Morning:
9°c
President Obama's message to European leaders at the Nato summit in Strasbourg has gone straight to the heart of the biggest dilemma facing the organisation, today celebrating its 60th birthday: what to do about Afghanistan.
Mr Obama emphasised that denying al Qaeda safe havens was as much a question of security for Europe as for the US. That will provide some support for Gordon Brown, who today promised to send a further 800 British troops to Afghanistan.
Yet the problems in Afghanistan are deepening.
Military commanders and indeed Mr Obama have admitted over the past few weeks what politicians had previously denied: that we are losing the Afghan war. The Taliban is resurgent across the west and south of the country, and while Nato troops can deny it victory locally, they are caught in a stalemate. The only solution thus far has been to increase the size of our commitment.
In February Mr Obama ordered another 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan to join the 20,000 already there; last week he added a further 4,000. Mr Brown's latest promise will take the total number of British troops to around 11,000.
The Nato-led International Security Assistance Force already has more than 55,000 troops on the ground. Nato will have to accept that it cannot keep funnelling more troops into Afghanistan, and that it cannot achieve a complete military victory against the Taliban.
It should put more effort into building Afghan state structures and especially into training a new Afghan army — as indeed the most recently announced deployment of US troops are supposed to do. The West needs to put more pressure, too, on Pakistan, without whose intelligence services and money the Taliban could not survive at anything like their present strength.
Mr Obama has now accepted that there must be an exit strategy: neither the US or Nato can afford an open-ended commitment. Mr Brown should have the courage to admit the same, and plan for Britain's phased exit from this unwinnable war.
Gravy train
The latest details of the expenses claimed by Labour MPs Ann and Alan Keen will outrage many voters. The husband-and-wife team have claimed a total of more than £200,000 since 2001 for their second home in Westminster, despite the fact that they live in Mrs Keen's Brentford constituency, a 23-minute drive from the Commons.
Moreover, as we reveal today, three other MPs, including environment secretary Hilary Benn and Home Office minister Phil Woolas, live close by; Mr Woolas's London home is one street away. Why do the Keens need a second home even closer to the centre?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Keens have used the system of allowances as a handy way of investing in property at taxpayers' expense.
This is within the existing rules, as is Mrs Keen's claim last year for a total of more than £167,000 in expenses. This sort of largesse to MPs serves no interest but their own. Ministers should recognise that urgent reform is needed as such greed severely damages the credibility of the House.
London's finest
The police have come under fire for their handling of this week's demonstrations. Protesters claim the Met and other forces used unnecessary force and that the police tactic of corralling them for hours was unfair. They should look across the Channel, where French riot police showed no hesitation in wading into demonstrators at the Nato summit in Strasbourg, breaking heads, firing tear gas and arresting 300. Most Londoners will feel that police coped remarkably calmly with the sustained aggression of a minority bent on confrontation. The hardcore protesters screamed abuse in officers' faces, hit them and broke windows; London's police, most of them without riot gear, showed the world why they are worth their international reputation.
