Meanwhile, in Afghanistan... Mehdi Hasan on the latest casualties

Seal Team 6 members among the 38 killed in Afghanistan.

As we all obsess over the chaos in the markets and the impending economic armageddon, few politicians or journalists have time to discuss the ongoing chaos out in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, Navy Seals from the unit responsible for killing Osama Bin Laden were among 30 Americans, seven Afghans and an interpreter killed when their helicopter was shot down by insurgents in the mountainous Wardak province of Afghanistan.

No member of the Bin Laden raid team was among the dead but it was the largest number of American troops killed in a single day in the war -- and the deadliest incident for the Seal team in any war. (See here for an Associated Press list of some of the deadliest military air crashes in Afghanistan since the US invasion on 7 October 2001).

As the Los Angeles Times notes:

The episode could embolden the insurgency at a time when western and Afghan officials have been hoping a weakened Taliban movement can be lured to the bargaining table. Like the assassination last month of Karzai's powerful half brother, it will be viewed by many as a sign of the insurgents' reach and power.

Is anyone here paying any attention?

Oh, and let's not forget the plight of ordinary Afghan civilians. From the AFP news agency:

Afghan civilians may have been caught up in a Nato air strike against suspected Taliban insurgents, a foreign military spokesman said Saturday, amid claims up to eight civilians died.

A local official said that an imam, his wife and their six children were killed by an air strike in Nad Ali district in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province Friday.

The incident appears to be the latest in which Afghan civilians have been accidentally killed by Nato military operations. The issue is highly sensitive in Afghanistan after nearly ten years of war.

"Highly sensitive"? That's the understatement of the month.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.