Morning:
9°c
Opinion about the British presence in Afghanistan is evenly divided, according to an ICM poll published today. But even after a bloody 10 days in which 15 soldiers have been killed, the war is justified.
British troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan to rid the country of the Taliban and the Islamic extremists based there and in the border areas of Pakistan.
Unchecked, they and their British recruits pose a genuine threat to our lives here at home.
Yet support for our troops is not the same as support for the way the war is being conducted by the Government.
That is the cause of the exasperation expressed by General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the Army.
As Lord Owen, the former Foreign Secretary, points out on this page, levels of defence spending have been modest for years.
Soldiers are entitled to be angry that helicopter cover has been inadequate and that the armoured vehicles they use are not best able to withstand roadside bombs, the Taliban's preferred tactic.
And it is not quite good enough for the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, to say that what the Army wants, it gets: it takes many months to meet defence procurement needs.
The second source of discontent is whether troop levels are sufficient to allow British forces to fulfil their objectives: that has been given greater force after US forces took the lead in British-dominated Helmand.
Meanwhile, Lord Ashdown argues that the strategy of building forward bases without consolidating territory was always misguided.
The least the Prime Minister can do is make permanent the temporary increase in troop numbers he authorised until the Afghan election next month.
It would help, too, if ministers were more consistent in making the case. Last week, the Prime Minister's deputy, Harriet Harman, declared that one reason for British engagement was to promote schooling in Afghanistan.
At the outset, John Reid, then defence secretary, said British troops were supporting the development effort.
Improving life conditions for the Afghans is desirable but it is not the real reason we should be there.
The Afghan campaign is worth fighting: and the troops who are doing the job deserve far greater support than they have received so far.
Trains not planes
The proposal for a new airport in the Thames Estuary as an alternative to a third runway at Heathrow was controversial and costly even when it was first advanced, long before the recession.
In an economic downturn, it is simply unrealistic even to contemplate spending £40 billion on it. Yet the Mayor, Boris Johnson, is now considering a report he commissioned on its feasibility.
The Mayor is right to say that a third runway at Heathrow would be environmentally damaging. Nor would London benefit much from even greater numbers of transit passengers, most of whom never leave the departure lounge.
There are better alternatives: investment in transport should be directed not at another airport but at high-speed rail links.
Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, argues forcefully today for maintaining a spending commitment to a London-Glasgow high-speed rail link. That would cost £8 billion and it would, at least, be money well spent.
The best table
Plans we report today for London's first restaurant festival in October promise diners a unique celebration of the capital's food scene.
With 1,000 restaurants taking part, offering special festival menus, and novelties such as a restaurant on the roof of Selfridge's, it promises to be a fitting showcase for London's vibrant restaurant scene.
The range and quality of a city's eating places are surely some of the best indicators of its confidence and success: London's restaurants offer a cornucopia unrivalled almost anywhere in the world.
Reader views (1)
I have read with utter disbelief, the editorial in your paper supporting the war in Afghanistan. I support the troops, support the need to resource them adequately and protect them, but not under any circumstances the war.
We were never in Afghanistan to protect British civilians. If anything, in the years preceding 9/11, we were never faced a threat of attack, it was only after we threw in our lot with the US administration that we endangered ourselves and the populace of this country.
This war, was America's war. 9/11, as horrendous as it was, resulted from festering resentment of American policies in the Muslim world, especially its unrelenting support for Israel. This is not about defending British national security, it is a misjudged endeavour to secure strategic interests in this vitally important region. In other words, the reasons are not about security, they are about economic supremacy and hegemony of the Western powers.
The most credible and incontestable way to protect the UK, is to withdraw from Afghanistan and let the Afghans take charge of their own affairs. By occupying their country we are only fuelling their hatred towards us, emboldening the disenchanted people, radicalising Muslims in the UK, and perilously jeopardising our own security.
We must do what is right and withdraw forthwith.
- Ansar Bakshi, London, UK
