Tonight:
5°c
The bombings of Kabul's principal hotel destination for Westerners and of a hostel approved for UN workers underline the scale of the challenge facing Nato in Afghanistan ahead of the presidential election runoff.
The Taliban struck with ease even in a capital city where lawlessness was much less extreme than in the provinces.
There had been devastating attacks in Kabul before but yesterday's incidents could undermine the resolve of the international organisations whose work contributes importantly to the civil strategy Afghanistan needs alongside Nato's military endeavour.
The attacks also mean that the clock is ticking faster on President Obama's already long drawn out consideration of the need for more troops.
The White House has an "AfPak" strategy which makes clear the imperative to remain in Afghanistan: to prevent the return of a Taliban regime which could make the country a safe haven for al Qaeda once more, and further threaten the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
A bomb exploded today in Peshawar as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad.
That said, the region urgently needs a decision on General Stanley McChrystal's request for up to 40,000 more troops to hold the line until the Afghan National Army can be trained to take over.
This week's resignation of senior US official Matthew Hoh just as eight American servicemen died in roadside bombings was driven by his sense that the war cannot be won.
However, while old-fashioned victory may be impossible, the implosion of the region that could follow Nato withdrawal, and the potential boost to fundamentalist terrorism, are too dangerous to contemplate.
The President is expected to make a decision on troop numbers between 7 November - the runoff election date - and 20 November. Time is a luxury he does not have.
Commuter-belt MPs
Those of us whose daily commute is over an hour have never had much sympathy for the rules allowing MPs from constituencies around the capital a taxpayer-funded flat in Westminster.
So proposals expected from Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that MPs will not be allowed a second home allowance if they live within a 60-minute radius will seem reasonable.
MPs do face late-night sittings but then many commuters work late and start earlier, too.
Just how the 60 minutes will be calculated is unclear, but the principle that MPs within commuting distance do not need subsidy for a division bell flat, is a reasonable one.
Another key recommendation is that for those MPs whose constituency is elsewhere in Britain, only rent and not mortgage interest will be paid. MPs from distant locations undoubtedly need two homes.
However, at today's low interest rates, mortgage payments could cost the taxpayer less than rent.
It was the capital gains on MPs' publicly funded property, often tax-free thanks to "flipping" of the second home designation, that caused so much public anger.
A better solution might be to return these gains to the public purse in proportion to the taxpayer funding received.
However, the arguments over the detailed proposals, which will have a profound effect on sitting MPs and the attractions of the job, are only just beginning.
Tower trade-off
The Mayor has been criticised for allowing a 63-storey tower in east London the go-ahead provided the developer contributes to affordable housing and to Crossrail.
Far from being a "sale", this is a sensible application of the principle of planning gain, besides helping to make the vital Crossrail project happen. The critics should wake up to reality.
Reader views (1)
becouse they don't know about themself
- Hamidullah, Afghanistan, 19/01/2010 08:14
Report abuse
