Five Military Misadventures

With the Afghanistan war now ten years old, we take a look at some other misguided military operatio

In this week's New Statesman we ask what the war in Afghanistan has achieved. Ten years in and Operation Enduring Freedom, as the war is officially known by the US government, is certainly living up to one part of its name. So far it has claimed the lives of 383 British servicemen and its original operational goals are still no closer to realisation. The British and American fight against the Taliban looks increasingly unwinnable, evoking memories of another ill-fated, decade-long conflict in Afghanistan, waged by the Soviet Union 30 years ago.

The persistent threat of war continues to loom large, with headlines just last week proclaiming that the US and Britain were making preparations for war in Iran. Below we take a look at five other misguided conflicts from history that we in the west would do well to learn lessons from.

1.Gallipoli: A First World War folly that damaged the reputation of Winston Churchill.

2.Suez: Conflict turned crisis which heralded the end of British pretensions to Empire.

3.Cuba, Bahía de Cochinos: The CIA made a real pigs' ear of this failed coup.

4.Vietnam: The 20 year long war became a barometer against which subsequent ill-advised invasions are judged.

5.Iraq: The war that left a legacy of death and mistrust.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.