5 Things I Can't Live Without

by Isabel Stark

I have five Achilles heels; they, unfortunately, add huge dents to my already small-punched leather purse and take up precious time. However hard I try to fight the addiction, my will power always gives up. Here is the extensive list of things that are the bane of my life yet bring such joy, comfort and relief:

1.)      Wool jumpers

2.)      Baking

3.)      Elspeth Huxley books

4.)      The Vogue app

5.)      Vintage costume jewellery

1. Wool Jumpers-

Jennifer Lawrence wearing a Christopher Kane 

cable knit jumper- Vogue November 2012 issue

(source:thespicystiletto.com)

To be surrounded by hand-knitted bespoke wool jumpers from the Western Isles of Scotland is the dream. It takes luxury to a new level; it takes it beyond the cool ostentatious sparkle of diamonds, rubies and emeralds from the likes of Adler, Chopard and Bulgari. These jumpers are an affectionate partner to anyone wanting to put practicality and style together. They have been overlooked in the world of fashion for many years, making them an appealing “anti-fashion” item- an item Gabrielle Chanel would thoroughly approve of. Chanel recently purchased a Scottish wool factory just highlighting the return of British wool; this industry has soared to £1.5 billion showing everyone wants to get a cut of this understated, quality indulgence.

However, I do worry that this item will purchased purely for fashion and the season trends instead of for the appreciation of labour and material used.  I also love hand-knitted/woven jumpers because it keeps the small minority of specialised spinners, weavers and knitters in employment and stops these traditional crafts dying. I spend a good chunk of time gazing at these untouchable objects of bliss and I have come to the conclusion the only way to get over this addiction is if I have a readily available collection of jumpers. I shall have to own my own cashmere goats and sheep and try again to learn (more valiantly this time) how to knit or marry someone Swedish.

2. Baking-

It’s an art, a science and an accomplishment all rolled into one. From flicking through the tempting pages of a cookery book then making the chosen recipes to finally eating the final outcome is such a satisfying process. If I could do anything with my life right now I would enrol on a patisserie course in Paris for 8 months learning all the tricks of the trade and indulging my French passion then open a tea room in the charming small market town of Bakewell. Unfortunately I cannot, I cannot even bring myself to bake for another 3 months until my exams are over.  This why it’s the bane of my life, it delights me but it’s currently just out of reach.

3. Elspeth Huxley Books-

She’s unfortunately unheard of and under rated. Her books accounting her wonderful childhood in colonial Kenya are an enchanting light read and I defy anyone not to enjoy them. They are not pioneering for their time or controversial but the childish gay sunny days, the safaris, the coffee plantation, her affectionate parents Tilly and Robin she so beautifully recounts brings a spell of happiness and comfort. I recommend the series of 3 books conveying her childhood:

1.)      The Flame Trees of Thika

2.)      The Mottled Lizard

3.)      Out in Midday Sun

I have read and re-read these books, I long find somewhere like the bliss so describes lovingly however I know it is highly improbable- one can still dream though.

4.The Vogue App-

The world of fashion may be sometimes be called superficial but Vogue is just a bible for many and to be able to see what everyone is wearing and the thoughts of some of the most influential people in the world in just one small touch is incredible. However it being on my phone means I am constantly glancing at it, I think may be it was best for me if to wait for the glossy monthly editions and to be put off by the large price tag instead. I shall have to reconsider having such a glowing distraction so close to me during this important period in my life…

5.Vintage Costume Jewellery-

Pandora and Links are massively over rated and lack any quirky charm; the designs, for me, are dull, un-adventurous, and monotonous the completely contrary of what jewellery is. Jewellery (just like shoes) is an expression of your personality it’s the one item that radiates who you are so why buy and wear something mass produced? Vintage costume jewellery is an explosion of colour and individuality and even recycling. Trifari, Coro, Boucher, Carnegie, the list is endless, these brands offer the most dazzling, glowing, sensational unique jewellery and this weakness has lead to several hefty costume jewellery books and several overflowing boxes of bracelets, necklaces and broaches.

These weaknesses are something I should try and avoid in the up coming months. However, despite inconvenience, I would not want my life to exist without them. 

Read More

The Budget 2013: Another Nail in the Tory Coffin

by Will Wallace

I am not an economist - nor do I fully understand most aspects of economics. I do, however, know that this year’s Budget is nothing more than a red box full of piffle. It might surprise some people that, unlike most Conservatives, I think that Osborne’s Plan A is completely the wrong approach, and that cutting spending will only cause further stagnation and increased unemployment.

Thankfully however, my know-how is politics, not the economy, so I’ll talk about that. In just over a month, the country will be going to the polls to vote in local elections. After last year’s spanking, Cameron really cannot afford another decrease in the share of the vote - which is why all eyes have been on the Budget. Certainly, the price of beer has dropped by a penny, Britain has the lowest corporation tax in the G20, fuel duty has been frozen for another year, personal income has risen - taking more people out of tax - and there has been increased investment in infrastructure projects. This is all good news, in fact, brilliant news.

Sadly though, these morsels of good decisions will be overshadowed by the fact that our growth forecast has been halved, our credit rating has been downgraded and we are heading for a triple-dip recession. If Osborne wanted to rectify the situation, then he should have risen to the dispatch box to admit that Plan A (austerity) has not and will not work, and that we should look toward a Plan B of increased investment and borrowing. Although this appears illogical, it isn’t, as Henry Cunnison explains.

To win the next election, we Conservatives need to attract the centre ground of opinion. Despite all the positive measures that Osborne has announced, the Budget fails to connect with those voters. The Chancellor is maintaining a dogmatic style of policy making, in which he prioritises his ideological commitment to cutting spending over the crystal clear need to go in the other direction.

  When voters go to the polls in May, at the 2014 European elections and at the 2015 general election, they won’t determine how they vote by personal allowance or the price of beer, but by the general state of the economy. Osborne has got it horribly wrong. Today has marked the beginning of the end for the Conservatives in government: today is yet another nail in the coffin. 

Read More

The Budget 2013: Will It Increase Growth?

by Fergus Houghton-Connell

After announcing the UK Budget on Wednesday, George Osborne made it clear that he wanted to continue with his main objective of reducing borrowing. This usually means more cuts, which there are, however Osborne has included a few measures to try to make it easier to buy homes, to increase the disposable income of the poor, as well as increasing spending on infrastructure. So, will it work or do we face many years ahead of a ‘flat-line’ economy, or even a triple-dip recession?

Most government departments face a 1% cut in their budget for the next two years, with the NHS and schools being exempt from the cuts. Essentially, the chancellor is trying to squeeze every penny out of the government as possible, without having to borrow any more money, which I believe is the right move. Almost all government departments have underspent in their budgets in the last few years, so instead of letting the departments spend more than is necessary, why not use the extra cash on infrastructure projects and other areas that will increase Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Overall, £11.5 billion of cuts are expected in the 2015-2016 Spending Review, a significant amount that can be reinvested in trying to increase Growth in the economy.

On the whole, I see three areas that are likely to increase Growth. Firstly is the Government’s plan to kick-start the housing market. Buyers of homes will only have to pay a 5% deposit, much lower than what some banks demand, and the ‘shared equity’ scheme, which offers people a 20%, of the value of the house, interest free loan on newly built homes. The idea is to try to get more people buying homes, thus increasing Consumption and therefore GDP. It does come at a cost, but this will be mostly covered by the spending cuts in other areas, and there are still questions as to whether it will really increasing the demand in the housing market.

Secondly is the refund of the first £2000 of the National Insurance that businesses have to pay for employing people. For large companies, this will have almost no effect, but for small businesses, who employ around 50% of the workforce, this is quite substantial. It means that small businesses can employ more people, as it is now cheaper, and this makes up part of the prediction that there will be 600,000 more jobs available this time next year, as well as the claimant count, the number of people who claim benefits, will fall by 60,000.

Thirdly is the new spending on infrastructure. £15 billion more will now be spent on infrastructure by 2020, with £3 billion to be spent by 2015-2016. The idea behind this one is to pay companies to work, who will then employ more people to complete the job and then tax revenues from income tax and corporation tax will increase, with the added bonus that the government are going to have to borrow only £2.5 billion more, it seems that this is a win-win situation. However recent studies by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBS) have shown that spending on infrastructure could contribute as little as 0.06% towards GDP.

There are other policies that I don’t believe will have a big effect on Growth, at least in the near future, which include the reduction of Corporation tax by 1%, the reduction of the highest tax percentage to 45% from 50%, the 20% tax relief on childcare up to £6000 per child and the earlier than planned increase in the personal allowance, the amount you earn that you don’t have to pay tax on, to £10,000. I feel that these are all positive policies to try to increase the disposable income of families, as well as encouraging businesses and rich people to live in the UK, but the effects of these policies will be felt in a few years time I feel, because consumer confidence is still very low. Nevertheless, they are good policies.

If I’m honest, I find this Budget quite boring, at least in economic terms, and, as perfectly summed up by BBC’s Nick Robinson, a ‘political budget’. George Osborne is trying to show that he can run the country whilst borrowing a lot less than Labour would, if they were in charge, which some would argue is the only thing he will be left to stand on come the election next year. However I believe that the policies the chancellor has actually proposed can be effective. I believe that the chancellor’s main objective from the Budget is to increase employment; one of the few successes last year, whilst still keeping the amount the country borrows relatively low, which he has achieved last year and looks set to continue to achieve this goal next year too.

As shown in the diagram, the Growth forecasts are on an upward trend, clearly a sign that the economic policies of the Tories are working; with the added bonus that borrowing is expected to decrease every year for the same time period. If Labour were in power, Growth would probably be a lot higher, however debt levels would be much higher than they currently are too. Overall we will just have to wait until the quarterly growth figures are released to see if any of the policies will work. In the mean time, we just have to remember that Growth looks as if it can only go up.

  

Read More

The Budget 2013: No Plan B, No Recovery.

by Henry Cunnison

The effects of austerity on debt:GDP ratio
(source: nytimes)

Since the Emergency Budget of June 2010, the Coalition government has pursued a policy of austerity, believing that it is the only way to help the economy recover from the financial crisis and reduce the budget deficit. Despite the disappointing economic performance since then, David Cameron’s speech on March 7th suggests that the he and George Osborne remain committed to a reduction in government spending; this Budget is no radical change in policy. This is bad news for Britain’s economy.

The Coalition’s policy has not even been effective in reducing the deficit. In the budget he is likely to announce that he further delaying his prediction for the government to be running a surplus, initially 2015-16, to 2017-18. The IMF has recently produced a paper on austerity and its effect on government debt.  Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, used the results to create the graph below¹. What it shows us is that if a country cuts spending by 1% of potential GDP per year; its debt as a percentage of GDP will rise, and only return to the pre austerity levels after 5 and half years, all other things being equal. Although the increase in debt is short term, the IMF concludes that this could cause problems if:

 “country authorities engage in repeated rounds of tightening in an effort to get the debt ratio to converge to the official target.”

George Osborne and Cameron, seeing the failure of austerity to reduce the deficit in the short term, seem to believe more austerity is the only cure.

Nor is the continued austerity even necessary. Before the recession the United Kingdom had the second lowest debt to GDP Ratio of the group of seven economies, at only 38%. The Cyclical adjusted predicted deficit for 2007-8 was a mere 0.7% of GDP and 0.5% of GDP 2008-9. This Budget deficit is not the result of years of overspending by Labour, although Fiscal policy should arguable of been tighter. Instead it was the result of the recession. With a huge increase in unemployment, and reduction in spending, the government naturally operates with a large deficit. So the way to reduce that deficit is not cutting, further increasing unemployment, but spending and introducing temporary cuts in taxes, reducing unemployment, and also, if spent on infrastructure, providing long run growth as well as a short run recovery. In fact in an economics lesson only last week that the standard response to a recession is to increase the budget deficit in the short term. This is not complicated economics, but the coalition is getting it wrong.

Britain's debt: 1922-2011

Why does Osborne think this time is different? Because he believes that Britain’s debt is dangerously high. Yet the country that is embarking on the biggest Keynesian fiscal policy of all, Japan has a debt to GDP ratio double the size of Britain’s. Furthermore Britain’s debt is by no means exceptionally high compared to historical levels. If anything this is the best opportunity for Britain to borrow in living memory, as it is facing a record low interest rates on lending.

 

Britain's economic performance following a recession
(BBC)

Britain now has a unemployment rate of 7.8%, which would far higher if we had not experienced a massive slump in labour productivity. Moody’s has cut Britain’s triple A rating, not because of a high level of debt to GDP, but because of the poor medium term growth forecasts, which could have been avoided. Britain’s economic performance has arguably been worse than during the great depression, as shown in figure 3. Yet despite this George Osborne is determined to cut. He believes that monetary policy and the private sector can take up the slack. Neither could, as Interest rates are up against the zero lower bound (they cannot go below zero without potentially damaging the basic economic operations in the state) and firms are completely lacking in confidence.

Nor or is austerity the Budget’s only flaw. The decrease on duty on beer seems to be a token measure. While alcohol duty is rising at 2% above inflation, Beer is let of the hook. Thus it seems that the government is trying to hide this rise and avoid the anger of drinkers everywhere. Furthermore beer is still over-consumed, and thus the government should be increase the rate of duty on it.

Public sector workers continue to be hit hard. They pay rise will be capped at 1% until 2015/16, and at that time there pay will have been capped for five years. Not only is it wrong that these workers should be expected to pay such a toll because of government austerity, but it will also negatively affect the economy, as the public sector workers will have less disposable income and will also be losing confidence over the continued attack on their wages.

Despite the budget’s continuation of the doomed economic policies of the coalition there are a few positives.

The government’s decision to raise personal allowance on income tax to £ 10,000 will provide householders with more disposable income and thus hopefully lead to increased spending, as well as easing the pressure on the poorest. However this is only a small increase from the current rate of £8105, and many would argue that the level should be higher still.

I also agree with the government’s planned increase in large scale infrastructure projects, which in the long term will expand the economy. However the money is coming from further cuts from most Whitehall departments, which on average will be expected to cut a further 2%, having already had their budgets slashed. What this policy equates to is sacrificing the short to medium term growth of the economy, for marginal gains in the long term, which could easily be achieved with further borrowing. It seems that many Conservatives are using the budget deficit as an excuse to achieve their dreams of a smaller state.

But despite the few positives to take from this budget, it remains unsatisfactory on the whole. Cameron and Osborne seem determined to maintain austerity. I would suggest that they now feel they cannot change their economic policy, for the sake of the political career. Instead of giving us the expansionary fiscal policy we needed, they have continued to give us austerity.  This Budget is not the plan B that was required.

Read More

A Reason For Running

by Taylor Richardson

One of PGS’ own, Lewis Chalk, is involved in the London Marathon next month, raising money for Epilepsy Bereaved, one of the leading voluntary organisations fighting to prevent death from SUDEP. (Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy).

On the 21st April this year, the 33rd annual London Marathon will be taking place and one of PGS’ own teaching staff will be running. Lewis Chalk, Head of ICT, is a passionate runner who has taken part in around 100 races to date, including six marathons. All marathons are 26.2 miles (rounded) though they do vary in difficulty according to the number of runners, the size of the crowds and the incline of the ground.

Mr Chalk and his brother

Mr Chalk’s main reason for starting to run is a personal reason as it is down to his younger brother. His brother is currently 18, but 5 years ago, when he was 13, he had a terrible football accident in which he tripped and injured his knee joint. The night of the incident, Mr Chalk stayed over at the hospital with him, which is when his brother told him to take part in the London Marathon. Mr Chalk wanted to lose weight and get his football career back so he had begun to do some runs, but the suggestion of the London Marathon was a great motivator and a goal for him to strive to achieve.

In 2008, he took part in his first race, which was a half- marathon. Mr Chalk came thirtieth in this race, which was when somebody told him “You’d be really good if you lost some weight.” This was the first point at which he realised that he was good at running and had the potential to become a brilliant runner. Anyone can see that he has incorporated a huge part of his life into this between that moment and now.

“When running, I feel like I’m making the most of my life”

It is clear now that he is extremely passionate about running, which is shown through his desire to help charities and to become fit enough to try to get back to peak fitness. He says that he does not want to waste his life and, through effort and encouragement, running provides a powerful sense of achievement.

In terms of the charity, Epilepsy Bereaved’s aim is to prevent SUDEP and this has a personal connection to Mr Chalk. His best friend’s younger sister, Rebecca, passed away in June due to an epileptic seizure and he is extremely close to the family. He witnessed the strain of Rebecca’s loss, leading him to realise that running can help others as well as himself through fundraising, awareness and remembrance. This is why he has chosen to raise money for Epilepsy Bereaved.

In terms of preparation for the London Marathon, Mr Chalk has been running for five years now. One of his previous marathons was the Amsterdam Marathon in October 2012, during which he achieved his personal best marathon time of 2 hours and 36 minutes – a time that is in the top 0.5% percent of the country. He evaluated his decision of entering the London Marathon over the Christmas break and has been training since January 1st with a vigorous programme of 90-100 miles per week. Practising in smaller doses, such as 10 kilometre runs, is great preparation physically and mentally in terms of confidence and strength.

To anyone considering taking up running as a hobby or competitively, Mr Chalk says, “Don’t be burdened by targets or what other people’s expectations are. Do it because you enjoy it.” You can see that the fulfilment of helping himself and others through running seems to have a hugely positive effect on the mind. He advises would-be runners to speak to experienced runners for advice and hold on to that reason for starting throughout all of your running. I am sure that, if you would like to speak to a runner, Mr Chalk would be more than happy to provide first-hand knowledge.

Anyone can support the charity through: www.justgiving.com/26miles4rebecca

Every little helps towards a greater sum and there will also be a Cake Sale on the 18th and 19th April, during break and lunch in the Quad at PGS. While the London Marathon is under way, you can check Mr Chalk's progress on the athlete tracker that will be up on the school website on 21st April.

On a final note, Mr Chalk hopes for good weather and support to help spur him on – when the pressure builds up, all he has to remember is he is running for a magnificent cause and people will benefit from the money he is raising.

 

Read More

A Worthwhile War? The West's Struggle to Secure Iraq

by Andrew Jones

(source: britannica.com)

What are our recollections of the Iraq war? Explosions which lit up the skies around Bagdad as the invasion commenced? Tony Blair announcing that Britain would support America in the conflict? A viral video depicting a scrawny, ragged man being executed? These are just a few of the images which have been used to summarise the Wests effort to secure Iraq.

Beginning an argument in favour of the war should firstly focus upon dispelling many of the common misconceptions that exist with regard to the conflict. Chiefly there exists a misconception that America was motivated solely by the prospect of oil and wealth. Since the original invasion, which caused Iraq’s oil production to crash, the country has slowly made progress. Even today, although it fails to rival its own production rates of the 1970s (when the country produced four million barrels of oil per day).

Furthermore, the country itself is reliant upon external imports to meet its own demands. Only 45% of its fuel production accounts for heavy oils such as petrol or diesel. For American oil companies, this means that whilst oil production is enjoying something of a resurgence, it is still not sufficient to be considered a worthwhile justification for invasion. Furthermore, the contracts which have been granted to oil companies were far from exclusively American. Instead, British, Chinese and Russian companies have also been able to hold lucrative rights over a share of Iraq’s oil production. If America had intentionally invaded Iraq to ensure a means of securing its energy future, it would have been an incredibly risky and short-sighted decision, which went against all military knowledge and advice.

What is more, this misconception has helped to foster an even greater misconception that the Iraq War was carried out to extend American influence in the region. This is based heavily upon the belief that America desired to widen its sphere of influence within Middle Eastern politics. If this had been the case, though, why on earth would America quit the country when its political system was still fraught with difficulties?

Iraqis exercising right to protest, 2013
(source: nytimes.com)

Indeed it was only on Monday that Ban Ki-Moon urged the resuming of talks between the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government. With an unstable political system which is still mired in controversy and corruption, America has hardly succeeded in creating a valuable alliance with a country in the Middle East. Certainly it is undeniable that perhaps America could well have chosen to invade Iraq on just such a basis, however quickly realised the difficulties of implementing such a plan once faced with reality. Again, though, why would this reasoning be employed by the United States Government? Saddam Hussein had been a cause of humanitarian concern for decades. Sanctions had been imposed on the country since 1990, when Saddam had instrumented the invasion of Kuwait that sparked the First Gulf War. This offered America a clear motivation for invasion: namely to rid the world of a monumental headache. Therefore, to say that it was either to do with oil or to do with a desire for power ignores the previous issues which Saddam caused for both the world and his own country.  

Before progressing onto the reasons why the war itself was of a major benefit it is worth acknowledging that the WMD case was grossly exaggerated. Dr David Kelly, the weapons expert who fulfilled inspection roles for both Britain and the United Nations, expressed particular worry at a dossier which claimed that Iraq could use chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of the order being released. After the war, however, evidence quickly mounted suggesting that Saddam had largely disposed of his weapons arsenal almost a decade before the invasion. Charles Duelfer’s investigation into Iraq’s weapon capabilities concluded that “It is my judgment that retained stocks do not exist. I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are hidden in Iraq.” Without the stock piling of WMDs, the case for the Iraq war therefore seemingly collapsed. Tony Blair attempted to restore the case by highlighting the report’s conclusion that Saddam Hussein may well have tried to rebuild his weaponry capabilities once the trade embargo was lifted. On balance, when attempting to support the war, it is extremely difficult to use the case of WMDs. Saddam was found to have stopped nuclear research in 1991 and chemical tests in 1995.

Why, then, was the war both justified and entirely necessary?

It cost the British Armed Services the lives of 179 personnel. There can only be one undeniable reason as to why the action was necessary: to remove a despotic, tyrannical individual who abused his people to the most extreme extent. John Simpson, who has spent almost a decade covering the war for the BBC, reflected on some of the features of the Saddam regime during an article marking the tenth anniversary of the war. Speaking to an individual who had been victimised during Saddam's regime offers a perfect summation of Saddam’s style of dictatorship: “I once talked to a Baghdad man who was sentenced to death by acid bath for writing a phone number on a banknote with Saddam Hussein's portrait on it.”

Woman protesting against Saddam's
genocide against the Kurdish people
(source: aawsat.net)

Furthermore, the atrocities that Saddam Hussein committed were far beyond the extremes of other dictators of the time. The Halabja gas attack is perhaps the greatest example of his capacity for evil. Following the initiation of Operation Anafal, Saddam began to target the Kurdish populations who lived in the North of the Country. One such operation included an attack on Kurdish town of Halabja, where Iraqi jets dropped a mixture of mustard and nerve gas, leading to the deaths of 5,000 Kurdish nationals in what must have been the most appalling scenes imaginable. The attack itself took place in 1988. Subsequently it took almost 20 years for Saddam Hussein and his cousin “Chemical Ali” to be punished for these atrocities. If anything, then, the final serving of justice appears to provide a pretty robust reason for the war.

It was Bob Dylan who said “Don't criticize what you can't understand.” Considering the measure of Saddam Hussein’s regime includes horrific methods of execution and genocide, it is impossible for a Western observer to truly understand the plight of these people. The war itself has admittedly been poorly carried out with a variety of blunders, causing journalists to leave the region with harrowing memories. However to remove one of the cruellest dictators known to the twentieth century seems like a clear justification for the war.

Read More

Why The Iraq War Was Wrong

by Alex Quarrie-Jones

Ten years after the beginning of the Iraq War (on March 19, 2003) and the subsequent ruination of the reputations of many senior politicians (most notably George W.Bush and Tony Blair) and generals, the consequences of the re-ignition of armed conflict and sectarian tension in the Middle East and North Africa still persist and are very visible in the current conflicts in Syria, Mali and Afghanistan. And yet there are still some who dare to call this war just and a noble cause.

US bombing of Baghdad on March 19, 2003
(source: britannica.com)

I will agree that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was well-intentioned, particularly after diplomatic efforts had failed, aiming to free a people living under the fist of a tyrant who had already attracted massive global attention in the Gulf War in 1990. However, when a war, the most destructive effort any civilisation can commit to, does not have credible reasons for its instigation and then goes on to become simply an occupation of a conquered country, again without credible reason, well that isn’t really a pre-emptive war, it is unjustified violence and imperialism.

I do not want to be associated with the classical view that, because I am writing from an anti-war perspective, that I hate the Armed Forces. On the contrary, I have a huge respect for anyone who is willing to serve and protect, and I am currently horrified by the treatment of the MOD by this government. However, I wish to express that I have no anger towards anyone in the Armed Forces; rather, I blame those who had the executive power, for example George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Tony Blair. Therefore, I hope that you will agree with me in saying that the Iraq War was an unjustifiable wreck.

If any war in the Twentieth Century had to be classed as ‘perfect’, or a near approximation, then I think I would choose the Gulf war of 1991. It had a clear, mostly humanitarian, goal and it caused very little collateral damage compared to the far more destructive wars like World War Two and Vietnam; therefore, it could be seen as one of the most successful wars in modern history. 

However the reasons for the Iraq War begun in 2003 were never clearly explained to the world; therefore, it will now forever be remembered as an unjustified (and unjust) war. As with most global conflicts now raging, it can be traced back to 9/11 and the declaration of the "War on Terror" by George.W.Bush; originally this war only concerned Afghanistan as this was where the terror group responsible for 9/11, Al-Qaeda, had placed themselves along with their leader, Osama Bin Laden. However this war began to drop out of public view and US government attention instead began to focus on how Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 (he wasn't). Saddam's shunning of UN weapons inspectors fuelled suspicions further, triggering the hype about the possibility of Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (or WMDs) (they didn't), which became the pretext for the initial operation.

So the combined governments of the United States and Great Britain acted and invaded Iraq, mainly on the pretext that Iraq was a threat (alledgedly possessing WMD under the control of a violent dictator). However, by the conclusion of the invasion phase (about a month after the initial attack), the UN inspectors found that there were no WMDs and that, in fact, Iraq had halted any WMD production in 1991. Therefore, the invasion force had clearly not succeeded in one of its main aims, but had instead overthrown the dictator who should have been ousted much earlier.

At that point, the Americans and British could have withdrawn their forces, letting Iraq hold its own free elections and find a new leader. But they stayed, for another 7 and 1/2 years in a country where they did not need to be.

And it was during these next years, when the invasion force was seen more and more as forceful occupiers rather than peaceful liberators, that the various insurgency campaigns killed more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians than the original invasion, demonstrating just one example of the problems that resulted by leaving an armed occupying force for no real reason. Obviously the governments claimed that it was to “keep the peace” and “work toward stability” but they kept their armed forces there for much more dubious, questionable and eventually unjustifiable reasons. The Middle East has two things in abundance: sectarian tension and oil, and ironically these two do not mix well. Therefore in order for the oil supply, that was already starting to dwindle, to be safe, the invasion force had to stay and ultimately act as bodyguards for the oil. Therefore the longer the troops stayed, the longer their true purpose drifted out of view, the more and more expendable their lives became.

Therefore, I would like to conclude with a quotation from the great Chinese tactician, Sun Tzu: “No nation will ever benefit from prolonged war”, which seems more true than ever as American and British troops continue to die in Afghanistan ten years after the ill-advised invasion of Iraq. 

                   

Read More