Major problems in the US-led war on terrorism have been highlighted by Admiral Boyce, Chief of Britain's Defence Staff.

The approach he outlined presented explicit differences with approaches being outlined by US officials.

Addressing the Royal United Services Institute, he warned of over-confidence arising from the collapse of the Taleban so far and the dangers of a new attack by al-Qaeda.

He also emphasised that British experience of defeating terrorism in Malaya and other countries pointed to the necessity of addressing the causes of terrorism rather than the symptoms.

We have to attack the causes, not the symptoms of terrorism

Admiral Boyce

In reviewing the situation on the ground he warned of the "appearance of success" and highlighted the "riot, or counter-attack at Mazar-e-Sharif" as an example of the present instability.

Disproportionate response

The admiral also warned against an over-emphasis on catching Osama Bin Laden, remarking that: "This is not a hi-tech 21st Century posse in the new Wild West."

Al-Qaeda still has the capability to attack again as seriously as it did on 11 September, he said.

The admiral warned that it would be as dangerous to over-react with a disproportionate response to any new attack as it would be to believe we should simply give up the military struggle.

In reviewing the global strategy he emphasised: "At the global strategic level, the world cannot afford non-states, black hole states or failed states, because such states breed terrorism.

"Therefore we have to attack the causes, not the symptoms of terrorism.

"To do this, we need to isolate the terrorist by making it more attractive for his supporters to seek peace....

"What is the point of delivering the illusion of victory and a 'gone to ground' Taleban/al-Qaeda, if 'the peace' holds more threats?"

Fraught with risks

Adm Boyce laid out the strategic choice for the UK of concentrating on the causes of terrorism or joining the US in a wider war.

He expressed concern that broadening the war would alienate parts of the coalition and undermine multilateral processes essential to success.

"Above all, what we do must be legal, or otherwise we jeopardise our legitimacy," he said.

The strong implication of his remarks was that Britain sees a UN mandate as essential to any broadening of the war.

Adm Boyce expressed concern that a large British commitment to a peacekeeping operation could bring the British to be seen as an occupying force and military support for the new regime in Afghanistan was a policy fraught with risks.

Overall the admiral gave the clearest expression yet of the view common in British government circles that the US has not yet grasped the necessity of pursuing a predominantly political strategy with a military element in its war on terrorism.