Sunday, August 02, 2009

Another day, another report

This time the Foreign Affairs select committee have ruled that UK troops in Afghan have too many different objectvies:

The military mission in Afghanistan has failed to deliver on its promises - as troops have too many tasks, MPs say.

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee says "mission creep" had brought too many responsibilities, including fighting the drugs trade.

Well, when it comes to the drugs trade one could point out that if we legalised and controlled the things then we wouldn't be assisting the enemies of our troops. But that is far too sensible and idea and would upset people who read the Daily Mail so we'll just all crash on through regardless of fact or evidence.

I was told by someone who fought in one of the earlier OP HERRICKs that the British had told the Afghans that they would buy up the poppy harvest. However, he told me that as that was am agricultural subsidy it came under the control of the Common Agricultural Policy.

How true this is I don't know but it's something I've been trying to find out. Certainly, it sounds like the sort of nonsense which spurts from the arse end of the EU.

Listening to Radio 4 this morning I heard Kim Howells MP talking about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I paraphrase one of his points, for I was trying to decide what to wear at the time, but it essentially was that because the public don't like the wars then we might have to look at why we were there and, in the case of Afghan, if we still should be.

Now, mistake me if I'm wrong but the last time I checked most people in this country weren't Generals. Or, indeed, Field Marshalls. Trusting politicans is always tricky these days and trusting this government on anything military is particularly hard even without the news of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme which some of us have been lamenting and trying to change for a while. And as for the Iraq Inquiry, more on that later. What concerns me is that we elect MPs to make decisions for us - yes, it's a pity that most of them decide to outsource it to the EU but that's the fault of the individuals rather than the set up - and then they spend their time either completely ignoring public opinion and breaking manifesto commitments or passing the buck on their responsibility which is to make decisions.

Voters do decide who gets the position of MPs but should MPs decide what to do based on what they think will make them more popular? Shouldn't they be guided by principle and take all the evidence to reach what they feel is the right decision? And then be honest about it? Politics run by PR and the readers of tabloid newspapers is no basis for a system of government. Supreme exective power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcial aquatic ceremony. Or Rebekah Wade.

A quick dash through the Iraq inquiry, for it's something I've written about before. (Indeed I've written thousands of words on the damned thing).

18 months? Why? Let's have the cabinet minutes and cross reference them with the minutes from the UN Security Council and find out if the reason we went to war was either

1) Someone can't read
2) Someone didn't want to read

and in either case, sack them.

Also has the added bonus of saving money.

1 comment:

The Minstrel Boy said...

The Afghan war could be over in a few months if the main source of the taliban's finances were stopped, DRUG MONEY! Why doesn't someone get the crop-dusters out and spray all the opium poppies with weed killer??? They could change the soil chemistry so they could never grow them there again. NO DRUG MONEY = NO WEAPONS MONEY! The trouble is, they are not fighting against the drugs trade, they're fighting to protect it. There's too many politicians and senators on the payroll of the drug barons!