When the forces get no danger pay, the public sector is slashing budgets and the roads full of holes no council can afford to repair, the news that world leaders pledged £12billion to the Arab Springs is rather bitter.
The west appear to have moved from marching into countries and enforcing democracy (this is an oxymoron in my opinion), to simply paying for democracy instead.
Britain appears to be making the largest contribution, at 56% of the Gross Domestic Product. Cameron is calling on leaders to show they are on the side of the countries seeking to improve themselves.
Now that's an ambiguous statement. I'm sure Gadaffi thinks he is improving Libya by clearing out the rebels. The same applies to dictators in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria et al.
But ultimately, what is Cameron seeking to acheive by being so forthrightly generous while the homefront is squeezed to breaking point?
Is Osbourne going to defend the budgets in the Commons and plead we desperately need to pay back our deficit asap, because then more can go to Egypt?
Cameron is like a man pretending to be rich to impress his friends. As the Standard puts it, 'an appeal by President Obama and Cameron'.
I can see benefit, albeit reluctantly, in spending money on more equipment for Libya, but I fail to see exactly what Cameron's (foolhardy) strategy is this time.
Can anyone enlighten me?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device