I was disappointed to not be selected to speak in the debate on Afghanistan today. I served there in 2009. This doesn't makes me an expert on that country but it does - like others who’ve worked or served there - give a perspective I hoped would be useful in deliberations.
I have intense pride in the good and decent men and women I served with, both British and Afghan. Many of them paid physically and mentally for their efforts on our behalf. And of course others – too many - never returned home at all.
Unlike some that spoke today, I was never certain of the legitimacy of our precence in Afghanistan. I wanted to believe I was there for the right reasons – but it’s hard to convince yourself of that cause when you witness first-hand the human toll of your presence.
Like the 15 year-old Afghan boy and his father I met seeking medical treatment, a bloodied stump where his foot should have been, accidentally shot-off by NATO forces. His is one story, but it is etched into my memory. A vivid, human face of the suffering of so many.
And yet he was lucky, if such an injury can ever be described as such. According to Brown University, a quarter of a million people have died as a direct result of the last twenty years of war in Afghanistan.
Our failure doesn’t end there. I remember telling myself before deploying that I was going to help rebuild Afghanistan and in so doing help its people.
And yet Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world.
It has the second highest level of emergency food insecurity in the world.
40% of the population are without a job and almost 70% live below the poverty line.
So here we find ourselves: hundreds of thousands dead, a brutal Taliban regime and its ideology again in control, a broken country on the brink of starvation, and a refugee crisis that will destabilise the entire region yet further.
We can wrap that harsh reality up however we wish. We can tell ourselves it was the right thing to do – like we told ourselves in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and countless other military interventions.
Or we can face the honest truth that we must find new and better ways of solving the world’s geo-political problems.
With the climate crisis upon us and the instability it will cause, failure to do so will be a terminal error.
In the immediate future, it is our responsibility to provide much needed security to those now at risk from being targeted by the Taliban. So I have asked the Government to urgently publish a plan for how those seeking asylum will be evacuated.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First, there will be no free or universal care system for the elderly and disabled. The user will pay and their assets will be liquidated in the process.
Second, that general taxation will not rise, nor will it be used to force the richest to bear the biggest burden.
Thread: 1. I think we need to first define ‘opposition’. The problems facing @UKLabour are far more to do with existential structural factors rather than any one leader/policy, however they’re perceived. Changing the latter will not solve the former.
2. The Tories are fast becoming hegemonic. They’re also no longer the Tory party as we know but increasingly an English nationalist party. One that is south/south eastern centric and reactionary. This has implications for the acceleration of support for @theSNP & @Plaid_Cymru
3. Because of the nature of this Tory variant of English nationalism and political nationalist accelerations in Scotland & Wales - other regional movements like @FreeNorthNow or similar movements will grow as a result. Indeed they already are.
What I think he actually meant to say was, respecting party democracy, he would seek to overturn the @UKLabour policy of #FreeMovement at our next annual conference. Top down, policy by diktat rarely ends well.
It does raise the question - why do this now just before the Scottish elections? It simply helps the SNP galvanise their vote in 68% remain Scotland?
Post-Brexit it now seems increasingly clear the Scottish people have two clear choices before them: 1. Union with a declining imperial power, ruled by hard-right, neoliberal English nationalists - or (cont)
THREAD 1. Anyone who thinks English exceptionalism, nationalism and ‘regulatory realignment’ - the root drivers of Brexit - would have ended with a ‘soft brexit’ ie a customs union or a Norwegian style deal, misunderstands what brexit has always been about.
2. ‘No-deal’ has always been the logical goal for those who’ve driven the brexit agenda. The question @UKLabour should be asking the govt is, ‘what part of the ‘level playing field’ do you want to change? Food standards? Env protections? Workers rights?
3. The issue of fish, whilst playing to worst instincts of territorial jingoism is, excuse the pun, a red herring. This is about phase 2 of the neoliberal project. Building on the gains of the last 40 years.
The aim of Tory govt in the 80s was to smash the postwar consensus of unionised work & the welfare state & place the “market” as the cornerstone of UK governance.Blair & Brown took this & added a layer of income redistribution to blunt its harshest effects theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
I don’t agree with the above simply to ‘trash’ the @UKLabour brand. We did much good between 1997-2010. But till you understand what we got right and along with what we got wrong, our analysis will never be complete... cont