Afghanistan risks becoming “the forgotten war” and a failed state beyond retrieval because of deteriorating international support and a growing violent insurgency, according to a distinguished independent panel in the US.

Yesterday's warning, from a study chaired by the retired US Marine Corps General James Jones and Thomas Pickering, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations, will strike home in Washington because of the eminence of the authors and the timing. Congress is casting a keen eye over spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will look at the report today, Democrats may seize on evidence of misjudgment in Afghanistan to score points.

The study is welcome for introducing a sharp note of anxiety into the US debate on Afghanistan, which was eclipsed by Iraq until recent gibes at coalition partners by Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defence, reminded Washington of the stakes. The report is important for its blunt argument that Afghanistan could be a tougher task than Iraq and that it is difficult to set expectations too low.

Even so, Jones and Pickering overstate their case, giving too little credit to the military progress of recent months. They also give too little attention to the problems posed by officials appointed by President Hamid Karzai, and place too much faith on more troops and money to solve the problems.

They are right to say that support for the conflict in coalition countries is wavering. A recent report to the Canadian Parliament was striking for its resentment that the US had not always appreciated the role of its forces, which were involved in some of the fiercest fighting.

Yet about half the civil aid budget comes from the US, three quarters of the military contribution and 85per cent of the air power. Tension is unsurprising because the US feels that the allies could do more. Gates said yesterday that he agreed with the argument that more troops were needed, “but certainly not ours”.

The report's view that more troops and aid are needed skates over the lack of structures to use more resources. It invokes the reliable shock of the narcotics figures but sidesteps the corruption and criminality in Kabul and local government. President Karzai, not himself criticised, is said to have been irked by reports on this theme when he turned down Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon as UN envoy. Yet the criticism of such officials still stands. Karzai was always likely to find the Ashdown appointment threatening, because of his high profile and lack of experience in Afghanistan. The front-runners now appear to be the Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, former UN Special Envoy to Kosovo, and Hikmet Cetin, the former Turkish Foreign Minister. Britain will not now put up General Sir John McColl, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

The picture that emerges from Kabul is that Karzai is terrifyingly vulnerable: barricaded into the palace, reminiscing about his stay with the Prince of Wales that gave him the freedom to walk a mile; and preoccupied with next year's elections. Donors may not have allowed enough troops and aid to counter the problems; they have certainly not allowed enough time.

Times Recommends

• Darling won't pay for Brown give-away
• Believe it or not, Big Brother is your friend
• E-mails were quoted out of context