War as a shit rescue effort

Quelle surprise:

More than 60 percent of Afghan diplomats decide to remain abroad, a trend that has been increasing steadily, according to Omar Samad, a former ambassador to Paris.

By the time we leave the war will have  cost the UK of something like £40bn, and what we’ve got? A clusterfuck of a nation where misogyny and violence are so endemic people are are still taking refuge in western Pakistan.

What could £40bn buy you? Well, the first year of the war was all about destroying an Al Qaeda stronghold. While I would have prefered something more minimal, I’ll generously concede the first year of the war as a legitimate war so let’s knock this down to a round £35bn for the UK. Now what else?

Black n Yellow Bugatti Veyron

CC image courtesy of Axion23 on Flickr

Okay, so I don’t need thirty five thousand Bugatti Veyron. I’ll have one. S0 we’re at say £34.999bn. I’ll take a million for myself and my mum too. So we’re on £34.997bn. Gee. Spending this amount of money is hard! We must have got something worthwhile…

Oh right.

So, anyway, after the clearing away Al Qaeda and sending me and my mum on a road trip, what can we think of a better way of helping the people of Afghanistan?

Ooooh! I’ve got it! How about we actually rescue some people by rescuing them rather than sending death from above?

I know I’m labouring the point here but everyone out there looks at me like I’m insane when I suggest immigration as an alternative to war. At least people on the internet hear me out. Is my plan really so crazy? With £34.999bn we could evacuate 10% of afghanistan to the UK and set aside £10,000 for each of them to avoid them being a strain on services and things and whatever it is UKIP worry about. Or every single person with £1,000 each.

Given that there is very little evidence immigrants have any net negative effect, I’d just let the Afghans in and give the money to the poor. But then I’m silly like that. Helping people in danger by bringing them to safety and helping poor people by making them less poor.

The benefits of any of the iterations of my plan are endless.

First of all, nobody dies. Secondly there’s no net change in the state’s fiscal stance. We’re just spending money on providing for foreigners rather than killing them. Nobody could object to that could they (irony translation service: they could). Thirdly, because Afghanistan is so young it would be a huge demographic boon to the UK and our pension problems and dearth of investment  opportunities would vanish. Millions of people are lifted out of rural idiocy and poverty. Also, did I mention that nobody dies?

I wish these madcap schemes that make everyone better off without anyone having to die were more politically feasible. I can’t even begin to write up this idea sensibly, it’s so far out the Overton Window. This makes me sad.

2 thoughts on “War as a shit rescue effort

  1. Even if you don’t like the idea of bringing them over here, £35bn in humanitarian aid would buy you a heck of a lot in Afghanistan…

    I can’t help suspecting that people dying is viewed as a feature rather than a bug. Military-industrial complex and all that… Plus a lot of people, politicians and military types in particular, do seem to have a massive hard-on for violence. Being prepared to kill vast swathes of people shows how serious you are. Only pansies look for solutions where nobody dies.

    1. £35bn is an awful lot of aid. It is about four times what we spend on aid each year anyway.

      The killing does seem to be a feature. Or a least the “war” and “heroism” aspect of it. I imagine the actual children being blown up element is suppressed in their mind’s eye. But the fighting and heroism, I’m sure that’s a bit arousing for Westminster types.

Comments are closed.