Where our Money Goes

Kabul Bank was apparently hailed as proof of progress and modernisation in Afghanistan and held the salaries of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, policemen and government staff paid by international donors. However, following its near collapse in 2010, a forensic audit has revealed that it make huge fraudulent loans totalling some £540 million to a small circle of shareholders, political figures and their companies, with little expectation they would be repaid. Those receiving the money included the brothers of both the president and-vice president.

This money came from international donors, which is the politically correct way of saying the taxpayers in Britain, America and Japan. There is no hope of recovering it as it would seem that the Afghan police and justice systems are just as corrupt as the bank. No doubt the donors have written it off and decided that their taxpayers must cough up some more.

Massive corruption is a way of life not only in Afghanistan but in most so-called third world countries and nowhere more so than in their neighbour Pakistan. What always staggers me is that the donors are so naive as to hand out cash to these countries; in this case there was so much cash that it needed ten Pamir Airways pilots to be on the payroll in order to fly the loot to Dubai.

I am broadly against foreign aid as most appears to be given for political purposes rather than actual need. This country gives aid to countries such as India, Pakistan and China, all of which seemingly can afford huge military expenditure, way in excess of our own. I feel that aid should only be in response to natural disasters such as earthquakes or floods and not handed out as on a routine basis.

But if we are to give aid, in my view it should comply with the following conditions

• It should never be cash, only goods or services
• Wherever possible goods should be of a type that are difficult to re-sell and should be made in Britain, thus helping ourselves as we help others.
• No luxury goods of any type,
• No armaments or military supplies.
• Any services (eg road building, etc) to be carried out by British companies, using directly employed local labour as necessary.
• Where ever possible, the goods should be marked to indicate they were aid.

Some 45 or more years ago I worked for a short while as a technical assistant for the Australian government in London, and one of the jobs that I was involved in concerned the purchase of some airport radio equipment which was to be given as aid. The specification required that the main panels of the equipment were engraved with words to the effect that:
"This equipment  has been given by the people of Australia to the people of XXXX to assist in  the modernisation of their airport"
I think that this was the right approach to aid, it wasn't cash, it couldn't easily be re-sold, it wasn't luxury goods, and it was marked as aid. I wonder if the Australians still do the same in these politically correct times.

Meanwhile, I'm sure that everyone reading this will be pleased to know that while we are struggling to make ends meet, we have helped the government to make millionaires of twelve or so Afghans.

Further details in the Daily Telegraph

Syria - UK's ever changing position

The Daily Telegraph today gives an excellent run down on how Britain's position on Syria has changed over the past 10 months in terms of quotations from William Hague.
For example on February 13th, William Hague said
"I don't see the way forward in Syria as being Western boots on the ground, in any form, including in peacekeeping form. I think they would need to come from other countries, rather than Western nations." 
I won't bore you with all the various statements by William Hague over the intervening months,  as they are well covered in the Telegraph, but on Tuesday his week he said
"We are not excluding any option in the future because ... the Syrian crisis is getting worse and worse all the time."

So we move from absolutely no intervention to "not excluding any option".

Similarly, the Military can't seem to make up its collective mind
On Sunday, the Telegraph reported that the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, claimed that 
"Defence cuts have left the Armed Forces unable to carry out all the tasks that ministers demand of them".
but it seems that he also said
"there are contingency plans in place for a “very limited” response in the case of a worsening humanitarian situation in Syria" and "The humanitarian situation this winter I think will deteriorate and that may well provoke calls to intervene in a limited way".

The trouble, which neither William Hague or General Richards bother to point out, is that limited intervention in such a situation has proved totally impossible in the past. In a Civil War, anyone trying to intervene, even for humanitarian reasons, comes under attack from both sides, and the "limited intervention" soon becomes "full scale involvement".

All politicians seem to be blessed with a very short memory when it suits them, but I would remind them that we were supposed to have "limited involvement" in Afghanistan. This "limited involvement" has resulted, so far, in the deaths of 438 of our Servicemen with many times that number being crippled for life. It was to be the same in Iraq, limited involvement, we'll just get rid of Saddam and all will be well. Even in Libya, where we supported the rebels with air power, things have hardly turned out the way we would have wished.

I think that it was Otto von Bismark who when asked whether he learnt from his own mistakes, indicated that he preferred to learn from the mistakes of others. Our politicians and, regrettably, our military leaders don't seem to be capable of learning from anyone's mistakes, whether their own or anyone else's.

Then of course there is Iran, but let's not worry about that now, that's a subject for another day!

Afghanistan needs £165 million a year from Britain after troops leave

According to the Daily Telegraph,

"Britain will have to provide Afghanistan with £165 million a year after troops leave to ensure the country does not collapse, according to a  report by the Royal United Services Institute."

Why? 
Why should we spend a brass farthing helping a corrupt regime stay in power?

We should withdraw our troops at once and shift a large number of them to the Falklands.We have no interests in Afghanistan, it has been the cause of a huge loss of British lives for more than 200 years and in all that period nothing has been achieved.
It is an American war.   We joined, I assume, in the belief that we had a "Special Relationship" with the United States and should give them support. Obama has recently made it clear that in his view, such a relationship does not exist, and moving our troops to the Falklands would make it clear both to Obama and to Argentina that we are henceforth putting our own interests first, and that includes a group of once uninhabited islands that we settled long before Argentine was even recognised as a state.
At least, based there, our troops wouldn't get killed on a daily basis by roadside bombs.

Iraq and Afghanistan - Libya and Egypt

Immediately the "peace keeping" troops left Iran, sectarian war broke out. Clearly this was totally unexpected by our western politicians, but to anyone who is familiar with the history of the area, it was entirely predictable. There has never ever been peace in the Arab world except where there was a strong man in control, and for all that has been said about Saddam, far more Iraqi lives appear to have been lost since he was deposed than during his tyrannical rule. Indeed the only peaceful area of Iraq is that inhabited by the Kurds, who would like to form their own independent country, but have been prevented from doing so by the West, largely at the behest of Turkey.

So moving on to Afghanistan, is there anyone who doesn't believe that exactly the same will happen there the day after the troops pull out? Why do we continue to allow our soldiers to be killed for a clearly unrealisable goal? Surely there can't be any of our politicians who are stupid enough to believe that Afghanistan will settle down to be a peaceful country with democratic rule?

I see exactly the same problem in Egypt and Libya The so called Arab Spring in Egypt is turning to a winter of discontent, and no doubt Libya is following not far behind.

The fact is that democracy in all these countries is still stuck in the 12th century in British terms, but unfortunately they have 21st century weapons at their disposal.

Remembrance Sunday

I have just returned from the Remembrance Sunday services at our War Memorial and afterwards in the Parish Church. We rang the half-muffled bells for about twenty minutes before the service started outside at the War Memorial. A small military contingent was present from the Defence School of Languages - all officers with a much decorated NCO to parade them. The Royal British Legion provided a small band and veterans wearing their medals along with the local cadets, scouts and guides provided an impressive turnout. This year the crowds there seemed bigger than ever, and the church was packed afterwards. We sung the hymns that I had learnt and sung at school assembly almost every day of my childhood during the war years. The whole ceremony was very impressive, the more so because of the numbers present.

Returning home, I read John Redwood's daily blog.
He writes about the futility of the first World War and asks why it was fought. It was in no way a "necessary and worthwhile war", there was no ideological reason for our involvement, it was a Balkans war which developed into a Franco-German war and nothing to do with us; we were safe on our side of the English Channel and had no reason to get involved. There was no imperative as with the Second World War; when we had to fight to preserve our independence.

Today, I fully agree with every word that John Redwood says. What he does not say is that to many people in this country the war in Afghanistan is as futile as the First World War, and lives are being needlessly lost for no discernible purpose. There is no idealogical reason (unless you regard it as a war against Islam, and if so why start there?), and it lacks the imperative of being a "necessary and worthwhile war". On this day, more than ever, I ask why our military forces are there.

    They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
    Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
    At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
    We will remember them. 

The Tay Bridge Disaster and Afghanistan

You might ask what is the connection between an event that took place 131 years ago and Afghanistan.
Following Subrosa's blog on the subject of the collapse of the Tay Bridge, I decided to re-read my copy of John Prebble's book, "The High Girders".
One little paragraph caught my eye;
"The news went across Britain by the electric telegraph. In the later editions, all daily  newspapers replaced their lead stories. News of the storming of Sherpur, of the struggle about Kabul, of the anxiety felt for General Roberts' forces in Afghanistan gave way before the Tay Bridge disaster."

Engineering design, materials and standards have changed enormously in the 131 years, but seemingly not the military or political situation in Afghanistan.