A frontier far away holds the key to our Olympics security And I also question whether the Government's over-the-top security measures will succeed in discouraging al-Qaeda terrorists - who are still desperate to avenge last year's killing of Osama bin Laden - from carrying out their schemes. As a general rule, if Islamist terrorists are determined to perpetrate an atrocity, they most likely will. Those responsible for the September 11 attacks had several failed attempts to use multiple airliners in a spectacular attack before they succeeded in inflicting carnage on America's eastern seaboard. The names of our own home-grown July 7 suicide bombers were actually logged in some obscure recess of the national police computer system under "pending," but that did not prevent them from attacking London's transport system that dreadful summer's morning. Such considerations, though, have not stopped the Government from assembling a 19,000-strong military force to ensure the event enjoys the best possible protection. I am sure I am not the only one to note that the total number of soldiers, sailors and airmen who will be on duty is twice the size of the British force currently deployed to southern Afghanistan, where British forces are engaged in fighting a real war, rather than an imaginary one. For a Government that has shown little interest in military issues, inflicting cuts on all three Services during its ill-informed 2010 Defence Review, its enthusiasm for placing the nation's capital under military occupation shows a worrying confusion over where our true national priorities lie. By all means beef up the policing and other security arrangements that normally apply when we host a major sporting event. But if the politicians really want to stop Islamist terrorists from attacking high-profile fixtures, they would be far better advised to concentrate their energies on addressing the root cause of the problem - the lawless border territory between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where most of the plots are hatched in the first place. Next week, a major Nato conference is being held in Chicago to determine the future of the West's commitment to Afghanistan once the bulk of American and British forces is withdrawn by the end of 2014. As with London and the Olympics, Chicago is going to be subjected to a similar security lock-down as delegates from more than 50 countries deliberate over Afghanistan's fate. Yesterday the conference website posted the cheery news about the extensive road closures that will be imposed throughout the city for the weekend-long Nato jolly, which is being billed as "Chicago 2012: the Global Crossroads." The conference's primary aim is to persuade donor nations to contribute about $4 billion to sustain Afghanistan's reconstruction effort after more than three decades of incessant conflict. This is a mere fraction of the tens of billions that have been spent on this benighted country since Western forces piled in following the September 11 attacks. And yet no one seems prepared to cough up what is, by comparison, a relatively modest sum. Which explains why our involvement in Afghanistan really is at the crossroads. Britain, currently spending about £3 billion a year on the country, has said it will contribute $100 million (£60 million), allowing the Government to pocket the rest of its "peace dividend" from our troops" withdrawal. But other countries, such as France, are reluctant to make even this modest contribution, an attitude likely to intensify following the election of the socialist and anti-war candidate François Hollande as the country's new president. The reluctance of those who will be attending the Chicago summit to commit to the long-term stability and security of Afghanistan is symptomatic of the mood of war fatigue that has overcome all the major Western powers, which was best summed up by President Barack Obama's whistle-stop visit last week. It was fitting that Mr Obama should launch his campaign for re-election with a photo opportunity in Kabul. The Afghan conflict has, after all, been dubbed "Obama's War," in contrast to the previous Bush administration's obsession with Iraq. But the fact that Mr Obama stole into Kabul like a thief in the night and declared his intention to end America's decade-long war against militant Islam before heading back to the US sent out the wrong signals. If all Mr Obama wants to talk about is when America brings home the troops, then there is little prospect of Nato achieving its most elusive strategic goal - forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table. Moreover, it is pointless for Mr Obama or any other Western leader to make high-profile visits to Afghanistan while relations with Pakistan, its influential neighbour, remain in cold storage. Unless there is a radical change in Islamabad's position, one of the notable absentees from Chicago will be Pakistan, a country that arguably has more influence over the Taliban than any other, particularly as most Taliban commanders take their orders directly from Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency. Rather than indulging in meaningless photo-ops in Kabul, American - and British - leaders would make more profitable use of their time trying to repair the disastrous breakdown in relations with Islamabad following the "kill raid" on Osama bin Laden by a team of US Navy Seals. The key to better Olympics security lies on the Afghan-Pakistan frontier, not the newly constructed sporting arenas of the East End. If only our politicians could grasp this rather basic fact then perhaps we might all be spared the costly and unnecessary military pageant they are planning for this summer's Olympic Games.