Fingers crossed for Syria's renewal

One year after the fall of Bashar Assad, the Syrian leader who always looked as if he should be a nice quietly-spoken chap but was actually, like his father, a dictator monster, Syria has a chance for a better future. Many things have gone wrong since the Islamic militia organisation which had past links with al-Qaeda, took over Damascus, not least the appalling ethnic-cleansing slaughter of Syrian Christians. But there are enough signs that can be described as positive. There is a tough new leader, Ahmed al-Shara, who has won over most of the world's leaders and appears to be foocused on uniting the country and making it prosperous. It's an extraordinary transformation in a guy who was effectively categorised as a terrorist before he overthrew Assad. Anyway, good luck to him and let's hope that all the encouraging signs bear fruit. There are still plenty of evil forces in Syria, exemplified by the fact that the Israeli air force keeps bombing anti-Israel extremists still embedded in northern and eastern parts of the country. If the relative calm in Syria continues, then next year should see the lifting of sanctions. Damascus used to have a reputation for old-school civilisation and hospitality. Hopefully those days will return once people stop having to fear for their lives. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY NEW SPY THRILLER, FOR CHRISTMAS (AMAZON AND WATERSTONES)

Trump could "walk away" from Ukraine

It was Trump Junior who came out with this warning. Did he do so because his father wanted him to say it, or was it an off-the-cuff remark to stir things up? I'm sure it's true that Trump would love to stop worrying about Ukraine and the wretched war which next February will have been running for four years. But the US has been the leading light in backing Volodymyr Zelensky ever since Putin's invasion of Ukraine was launched in 2022. Without the US, initially under Joe Biden's presidency, Ukraine would have been conquered by Russia, or at least subjugated to a greater extent than it is now. American weapons, American intelligence, American big-power status, all helped to smother Putin's ambitions to turn Ukraine into a vassel state. The Europeans have played a crucial role, too, notably led by Britain, France and Germany. But they did so knowing that Joe Biden's America was with them all the way to the end whatever the end was going to be. Now Trump Junior says his father is ready to back off, and presumably just leave it to the Europeans. This will be music to the ears of Putin who has been working hard to split up the US-led alliance. He reckoned a long time back that eventually the US and Europe would divide over Ukraine.He must be very pleased that he was right. As I have said many times before, the war will go on and on.

What are the rules of engagement for the drug boat strikes?

Rules of engagement for military operations are classified. But they are becoming more and more important in relation to the cntinuing strikes on suspected drug boats that are still, amazingly, setting off from Venezuela and heading across the Caribbean Sea. You do wonder how it is that these alleged drug traffickers are not being deterred from leaving the safety of the shore. They can see the mighty aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R Ford, on the horizon, and yet they still risk the trip across the water. They must be getting a big fat wad of money to risk their lives against the massive US Navy firepower waiting for them. Everyone from the top admiral to the US Navy Seal operators carrying out the drone hits is subject to the same rules of engagement. The only sentence in the list of rules I know will be there authorises the military to use force for self-defence. So if they get fired on by the drug traffickers they can answer back. But as far as I know, there has beden no exchange of fire which would justify the self-defence protocol. So the rest of the rules of engagement must specify that for this mission, codenamed Operation Southern Spear, the US Navy and associated units are authorised to target any boat suspected, based on intelligence, to be carrying drugs. That has to be part of the rules, because more than 20 boats have been hit. It must also presumably say that authorisation is given to target whoever is in the boats. But it won't say, "ensure there are no survivors". You couldn't put that in any rules of engagement. The lawyers would go spare. Still so many unanswered questions about this second strike on a drug boat on September 2 which killed two "survivors".

Pete Hegseth absolved of "kill everybody" allegation

The US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has had quite a week. Essentially accused of ordering a war crime, he has now been absolved of any such crime by the much-revered and exceptionally able Admiral Frank Bradley, known to all as Mitch. Bradley, formerly commander of US Joint Special Operations (JSOC) and recently promoted to commander of US Special Operations Command (the umbrella organisation for all special forces and special operations troops in the US military) gave evidence yesterday to a very select group of top politicians from the Senate and House armed services committees in which, apparently, he stated that Hegseth never told him to "kill everybody" in the drug-running boats that are being targeted by a massive armada of US Navy warships off Venezuela. According to some of the senators who attended the meeting, Bradley insisted the two survivors of a drone attack on one of the boats were subsequently killed by a second strike because they still posed a threat, ie, they were trying to clamber back onto the boat. But I thought the boat had been obliterated in the first attack and they were clinging for dear life to what remained, a bit like that chap in the Titanic film. Then there was a claim that they were trying to ring for help. Really? Wouldn't their mobiles have got somewhat wet in the first strike? Anyway, Bradley took responsibility for the second strike and said Hegseth wasm't asked for permission, although he was watching it all on video at the time. But here's a thing. If the two survivors had been left alone and then rescued and taken on board one of the US warships, what would have happened to them? They would have to have been either dropped off on Venezuelan territory or taken back to the US, charged and put through the criminal prosecution system. Surely, far less bother just to bump them off to avoid all the legal and diplomatic hassles. I'm not syaing this is what happened. But the alternative to killing them was to give them food and shelter on board ship and ring the FBI to take them into custody. Two suspected drug traffickers benefiting from US Navy hospitality? I think not. Hegseth might have drawn the line there.

Admiral Mitch Bradley fights back over war crimes accusation in Caribbean Sea

The Joint Special Operations Command has been behind some of the most spectacular American military success stories of the last 15 years. It was responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden, for example, and eight years later, the death of Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, the Isis leader, in a tunnel in northern Syria. Its latest mission, however, which led to the deaths of two survivors last seen clinging to the wreckage of a Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean Sea, is now being touted as a war crime. Amid growing condemnation of the two strikes on the drug boat, the White House has insisted that responsibility for the second strike, which killed the two survivors on September 2, was the sole responsibility of a former Navy Seal called Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who at the time headed Joint Special Operations Command. The apparent attempt to blame Bradley for the incident has prompted outrage within the Pentagon’s uniformed personnel who believe he is being left to take the flak for decisions by his political master, Pete Hegseth, the under-fire US defence secretary. It was reported by The Washington Post that Hegseth, the former Fox News presenter, ordered the military involved in Operation Southern Spear “to kill everybody” which he has denied. The White House said on Monday it was Bradley who gave the order for the second strike. Bradley, however, could be about to fight back. A source with intimate knowledge of special operations told The Times that Bradley will have tape recordings of all discussions prior to the decision to launch a second strike. “Everything on the operations floor [on board a warship in the Caribbean Sea] would have been recorded, even if it’s highly classified, so there will be evidence that proper authority was given to ensure there can be no misinterpretations,” the source said. That could be used as a defence by Bradley on Capitol Hill today THUR. So far, 21 drug boats have been hit, killing 83 people. Bradley, a veteran US Navy Seal commander, and “revered” among his peers, has been summoned to give evidence today (Thurs), alongside General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for a classified briefing with senior members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. “On the face of it, there is no rational explanation why the second strike was ordered, killing two survivors, but Admiral Bradley will have tapes of everything discussed about the mission,” said the source who served in the special operations community. One explanation, reported in The New York Times, is that one of the survivors was attempting to communicate by phone to his bosses on land; and under contingency plans authorised by Hegseth, this would have justified the second strike. Tape recordings of operational discussions would make this clear. Bradley is also said to have used a text-message communications system called Strike Bridge to communicate with his Seal Team 6 operators who were carrying out the drone strikes. This would give further evidence of careful consideration before the order was given for a second strike. “There are rules of engagement for every operation which impose limits on lethal action to be taken. It doesn’t matter whether it’s for special operations troops, special forces or regular forces,” the source said. “From the first moment when you raise your hand and promise to defend the constitution, it’s driven into you that you don’t use deadly force if the enemy is incapacitated or, in this case, shipwrecked. If it was a kill mission, then it would have been talked about at the highest level and it would have been recorded,” said the source. “If there was an order, political or military, to kill everyone on the drug boat, then that would mean the total absence of rules of engagement. No lawyer or military commander would go along with such an order. It would be against everything the military stands for. This is why those tapes should provide the explanation for why there was a follow-on attack,” said the source. “Admiral Bradley is a revered commander, it would be extraordinary if he doesn’t have an explanation for the decision to attack the boat for a second time." The source also pointed out that two admirals were involved: 57-year-old Bradley, who was promoted to commander of US Special Operations Command in October, and Admiral Alvin Holsey, 60, commander of US Southern Command. Admiral Holsey suddenly announced his retirement in October. He is due to step down on December 12, after only one year of his expected three-year appointment. “All the talk is that he retired prematurely because of what has been happening off Venezuela," the source said. "He was in command at the time of the controversial incident and he will have been informed of the decision to strike that boat for the second time." A former senior Pentagon official said: “It seems both Trump and Hegseth initially took credit for ordering these strikes but are now backing away to let Admiral Bradley hold the bag which has sparked a furious backlash inside DoD [Department of Defence] among the uniformed officers. “ It comes amid growing pressure on Hegseth, who is battling fresh accusations of misconduct after an internal Pentagon report concluded he risked endangering American troops by discussing sensitive military operations on Signal. Amid the continuing fallout over the legality of US attacks in the Caribbean, the independent watchdog of the Department of Defence, recently renamed the “Department of War”, reportedly found Hegseth broke security protocols by sharing details about an upcoming airstrike on Houthi targets in a Sigal group chat earlier this year. In September, Hegseth, addressing 800 generals and admirals at an unprecedented “rebranding” event, ordered an end to “tepid legality” and an embrace of “maximum lethality”. He described rules of engagement as “stupid”. Special Operations Command only comprises about three per cent of America’s active duty force but in recent years, under Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it has increasingly become the favoured military organisation because of its instant readiness, its reputation for lethal efficiency and its procurement of the most advanced weaponry. Special operations units have been deployed extensively in Latin America in recent years, combating narcotics traffickers and training government forces to disrupt criminal networks. BUY MY NEW SPY THRILLER AGENT REDRUTH, STARRING SUPERSPY REBECCA STRONG. CHECK IT OUT ON AMAZON.

Europe desperately wondering what to do about Ukraine

After Vladimir Putin's dismissal of the latest Europe/US/Ukraine peace proposal, European leaders are left floundering. They know that Trump has probably now had more than enough and would like to get shot of Ukraine which will leave the Europeans to fill the gap to help Zelensky continue to fight the Russians. Nothing they can come up will persuade Putin to compromise at any time in the near or far future, and, anyway, the Russian president has totally taken against Europe. If they want war with Russia, they can have it, he said the other day. Well, of course Europe doesn't want war with Russia but nor does Europe want Russia to win the war in Ukraine. So, there is massive bafflement and concern. What on earth can they do about Putin? The answer is pretty much nothing, especially if Trump backs off. The US is still sanctioning Russia's two biggest oil producers but Putin seems not to be overly worried. The only thing Europe can do is grab all of Russia's frozen assets in western banks, mostly in Belgium for some reason, and use it to send more weapons to Ukraine. But Putin might regard this as both illegal and an attack on Russia. Then what? As I said, Europe is floundering.

Pete Hegseth on the fatal targeting of two drug boat survivors in the Caribbean

In September the US Navy targeted a suspected drug-carrying boat coming out of Venezuela and blew it up. Two of the suspected drug traffickers miraculously survived and were seen clinging onto the wreckage. Instead of sweeping in to pick them up and detain them, the US Navy had another go and this time managed to kill them. According to the Washington Post, it was Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, who authorised the second shooting after giving an order to kill everyone. Hegseth has now denied this and the White House announced it was actually Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of US Special Operations Command, who gave the order to kill the two survivors. There is a lot of murky water here. Did the admiral really see for himself that there were two survivors clinging on for dear life and order his men to kill them anyway? First, that would be morally wrong, and second, I don't believe it. There has to be a better explanation. Unless... the admiral had received specific orders that under no circumstances were there to be any survivors. If so, this was a political, not a military decision. But Hegseth denies it. The targeting of more than 20 boats and the death of about 80 people in the boats is all a bit dodgy, legally, but Hegseth says it's all above board and in accordance with international law because these drug traffickers in Venezuela have been designated as part of a terrorist organisation and are, therefore, legitimate targets. Definitely murky waters.