issues surrounding the status of Pashtuns in both Afghanistan, where they are the largest ethnic group, and Pakistan, where twice as many live as a minority.