Finally, the ineptitude I saw first-hand has been exposed
Even after the loss of 457 British personnel, and the billions of pounds it cost to prosecute, the war in Afghanistan reveals yet another cataclysmic skeleton in the cupboard when it comes to how we have treated our Afghan allies.
It is mind-boggling that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could email a spreadsheet of all those with ties to the British state to an Afghan national, over the internet, to post on Facebook for the Taliban to see.
But not for me.
Whilst there will no doubt be a rush to blame the individual who sent it (I know who he is), it would be entirely unfair and wrong to do so. Because I can honestly say this whole farcical process has been the most hapless display of ineptitude by successive ministers and officials that I saw in my time in government, of which this poor individual was just the end of the line.
I was subject to the injunction. I created and ran an Afghan task force to work rehome eligible Afghans under Rishi Sunak, the then prime minister.
The Home Office, MoD, Department for Levelling Up and the Foreign Office just could not seem to work together; the prime minister asked me to try and unblock it from my neutral position in the Cabinet Office.
I had also made no secret of my desire to relocate Afghan special forces personnel from that country to this, in the wake of August 2021.
I stand by that wholeheartedly. These brave souls fought alongside us cheek by jowl; they carried stretchers of dead UK soldiers; they fought hard and battled bravely. But there were only ever about 1,000-1,200 badged members of CF 333 and CF444. I couldn't understand where all these Afghans were coming from.
Everyone seemed to know about it
I had no idea why the injunction existed in the first place; the list had appeared on Facebook and everyone, including the media, seemed to know about it. Officials seemed to get a bit of a kick out of something being 'Top Secret'. I thought it was weird, and it wasn't a secret.
It was a direct result of the chaos that engulfed the MoD at the end of the Afghanistan war.
Those on the ground during Op Pitting saw awful things, were incredibly brave and saved thousands of lives. I also saw how hard Ben Wallace worked to do the right thing.
But since then it has been awful. The MoD has tried at every turn to cut off those from Afghan special forces units from coming to the UK, for reasons I cannot fathom.
They also lied to themselves about doing it. The UK's director of Special Forces told me personally that he was offended and angry by my suggestion that his organisation was blocking the Triples.
Certain MoD ministers had a criminal lack of professional curiosity as to why the Triples were being rejected when there were so many subject matter experts who said they clearly should be eligible.
They even tried for a long time to say that Afghan special forces were not eligible.
When I contradicted them, one 'friend' made an official complaint to the Cabinet Office permanent secretary about me not being 'collegiate', or going along with government policy.
I had to inform them that they were directly lying to Parliament, and any statement I made publicly would repeat that. I think the whips told him to piss off too after he went moaning to them about me.
And the net result of this spectacular cluster is that we've let into this country thousands with little or tenuous links to the UK, and still some Afghan special forces we set up the bloody schemes for, remain trapped in Afghanistan, Pakistan or worse, Iran.
I feel furious, sad and bitter about the whole thing, and do as much as I can to get through each day not thinking about Afghanistan.
But some don't have that luxury. Naveed, a sergeant from Commando Force 333, a partnering unit of Task Force 42, a British SBS Task Force who I was with in Afghanistan in 2008-09, thinks about it every day.
Every day his comrades still reach out to him, thinking I can do something about it. His parents and immediate family, despite being under significant threat, remain in Afghanistan, three times rejected from resettlement pathways.
I am ashamed of the MoD and how they have acted on these schemes for three years now. I don't think it is a conspiracy surrounding the Afghan inquiry – that sort of thing requires a level of competence I have never seen in either UK Special Forces or the MoD.
Even now, there are brave folk in Afghanistan who soldiered alongside elite troops from this country prosecuting the highest level of UK objectives in Afghanistan, who are still hiding from the Taliban.
I secured a review of all Afghan special forces applications after I pointed out that they were all being rejected in February 2024. It was supposed to take 12 weeks. Seventy-nine weeks later that review is yet to report. I've promised Naveed I will get his family too.
Short of hiring a Land Rover and going for it, I'm running out of ideas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
What are the key recommendations in the landmark water sector review?
The much-anticipated final report from the Independent Water Commission, led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, has outlined 88 recommendations to the UK and Welsh governments to turn around the ailing industry. The Government has so far backed the review and is considering a piece of primary legislation to deliver many of the proposed changes. Here the PA news agency takes a look at the key recommendations in the report: – Overhauling the current system of regulation The review recommends overhauling the regulators and replacing them with one body for England and one body for Wales. For England, this would see Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate abolished, and the removal of the environmental regulation functions for the Environment Agency and Natural England. Instead, a 'joined-up' and 'powerful' single integrated water regulator would be established. In Wales, Ofwat's economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales, the review said. – Setting up regional planning authorities Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales should be set up, the review says. This would involve devolving current planning responsibilities and transferring resources from the regulators to these new authorities, which would be responsible for developing water investment plans that reflect local priorities and voices. – Introducing stronger consumer protections The commission recommends measures such as expanding the role of the voluntary Consumer Council for Water into an ombudsman to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints. It also proposes the introduction of a national social tariff to provide consistent support for low-income customers who need help to pay their bills and to transfer responsibility for consumer advocacy to Citizens Advice. – Stronger environmental regulations The report proposes stronger regulation on abstraction, sludge, drinking water standards and water supply. It also recommends improving the process where companies collect and analyse wastewater discharges they make into waterways by introducing more digitalisation, automation, third-party assurance and inspections. After one of the driest springs on record, it recommends compulsory water metering, changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. – Tightening oversight of water company ownership and governance The commission recommends new regulatory powers to block changes to water company ownership, for example, where investors are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers. It also suggests new 'public benefit' clauses in water company licences and recommends the regulator set 'minimum capital' requirements so that companies are less reliant on debt and more financially resilient. – Public health reforms The report covers legislative reforms to better manage public health risks in water, recognising the many people who swim, surf and enjoy other water-based activities. These include public health objectives in water quality legislation, senior public health representation on regional water planning authorities and legislative changes to address emerging pollutants such as PFAs, also known as forever chemicals, micropollutants and microplastics. – Fundamentally resetting economic regulation This recommendation includes a new 'supervisory' approach that supports tailored decisions and earlier interventions in water company oversight. The report also makes recommendations on the Price Review process, including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets and to help attract long-term, low-risk investment. – Providing a clear strategic direction The commission said both the UK and Welsh governments should publish a new long-term National Water Strategy with a minimum horizon of 25 years and interim milestones. It also says a set of ministerial priorities specifically for the water industry should be issued to regulators every five years, replacing the current strategic policy statement. – Infrastructure and asset health reforms The report sets out changes in how water infrastructure is managed, monitored and delivered to better safeguard the provision of water and management of wastewater for future generations. They include new requirements for companies to map and assess their assets – such as pipes, treatment works and pumping stations. It also calls for resilience standards that are forward-looking and applied consistently across the industry.
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour wealth tax war rages amid claims Reeves will reject calls for charge on assets - but could hit pensions reliefs instead
Labour's wealth tax war is raging amid claims Rachel Reeves is set to reject demands for a charge on assets - but could hit pension reliefs instead. The Chancellor is desperately hunting for options as she faces an estimated £30billion black hole in the public finances at the Autumn Budget. She has been carefully avoiding ruling out a 'wealth tax' - with backbenchers pushing for 2 per cent levy on assets worth more than £10million. However, she is thought to be privately opposed to the move, with tax experts and Cabinet ministers warning it would only drive away more wealth people from Britain. A raid on pensions is still said to be on the table, with fears that the Treasury is again looking at slashing reliefs. Currently higher-rate earners are spared 40 per cent tax on money that is put into retirement funds. However, reducing the relief to the 20 per cent basic rate could raise around £15billion for the government. The idea was rejected at the Budget last year, but Ms Reeves' situation has dramatically worsened. It would cause an outcry as cash in pension pots is already taxed when people draw incomes. The government is also facing mounting alarm that Brits are not saving enough into their pensions for comfortable retirement. She is widely expected to extend the long-running freeze on tax thresholds to bring in billions of pounds more. Capital gains could also be raided, as the Chancellor insists she will not hike rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT. She has also vowed a 'cast-iron' commitment to fiscal rules, with the UK's debt mounting at risk of spiralling out of control. A senior government source told The Times that a wealth tax on assets was 'not going to happen'. 'The problem is that if the Treasury start shooting down Kinnock's proposal, they end up being boxed in,' the source said. 'It's not going to happen, but they can't say that publicly.' The government's woes have been deepening with inflation unexpectedly rising and signs the economy is slowing down. Experts have warned that the stalling economy together with spending pressures could mean the Chancellor has a £31billion funding gap. The tax burden is already set to hit a new high as a proportion of GDP after the last Budget imposed a £41billion increase - the biggest on record for a single package. Many believe the Chancellor will opt to extend the long-running freeze on tax thresholds. The policy, in place since 2022, is due to end in 2028-29. By that point it will have dragged an extra 4.2million people into the tax system as wages rise.
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
Water industry review: Will these proposals make any difference?
A review of the water industry has proposed the biggest reform of the sector in England and Wales since privatisation more than 30 years review's author, Sir Jon Cunliffe, has made 88 recommendations, which range from scrapping the current regulator Ofwat to stronger introducing stronger environmental reforms are deep and wide, and come at a time when there has been widespread criticism of the industry over leaking pipes and sewage these proposals are adopted in full it would be hard to see how things could not get better than where the sector is now - underinvested and widely derided. Excessive debt and inappropriate dividends that threaten some water companies' resilience – such as Thames Water – would be addressed by minimum capital levels and powers to block ownership changes if not in the company's long-term already know that water companies will invest more than £100bn in upgrading systems over the next five years - and that bills will rise sharply to pay for Jon says there are some "inescapable facts", including climate change, higher environmental standards, a growing population, and replacing ageing problems plaguing the industry come from not investing for a long period, meaning there needs to be a "massive" investment, in order to catch up, he amount companies can invest is a function of what they are allowed to charge and for the last 20 years, bills have risen by less than inflation - so have been getting cheaper in real is widely accepted that Ofwat prioritised keeping bills low over new investment. If consumers want a better water system, someone has to pay for what the Environment Secretary Steve Reed wants - and Cunliffe suggests - is a way of making sure bills do not have to spike so dramatically in future to catch up for years of underinvestment - as we are seeing is paying the price for that by being the report there are continual references to the telecoms regulator Ofcom - which is seen to have done a better job by maintaining a focus on continual investment in better infrastructure over while you can change the regulator, the reality is that higher future bills are the price for fixing the underinvestment of the a lot to digest in this - including compulsory metering and public health officials on water planning bodies. It will take time to take effect. But at least the government will be able to point to the Cunliffe review and insist it has set the wheels of change in motion.
