Archive for the 'British Politics' Category

Want to Stop Foreign Aid Fraud? Scrap Foreign Aid.

Boy and girl outside bombed out school, Afghanistan
No School Today

Another week, another scandal concerning the misuse of British aid in Afghanistan.  This time, the self-serving bureaucrats at DFID are accused of handing more than £3.2 million in British tax payer funds to a dodgy, third party German aid agency contracted to re-settle failed Afghan asylum seekers returning from Britain.  Even more appalling; DFID continued to throw money at the German outfit after evidence of fraud had been uncovered.

This is hardly news to anyone whose seen aid agencies operating in Afghanistan.   During my time as a security advisor in the country, I saw DFID, USAID, the UN and US Military Provincial Reconstruction Teams show charts to the media detailing how much money was being spent on development projects and where.   They would roll out a graph and the press would write stories about all the good work being done.  Never once did I hear a journalist ask what all that spending had actually achieved.

Had they bothered, I’m sure a very different picture would have emerged.  Continue reading ‘Want to Stop Foreign Aid Fraud? Scrap Foreign Aid.’

Afghanistan: 10 Years On For British Forces

Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires

In 2004, two years before British troops were deployed to Helmand, I escorted two television journalists from Kabul to Lashkar Gah by road.  Operating outside the security bubble of Kabul and military embeds was a real eye opener.   It was obvious that the locals did not support the coalition. I encountered a group of young Taliban down by the Helmand River who told me that should western troops ever attempt to set up bases in their province, there would be blood; an ominous prediction which indeed proved true.

Over the years, unilateral media excursions in Afghanistan became increasingly risky due to the deteriorating security situation.   The Taliban were regrouping effectively, targeting NATO troops and anyone believed to be associated with the coalition.  The evidence was indisputable. NATO casualties were steadily increasing year after year as were deaths of NGO personnel, the lynchpin of NATO’s hearts and minds strategy. Conditions outside Kabul became so dangerous for aid organizations that many were forced to abandon their projects or contract them out to local third parties whose progress, not to mention use of foreign aid funds, was impossible to monitor.  Sadly though, the British public was largely unaware of what was really happening in Afghanistan because our military and political leaders insisted the campaign was going swimmingly.

One of the greatest misperceptions about the Afghan conflict is that the Taliban is waging an insurgency against NATO.   There is no insurgency in Afghanistan; it’s a civil war in which NATO has taken sides.  The distinction is crucial for understanding the limits of what can be achieved.    The coalition backs the tribes of the former Northern Alliance which has been engaged in a festering 30-year civil war with the Pashtoon tribes of the southern and eastern provinces.   Against this context, it is easy to see why British, American and other NATO forces have and continue to encounter such fierce resistance in Helmand. As far as the local Pashtoon are concerned, NATO has sided with their mortal enemies. Continue reading ‘Afghanistan: 10 Years On For British Forces’

British Defence Cuts: A Battle for the Nation’s Soul

Pride

Never in my lifetime has Britain’s future been more in peril.  The government’s plan to cut roughly 19,000 full-time soldiers and replace them with part-time TA reservists is not merely an ill-conceived cost-saving exercise that will weaken our defensive capabilities. It is a declaration of war against one of the last British institutions that places the welfare of the nation above the interests of the ruling elite.

I’m not taking anything away from the TA, especially those who have and continue to serve in theatres of war. Their bravery and sacrifice are to be commended.  But the argument that combat readiness will not be compromised because more TA will be trained for frontline operations is bogus.  As someone who served 23 years in the military, I can tell you from experience that regular forces barely have time to hone all their soldering skills to perfection.    Furthermore, slashing regular troop numbers will have a devastating impact on our Special Forces. Our SF are arguably the best in the world because only the highest calibre candidates are admitted.  Shrink the recruiting pool however and the Special Forces will be faced with the stark choice; lower selection standards or be woefully undermanned.

Our national security is clearly on the line.  Indeed it has been the focal point of most criticisms of all defence cuts.   But something equally important also hangs in the balance; something which has largely been ignored by the mainstream media. Namely, the core values our armed forces embody.

When a young man or woman enlists in the military, they are not simply taking a job.  They are joining a community in which excellence, loyalty, discipline, courage, self-sacrifice, honour and the promotion of the common good are valued more highly than individual earning power.  Few if any professions in the private or public sector today impart such a sense of pride and self-worth.

Soldiers aren’t in it for the money. They have answered a higher calling. I believe this goes a long way toward explaining why so many of today’s soldiers have difficulty reintegrating into civilian life.  In the past, many rankers from working class backgrounds could return to tightly knit communities that shared many of the military’s values.  But three decades of profit-driven market reforms have decimated our working class communities. The steady manufacturing jobs that sustained them have been shipped overseas and the homes they lived in sold off in a wave of privatization.   What does a retired, working class soldier who has served on the frontlines have to return to today but a soul-sucking, poorly paid, service sector job and a rundown flat owned by a slum lord cashing in on the shortage of social housing.

Successive governments have justified the destruction of working class institutions on the grounds that what’s good for business is good for the nation.  That same argument is now being used to eviscerate our armed forces and privatize vast swaths of the military to enrich profit driven companies.  Rather than take a scalpel to bank bonuses, Prime Minister David Cameron and his cabinet of ruling elites are giving their mates in the City of London a free pass, arguing that tax hikes on banking profits will drive the financial sector abroad.  Meanwhile, they savage our defensive capabilities to pay for the crisis the bankers created.  If that weren’t obscene enough, the proposed defence cuts are also laying the groundwork for an even greater transfer of public tax funds into private pockets, for should our military find itself short of manpower to defend our sovereignty, it will have no choice but to fill the void with commercial security contractors.

I can scream from the rooftops against the wholesale gutting of our armed forces. But those best positioned to stop it are the officers tasked with carrying it out.  The odds aren’t good. In 23 years of military service I knew perhaps a dozen officers who were truly worthy of their command.   Thus far, the response from the military’s top brass has been true to form.  The Generals carp behind closed doors about their shrinking fiefdoms or leak anonymous statements to the press but to date, not a single one has resigned over defence cuts (speaking out against them after they’ve retired is too little too late).

I’m not aware of an officer from the rank of Brigadier or above who hails from a working class background, so this total impotence is not surprising.  A high-profile, public stand against defence cuts could jeopardize the top brass’s social standing within the ruling elite (not to mention the highly lucrative positions in the private security industry some are no doubt planning to retire to).

If the leaders at the top won’t save our military and defend its values, then the officers below them must act; the Colonels, half Colonels, Majors and Captains.   Many will hold their tongues, reasoning that there is nothing to be gained from a lower ranking officer falling on their sword.  But they can make a difference.

A crucial difference.

During the Falklands War, my Squadron Commander resigned over an operational plan that would have needlessly massacred the troops under his command.  He sacrificed his career so that his men could live to fight another day for this country.  Now more than never, what Britain needs are a few good officers like that Major; patriots who are willing to put the greater good before their careers.  If just one officer were to say a very public NO to defence cuts by openly resigning, others may follow that brave example and eventually the government would be forced to rethink its policy.  Those few good officers won’t receive medals or titles. But when they look in the mirror, they’ll see a genuine hero.

Aid Cuts to Pakistan Need to Go Deeper

Grandfather and child, Pakistan-Afghan border

Will western aid change their lives?

Having bitten the hand that feeds it too often, Pakistan is being punished with the loss of $800 million in US military aid.  Withholding the portion earmarked for training and equipping Pakistani forces will sting. But the biggest blow is the $300 million cash reimbursement for money Pakistan has already spent on operations along the Afghan border; a penalty some commentators claim will end up harming the broader economy because the payment goes directly into Pakistan’s treasury.

When I hear such warnings, I can’t help but wonder how much of those treasury funds end up lining the pockets of the country’s military elite, not to mention the ISI (which is largely staffed by former military)? In my view, it’s pointless separating Pakistan’s broader economy from the military because the army controls how the country’s resources are allocated.  The real question to ask therefore is not who will aid cuts impact, but why should the west continue to provide any form of aid to Pakistan?

Take Britain for example. In April, Prime Minister David Cameron outlined plans to make Islamabad the single biggest recipient of British foreign aid by increasing the amount of education aid to Pakistan to £650 million over the next four years (the total UK aid spend to Pakistan for 2009-10 was £140.4 million).   Honestly, I don’t know why Mr. Cameron doesn’t simply bypass the middleman and wire the funds directly into the offshore bank accounts of corrupt Pakistani officials because that’s where much of it will likely end up. Mr. Cameron put a national security spin on the proposed package, claiming that by tackling illiteracy in Pakistan we will be eliminating a “root cause” of Islamic extremism and terrorism.  I hate to break it to the Prime Minister, but over the past six years, I’ve met a handful of captured, hard-line Taliban from Pakistan and all of them had university educations.  It wasn’t illiteracy that had radicalized them, but western policies in South Asia and the Middle East (the same policies have radicalized British-born Pakistani militants as well).

 

It’s time to face facts: education and other hearts and minds initiatives in Pakistan have a dismal track record and to throw good money after bad at a time when Britain is closing libraries, village schools and pricing higher education beyond the reach of the average citizen is grossly irresponsible.

Some will counter that if the West doesn’t buy influence in Pakistan, China will step into the vacuum.  Beijing already has by investing billions in Pakistan. And unlike the west, it does not conduct drone strikes in the tribal areas or demand Pakistan’s military weed out Afghan Taliban, nor does it make a big deal about human rights violations.  In fact, Beijing turns a blind eye to the systematic oppression of ethnic Baluch in Baluchistan province where it is developing a treasured deep water port.

So far, China is getting a great return on its investment, gaining a strategic foothold in the Arabian Gulf and selling Pakistan military aircraft and submarines. But should Pakistan’s millions of downtrodden rise up and demand their fair cut, Beijing and every other nation that has propped up Pakistan’s corrupt and ineffective establishment could very well get their comeuppance. In the meantime, Pakistan’s military will continue to play its double game of going after anti-Islamabad militants while coddling Afghan Taliban targeting coalition forces.

So let’s cut all of  our aid to Pakistan and spend the money at home.  Islamabad can go cap in hand to some other nation.  Because until they are challenged from within, Pakistan’s corrupt elite will do as they like, aid or no aid.

It’s Great Britain, Prime Minister – Not Grovelling Britain

It was meant to put Britain’s relationship with the United States back on an even keel.  Instead, Prime Minister David Cameron’s first official trip to Washington this week managed to make Great Britain look more like Grovelling Britain.

The Prime Minister’s inner suck-up reared its head early on when he allowed four US Senators to hijack the agenda.  Continue reading ‘It’s Great Britain, Prime Minister – Not Grovelling Britain’

How to Save Billions Now and in The Future

Worth the money?

This week Chancellor George Osborne unveiled £6.2 billion in public spending cuts; the first round in what is expected to be a deep and painful austerity program to rein in Britain’s £156 billion deficit.  According to Osborne, the government is targeting ‘wasteful spending’.  If waste is truly in the crosshairs, I’d like to put forth a glaringly obvious proposal that will save Britain billions now and in the future. Withdraw our troops from Afghanistan. Continue reading ‘How to Save Billions Now and in The Future’

The Defence of the Realm

Last night’s leaders’ debate made it official; the future of Britain’s nuclear deterrent is the stand out issue of the election.   Prime Minister Gordon Brown berated Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg’s proposal to scrap the next generation Trident II nuclear missile system, telling him to ‘get real about the danger that we face,’ from Iran and North Korea. Conservative Leader David Cameron wasn’t as forceful but his message was on par with Brown’s.  ‘We are safer having an independent nuclear deterrent in an unsafe and uncertain world,’ he argued.

I agree with the Lib Dems on this issue. Continue reading ‘The Defence of the Realm’

Britain’s Iraq Inquiry: What’s the Point?

Hearings in Britain’s latest Iraq war inquiry were suspended this week and won’t resume until after the general election expected this May.  Despite efforts to remain separate from party politics, the Chilcot Inquiry has generated much for the political gristmill.   Among the most notable are claims by defence chiefs and ministers that Prime Minister Gordon Brown starved the armed forces of funds while he was Chancellor and blocked vital equipment orders– charges the Prime Minister has refuted.

British Paras in Basra 2003

With all the headlines, you’d think that the Chilcot inquiry was actually living up to its mandate and identifying lessons to be learned from the Iraq conflict.   But the controversy surrounding equipment shortages is, sadly, nothing new. Continue reading ‘Britain’s Iraq Inquiry: What’s the Point?’

What Special Relationship?

The sense of betrayal throughout Britain is palpable.   With the dispute over oil drilling rights in the South Atlantic heating up, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed Argentina a major diplomatic victory this week by encouraging Britain to discuss the future of The Falkland Islands.  Britain has long maintained that there should be no negotiations on The Falklands unless the islands’ three thousand inhabitants ask for them – which they haven’t.  The islanders wish to remain British. 

 I for one could not be more outraged by Washington’s indulgence of Argentina’s sabre rattling. For me, the 1982 Falklands War feels like it happened only yesterday.  I’m proud to have been part of the task force sent there.  I still mourn mates resting at the bottom of the South Atlantic who lost their lives in The Falklands.  Today, at the age of 55, I’m well up for putting on a military uniform and going back to fight for my country if that’s what it comes to.  I’m sure there are thousands of Brits who feel the same way.  Continue reading ‘What Special Relationship?’

Afghanistan and Yemen Take Centre Stage: What about Northern Ireland?

It's Time To Focus Closer to Home

 

This week the British government hosted two major international conferences; one focusing on Yemen, the other Afghanistan.  That both nations have problems worth discussing goes without saying.  But why did these talks take place in London?

One would assume that the British public or at the very least, British industry had something to gain from such hospitality. A lucrative mining contract to exploit Afghanistan’s copper deposits perhaps?  No wait – China already grabbed that deal.   A reduction in the immediate threat to our shores?  Given that the UK terror threat was raised from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’ ahead of the summits, the answer to that would have to be a resounding no.  It seems to me that the only people who saw an advantage in inviting the world to London this week were Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other political elites who insist on maintaining the pretence that Britain is a superpower.             Continue reading ‘Afghanistan and Yemen Take Centre Stage: What about Northern Ireland?’

Next Page »



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 98 other followers