- Col. Richard Kemp is a former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and the author of Attack State Red, an account of British military operations in Afghanistan published by Penguin. The opinions expressed are his own. -

Disillusionment with the inability of the Kabul administration to govern fairly or to significantly reduce violence played a role in the reportedly low turnout at the polls in Helmand.

It is critical that this changes if we are to avoid another Vietnam. The South Vietnamese Army, well trained and equipped, lost heart once the U.S. withdrew, collapsing at the first push, partly because their corrupt and ineffective administration was not worth fighting for.

That an election was held at all in Afghanistan’s most violent province is an achievement. But despite a major operation to drive out the Taliban, the insurgents deterred large numbers of voters. This illustrates just how steep a mountain NATO has to climb. But it does not mean we cannot prevail against them in Helmand.

As President Obama says: "This isn’t a war of choice; it’s a war of necessity." Home grown British terrorists have only demonstrated an ability to kill our people when they have attended serious training and had face-to-face direction from war-hardened jihadists.

The Al Qaida leadership and their camps were driven into Pakistan in 2001. U.S. pursuit across the border using unmanned aerial vehicle strikes has been remarkably effective, resulting directly in the recent reduction of the UK terrorist threat level.

Al Qaida is not just a “global franchise” but also a solid organization that needs places to meet, to plan and to train terrorists. It cannot all be done on the internet.  Substantially unable to function now in Pakistan, the leadership is actively seeking a new base – perhaps in Yemen, Somalia or North Africa. In any of these they would be much more exposed. Their real desire is to return to Afghanistan. NATO forces are preventing that.

But we cannot do it forever. Success equals reducing the insurgency to a level that can be managed by a viable Afghan government backed by a capable security force which can prevent the country becoming a base for attacks on the West including Britain.

How long will this take? The answer to that is how long do we have?  The next U.S. election is at the end of 2012 and the patience of the British electorate will have no greater longevity.

Even as I have defined it, we will not achieve success fully in that time-frame. But we must be very clearly succeeding in a way that we are not now. And certainly in the British forces, we cannot continue with anything like the current rate of casualties over that period.

To counter the Taliban’s present devastatingly effective tactics of mines, roadside bombs and booby traps we need better surveillance and better intelligence, achieved in part through greater active support from the local people. We need to control the night as well as the day. While we build the Afghan army, this can only be done with more of our own troops. A lot more.

Casting aside inter-service rivalries, every sinew of strength of the British armed forces must now go into Afghanistan.  Even that will not be enough.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown must take close personal direction of this war through a war cabinet that will drive every relevant government department to achieve real progress in the short time we have left. And crucially to communicate our war aims to the British people with far greater effect.

The death toll among British troops in Afghanistan is rising fast.  The soldier who died on Tuesday was the seventh to die in the last week and the 176th since the war began.

Last Wednesday, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe became the highest ranking British soldier to die in the conflict in Afghanistan when he was killed in Helmand. British commanders are quoted as saying things are going to get worse before they get better.

Not surprisingly, doubts are being raised about the price being paid in Afghanistan, about the nature of the mission itself and whether security can ever be made effective enough to rebuild the country after 30 years of war.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth concedes there is gloom about the rising death toll but rejects comparisons with the Vietnam war that lasted over 15 years and says there is a "real sense of momentum" in Afghanistan.

Do you believe Britain should stay in Afghanistan?

-- John Bowker is UK Transport and Utilities Correspondent--

It feels like a typical day at the Paris Air Show -- terrible transport links, a vast complex of exhibition tents, planes of all sizes and noise so dreadful it's impossible to talk, let alone use a mobile phone.

One difference is the weather. It's more like Manchester in February than Paris in June, chucking it down.

Another is the mood. You'll find happier people on the Northern Line during a Tube strike. It may be the centenary of the signature event of the aviation calendar, but there is little to celebrate this year.

The world of passenger planes is suffering the toughest conditions on record. Airlines are grounding planes all over the world, and are expected by the industry body to rack up a combined $9 billion of losses this year. It's hardly the time for going on a buying spree.

The defence industry is looking slightly brighter since President Obama unveiled a rise in the U.S. defence budget -- easily the biggest in the world at over $530 billion. But likely cuts in the UK and elsewhere have dampened the general mood.

On top of economic woes, the Air France 447 plane crash into the Atlantic has stunned the industry. No one yet knows what happened, and no one wants to mention the word "safety". Everybody wants the incident to blow over, but knows that it will not.

With all that in mind, it was impressive to hear so many attempts to sound upbeat.

"If this is the worst it can possibly be, we're doing OK," said New York aerospace banker David Baxt, as he watched crowds gather below fighter jets doing loop-di-loops.

Boeing's commercial chief Scott Carson said he saw a recovery in the middle of next year, while Russian-owned Sukhoi stole the (air)show - sending its newly built Superjet plane into the sky for its first public flight and forecasting 150 orders by the year end.

But the smattering of first day orders was nothing to write home about - a Qatar Airways order for 24 Airbus planes the underwhelming highlight. There's still the rest of the week, but judging by the opening salvos, it'll be a far from memorable centenary.

Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) meetings are usually drab affairs. The leader turns up, listens to a few grumbles from backbench MPs, a few reporters hang around outside hoping to grab a half-decent quote and in the end a Labour apparatchik puts a rose-tinted spin on proceedings.

Not so on Monday night, one of those rare "crunch time" events for a party leader that creates such a frenzy inside and outside the venue. Parliament's committee room 14 was so full one MP of robust stature tried to force not one, but two doors in an attempt to get in, and ended up with a sore shoulder. Veteran party member Greville (now Lord) Janner, a member of the Magic Circle, gave up trying to get in and instead entertained reporters with a couple of magic tricks. His skills may have been of more use on the other side of the door.

Gordon Brown, we were led to believe, faced being sawn in half by his own party after a disastrous showing in local and European elections. However, as so often is the case, the reality did not live up to the hype and the prime minister slipped away via a trap door, but not before making a speech telling everyone how humble he was and how he promised to listen in future. This is a classic leader's smoke and mirrors trick, show them you're listening, come out with a few "reform" initiatives in the ensuing days and when the air has cleared go back to whatever it was you were doing that upset them in the first place.

Leaders are not unseated at PLP meetings, despite how many times you read that these events are a firing squad. In fact, Brown strolled down the long, dark committee corridor, beamed at reporters and threw them a cheery "hi guys". His predecessor Tony Blair used to do the same thing ahead of a tricky PLP, the final time with his suit jacket casually thrown over one shoulder like a model from a menswear catalogue.

Brown knew what he had to do, and for now he has bought himself some time. He also knows that the odds of a full blown rebellion are slim. It's easy to go on television and say "Gordon must go", it's another matter to get that anger and dissent distilled into something more potent and then pour it down the throat of a potential challenger. The point is not lost on Labour members. They know they are on the rack, but any change of leadership now will only hasten electoral defeat. The public won't tolerate another unelected prime minister installed at Number 10 and nor should they. Brown may still be in one piece, but it will take more than magic tricks and humility to save him if he doesn't make sure his party is in the same state fairly soon.

The shockwaves reverberating through Westminster as the MPs' expenses scandal unfolds have been compared with the "Clean Hands" bribery scandal that effectively demolished Italy's post-war political establishment in the space of a couple of years in the early 1990s.

If things are going to get that bad, the guilty politicians are going to have an uncomfortable time.

As a reporter in Rome at the time, I remember how surprise turned to anger then just as it has now as the public began to realise the sheer extent of the corruption that was helping to line the pockets of the country's leading politicians and their parties.

The morning newspapers brought fresh revelations almost daily of how the main political parties routinely demanded kickbacks in return for government contracts. There were the "golden sheets" for example in which invoices for linen and bedding were inflated to thousands of pounds, and the exorbitant demands placed on suppliers to hospitals, which caused particular anger.

People used to demonstrate in the streets wearing white gloves to show they had clean hands. They would try to scare MPs they felt were corrupt by sending them spoof versions of the "avviso," the official notice that warned potential offenders they were under investigation. The avviso itself became one of the enduring symbols of the scandal, almost like the guillotine in revolutionary France. Reproductions of it used to sell well as birthday and Christmas cards.

Another favourite amng the angry public, if any disgraced politician dared show his face his public, was to mockingly shower them with coins.

Such was the fate of one of those held to have been most deeply involved in the corruption, Socialist leader Bettino Craxi, who was forced to flee to his second home in Tunisia to escape jail in Italy. Other disgraced politicians and businessmen even took their own lives.

What was going on in Italy at that time was undoubtedly far more serious than the exploitation of MPs' expenses, but because the British have tended to be less cynical about their elected representatives, the sense of outrage has been much the same.

But before the calls for a complete shake-out of the British political establishment become so loud as to be unstoppable, it might be worth remembering, as former Labour minister Michael Meacher points out in his blog, that political vaccuums often produce surprise results.

Fringe parties, for example, can make big gains, as seems to be happening already in Britain.

And in the case of Italy, the net result of the collapse of its main parties was -- Silvio Berlusconi.

Abolish money. Punish the  looters. Eat the bankers.

Ageing 1960s hippies and their youthful anti-globalisation descendants joined in an angry  anti-capitalist protest at the Bank of England on Wednesday, waving placards and shouting slogans reflecting  a common fury at perceived corporate greed.

With worldwide recession destroying jobs by the week, protesters at the G20 protest in the City of London demanded an end to what they see as a global, predatory system that robs the poor to benefit the privileged.

"Welcome to Pig City: One war -- class war" was the placard held up by a masked man standing on the doorstep of the central bank.

As hooded protesters scrawled "Peace and Love" on the walls of the Bank, Drogo, an elderly man in flowing multi-coloured robes and carrying an orb on a wooden stick, pointed at staff peering out of the Bank of England's windows and said:

 "I am here to tell these fat bankers to get off their arses and save the planet.

"They have to do it because they are still in charge -- for now. But of course capitalism has to go down. We have had enough."

One man strolled along Threadneedle Street dressed as a white-faced corpse in top hat and tails with a placard round his neck that read: "Their greed is killing our planet."

Some windows were smashed. Protesters hurled paint bombs and empty bottles and occasionally threw punches at police, who responded with baton blows. 

Police said they had deployed one of Britain's biggest security operations to protect businesses, the Bank of England, the London Stock Exchange and other financial institutions.

But the clashes were almost desultory, if briefly dramatic. There was no general looting.

This was not Seattle, 1999, when demonstrators successfully disrupted a World Trade Organisation meeting, or London's anti-Iraq war demonstration of 2003, when hundreds of thousands joined together in an impressively unified march for peace.

The G20 meeting was due to take place several miles away in the Docklands area of east London on Thursday.

On Wednesday, there were just 4,000 demonstrators, and the range of causes they espoused was  varied in the extreme, bringing together anti-capitalists, environmentalists, anti-war campaigners and conspiracy theorists of various stripes.

For much of the day the mood was carnival-like. The police managed to seal off the handful of streets around the Bank from the rest of the City, where workers went about their business normally.

A brass band played for several hours. And as the day wore on, protesters peeled away from the knots of angry young men taunting riot police to dance to a mobile disco set up on the steps of the Bank.

Above the disco, someone had fixed a large poster which read: "Hundreds of Architects and Engineers Demand a Real 9/11 Investigation."

The hard core of violence-prone protesters were a tiny minority. Some masked and hooded young men belied their mysterious appearance by being friendly and talkative.

One, 19-year-old student Francis, explained: "Bankers have made bad gambles and we are all paying for it. They must take responsibility for that."

There was even a good-natured counter-demonstration by pro-capitalists. One of them, Simon Richards, 50, from Gloucester, western England, said: "We have come to stage a counter-demonstration to show we are not intimidated by the terror tactics of these  protesters.

"We are in favour of free market rather than state control."

Protester Mia, 21, a student from Denmark, waving an anti-war banner, said the range of causes on offer was a  strength, not a weakness.

She said she wasn't just angry about international conflict.

"We're here to protest about all of it. All these crises are linked," she said.

"The U.S. has to borrow lots of money from China and other places to pay for all these wars, meaning they have less money for housing and other parts of their economy. It's vital to demonstrate about it, provided it's peaceful."

 Here are a selection of placards and graffiti seen at the demonstration.

 "Capitalism isn't working"

"Drop books, not bombs"

"Banks are evil"

"People will stop robbing banks when banks stop robbing people"

"Make love, not leverage"

"Resistance is fertile"

"Housing is a right, not a privilege"

"You can rent the house you used to own"

"Eat the bankers"

"Banker, rhymes with ?"

Stopping off in New York during a marathon, 18,000-mile diplomatic offensive before next week’s G20 summit in London next week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recalled a conference held in eerily similar circumstances in London 76 years ago.

Sixty-six nations gathered for the June 1933 London Monetary and Economic Conference which was aimed at lifting the world’s economy out of the Depression.

But amid American opposition to European plans to return to a system of fixed exchange rates, the conference collapsed and the world put up trade barriers, jobless ranks swelled and the rise of Fascism took the world into war.

“There was no further progress other than a resort to protectionism for the rest of that decade,” Brown told a business audience during a five-day pre-summit tour that has taken him to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, New York, Brazil and Chile.

Brown must be hoping desperately that history will not repeat itself when he hosts a meeting of leading industrial and developing economies in London on April 2 to try to chart a way out of the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s.

Again there have been signs of transatlantic division in advance of the summit, with many Europeans resisting U.S. pressure for more fiscal stimulus to boost the economy, while the Europeans put the emphasis on tightening regulation of the financial sector.

Mirek Topolanek, prime minister of the Czech Republic which holds the current European Union presidency, was quoted this week as saying U.S. President Barack Obama’s huge economic stimulus plan was “the road to hell”.

Many countries are suspicious that their neighbours are resorting to protectionist policies to try to safeguard jobs at home.

Currency questions have caused friction between the United States and China, whose economies are now closely inter-dependent. Paul Volcker, a senior Obama adviser, gave short shrift to China’s proposal for a new world currency when asked about it at a New York roundtable with Brown this week.

Volcker said he understood restiveness about the “lopsided nature” of the current international monetary system but he said pointedly that the Chinese “didn’t have to buy those dollars in the first place”. A new international monetary system which suddenly devalued the dollar’s role was not practical, he said.

As Brown jetted around the world to bolster support for concerted action to lift the economy, he came up with a variety of ambitious and expensive proposals to revive trade and get the economy going again.

But he runs the risk of setting expectations for the London meeting too high, perhaps bringing crushing disappointment in its wake.

“If the G20 becomes a meeting just to set another meeting, we’ll be discredited and the crisis can deepen,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said at a press conference with Brown in Brasilia.

Brown’s G20 envoy, Mark Malloch-Brown, voiced similar fears earlier this month. "If indeed we get anodyne committee conclusions where all substance has been taken out of them, the markets on April 3 will be something of a disaster zone, I have no doubt," he said.

Brown has called for a doubling of IMF resources to $500 billion and for a $100 billion trade financing facility to help reverse a slide in exports. He has also called for an insurance policy for countries with big foreign currency reserves, such as China, so that they will feel able to use some of their reserves to boost the economy without fearing a run on their currencies.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who Brown met in New York, urged the G20 to support a $1 trillion stimulus plan for developing countries.

With so many other demands on their cash, it is doubtful that even the powerful G20 economies will be able to find the vast sums needed for all of these programmes.

The huge media focus on the gathering of Obama and other world leaders in London, and the big protests that are expected to accompany it, will only heighten the anticipation.

British officials are trying to dampen expectations that a big new fiscal stimulus package will be approved at the G20 summit, saying they do not expect countries to put their national budgets on the table next week and suggesting that the results of the summit will be seen over the next year, rather than on the day of the summit.

Harsh economic reality may also force Brown to rein in his own wish to pump more resources into the British economy.

While he was away cheerleading for the G20, events back home kept intruding.

First -- in a move one opposition lawmaker described as a “coup” -- Bank of England Governor Mervyn King warned the government on Tuesday that its soaring budget deficit meant it would have to be cautious about any new stimulus for the British economy.

On Wednesday a sale of British government bonds failed for the first time since 2002, sending a warning to Brown that the markets may balk at financing ever higher British government deficits.

Then on Friday, Brown was given a lesson in economic management by Chilean President Michelle Bachelet who described how the money Chile had put aside in good economic times had enabled it to pump more cash into the economy during the downturn.

Brown’s Conservatives opponents at home say this is exactly what he failed to do during the years of prosperity – reduce the budget deficit so he had more financial firepower to help people through a recession.

As his ambitions clash with harsh reality, Brown may have to lower his sights both for the G20 summit and for the British economy.

[Photo: Prime Minister Gordon Brown (L) listens to Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva during a news conference at the Alvorada Palace in Brasilia March 26, 2009. REUTERS/Roberto Jayme]