Guns or diplomacy

Trump wants to boost the Pentagon's budget by $54 billion. Nothing wrong with that per se, except for one thing. He wants to emasculate the State Department and drop environment protection to pay for it. The poor State Department, it has never been in such a vulnerable position for decades. Trump obviously thinks all that diplomatic stuff can go hang. Who needs diplomats when you've got generals and admirals and nice big guns and tanks and stuff? Well, of course, that ain't true. The Brits invented what they call defence diplomacy which means having diplomats operating in the most sensitive and often dangerous nations spreading western values and emphasising peace not war. It can actually work. Some of the really good Brit diplomats and, by the way, MI6 station chiefs dotted around the world, can have huge influence - though probably more in the old days than today. Building up America's military capabilities sends a message to potential adversaries that under Trump the US is going to be as mighty as it was once was under Ronnie Reagan. But if the State Department is to be reduced to a junior status, that will also send a message around the world - that American diplomacy no longer matters. But who negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, whether you like it or not? Was it generals with guns or serious diplomats and nuclear experts? Could John Kerry have played such an important role if he had been regarded by Obama as a cabinet member of no importance? The answer is no! There are going to be numerous occasions during the Trump administration in which supreme diplomacy will be called upon to avoid conflicts, wars and disasters. If Rex Tillerson is going to have his department turned into an also-ran agency, then God help the rest of us. War should always be the last possible resort. Having more guns and warships and nuclear warheads than anyone else may seem like a great idea from Trump's point of view, but will it lead to a more stable and safer world? As anyone who understands deterrence theology knows, adding more and more nuclear missiles to your arsenal does not make you safer or better. For nuclear deterrence you need maximum credibility but it doesn't have to be based on a huge arsenal. Sufficiency is the name of the deterrence game. Enough to deter an enemy from striking first. Trump seems to think that if the US has a lot  more and a lot better nukes than any other country, that's all that matters. But if he starts to boost the nuke stocks, then what? Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India....they will all think it's ok to follow suit. Nuke proliferation! As for environment protection, I doubt Trump knows what that means, and even if he does, he doesn't care.

Trump Oscars

So after a month of Trump, it's time for the traditional Oscar ceremony in which special awards are given for presidential achievements or non-achievements. The voting was nearly unanimous, except for a few radically right-wing members of the voting committee who wore blindfolds and deaf aids throughout the selection meeting.
Best Actor:
Donald J Trump for a superlative acting performance without a script. Probably the best improvised delivery of words, shouts, tweets and abuse since Mel Gibson's street drama performances. Such a dominating acting role that no one else was worthy of being considered.
Best Actress:
Melania Trump,  a unique acting debut, although not on general release, only in cinemas in New York. Accused in the past of taking other people's lines, she has come into her own without grabbing the limelight. Looked pretty good on the red carpet. Close second, Ivanka Trump who is predicted to take on a starring role in the planned Disney Trump biopic, The World of Donald Duck.
Best Male in Supporting Role:
Steve Bannon, for being everywhere all the time, although never happy to be in a support role. Rumoured to be pretending to be the real president. with Trump in the sidelines. Others shortlisted were Jim Mattis, for always looking so serious, Jared Kushner, for never missing out on Oval Office photographs, Jeff Sessions, for trying to be a nice guy but not succeeding, and Rex Tillerson who lost out because no one could find him. Sean Spicer was originally considered until someone on the committee pointed out he was a fake.
Best Female in Supporting Role:
Kellyanne Conway, for sheer effrontery and a brilliant marketing bid for Ivanka Fashions.
Best Scriptwriting:
Donald J and his tweets
Best Editing:
No one won the award on this occasion. Few examples of editing in evidence.
Best Foreign Film:
No entries allowed.
Best director:
Steve Bannon
Best Film:
Donald Trump the President, but it was a mistake, the real winner was Vladimir Putin the President.

Dear friend departed

There are times in life when the only word you can think of to describe a really appalling situation is "shit"! I don't often resort to four-letter words, and this has nothing to do with my world view of anything, let alone Trump. This is purely personal. A dear lovely friend I have known for 40 years, a dynamic, good-looking bloke with an adorable wife and great children, was hit with the most dreadful disease, no explanation, no reason, nothing he ever did, it just arrived in his body and started slowly to destroy him. He was always the fittest guy you could imagine, he looked like he could live  to a venerable age. But this terrible disease stopped him in his tracks, destroyed his life, turned his body into unmoveable concrete. Motor Neurone Disease. A totally unforgiving monster of a disease. From being the most active and energetic guy, he was slowly and then rapidly reduced to almost nothing. He has now died, gone, just gone. It is so heartbreaking and so unjust and so terrible and so inexplicable. His death has made me feel overwhelmingly mortal, and angry and wanting answers to a million questions. But there are no answers, not for something as grossly cruel as this.

Mosul and Raqqa

Inside the Pentagon and US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, the general view was that the best way to defeat Isis would be to attack Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria roughly at the same time. This would effectively drive them out of their two bastions and put Isis into limbo. Still dangerous and looking for some other sanctuary for their caliphate plans but definitely screwed for the time being. The trouble with this grand plan is that it ain't going to happen. The Mosul campaign is going reasonably well and there's a chance that the western part of the city could be liberated within the next four to six months, or even quicker if the Isis leadership escape en bloc for, guess where, Raqqa. A lot of them have gone already. The campaign to free Raqqa of the black flag militants is desperately slow, simply because there is no army with combat armour fighting Isis in or even close to the Syrian city. Instead, it's a hotchpotch of Arab and Kurdish fighters who have come together with training and financing by US, British and other coalition member nations. If the top Isis leadership all assemble in Raqqa and put all their efforts into hanging on to their so-called caliphate stronghold, the battle for Raqqa could take years. Unless, of course, Trump and/or the Russians and/or the Turks decide to send ground troops in to back them up. It could happen! But, either way, it has been impossible to synchronise the attack on Mosul with an attack on Raqqa. As important as it is to liberate Mosul it is vital that Raqqa is freed, too. But while the campaign against Raqqa has seen some significant success in nearby villages and towns, the "caliphate" capital itself remains totally in Isis hands and looks likely to be for a long time. Perhaps General Jim Mattis, Pentagon chief, will come up with a brilliant scheme to bring forward the fall of Raqqa. He has been given a set timetable by Trump to produce new ideas to defeat Isis. I predict that whatever Mattis recommends, it will mean more US troops deploying to Syria to add to the 500 already there.

Where is the US Sec of State?

Well, ok, Rex Tillerson has been in Mexico, facing an irate president over The Wall, but America's top diplomat as they like to call the secretary of state, has been almost invisible since he was appointed. The Department of State must be desperately worried. They like to be top dogs in the Washington arena, right in the forefront of policy-making. After Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the department had got used to having Big Cheese secretaries of state, with the ear of the president and influencing everything remotely smelling of foreign and security policy. But Tillerson, a career oil man, has either been fumbling with all his briefs, not knowing where to start or he hasreceived a message from the White House that he's not really important enough to be part of Trump's  inner circle. So far the Trump acolytes making all the running are Jim Mattis, Pentagon boss, and Mike Pence, Vice-President, and perhaps also Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Tillerson has been noticeably absent from all the big policy moves, Mike Pompeo, CIA chief, hasn't raised his head above the parapet as yet, Dan Coates - who is Dan Coates - allegedly the replacement for Obama's James Clapper as director of national intelligence, is finding his feet, John Kelly at homeland security is spending his days devising countless draft memos on ways to kick out illegal immigrants, and other members of the cabinet don't really count. Poor Tillerson, he looks the part, tall, broad-shouldered, still has all his hair and seems potentially powerful. But Trump is ignoring him. Go away and be diplomatic, but watch out for my tweets, then you'll know what to do, Trump probably told him. When  Clinton and then Kerry ran State, it was the Pentagon which was always desperately trying to get its voice heard. Now, under Mad Dog Mattis, the Pentagon is up there with the big boys. Mattis actually says what he wants and clearly doesn't care what the likes of Steve Bannon want him to say or do. So come on Rex Tillerson, make your voice heard or the State Department is going to shrink into insignificance,

Generals to the rescue

Some of America's greatest presidents were generals. Others had distinguished war records although in more junior officer ranks. So the club of generals inside President Trump's cabinet is not unusual. Indeed, following the appointment of Lieutenant-General HR McMaster as the national security adviser - universally praised in Washington and around the US - there is a new sense that Trump's team is suddenly looking pretty smart. Ok, we had three generals before when retired Lieutenant-General Mike Flynn was national security adviser - along with General Jim Mattis at defence (defense in US lingo) and General John Kelly at homeland security. But Flynn was...well, less said the better. Now we have three stalwart generals, all with fine military careers, exceptional command experience and renowned man/woman managers. So there's hope for all Americans of whatever political persuasion. That doesn't mean Trump is now on a rosy path to greatness. There are bound to be moments when his combative, off-the-cuff leadership style will clash with his three generals, and if the president continues with his wild, unreconstructed foreign policy statements, these eminent military men may start to think again about serving in his administration. But they need to stick with it. With all their experience they should each be able to see off the elephant in the situation room. No, not Trump, Steve Bannon, his extreme right wing chief strategist. The toughest job of the three is General McMaster's. Jim Mattis has a huge department to run and several military campaigns to sort out, and John Kelly has the nightmare of confronting Trump's immigration policies. McMaster will be in charge of a small White House section of around 230 people, constantly in the presence of the president and every day expected to come up with sound judgment, good ideas and a total grasp of every conceivable foreign and security policy issue. McMaster was a supreme tank commander. His conviction was always to plough on and never give a moment of rest to the enemy. His most famous battle was in the Gulf War in 1991, known as the Battle of 73 Easting when his unit destroyed  25 Iraqi tanks, 16 armoured personnel carriers and 30 trucks. Once the first tank shells were fired against the opposition, he never stopped until the enemy was silenced. It was brutal but immensely effective, albeit exhausting for the 140 men under his command. If he follows this philosophy in the White House, then watch out Trump, Bannon, Rex Tillerson at State, et al. He will power-drive his views through every policy challenge. McMaster will know that he is in good historic company. He will always be able to quote the words of past legendary generals who went on to become president of the United States, such as George Washington, Ulysses S Grant and Dwight Eisenhower. They were all devotees of the same military doctrine - push on against all opposition.

The right man

Well, that was a surprise. Donald Trump has got it right at last. The appointment of Lieutenant-General Herbert "HR" McMaster as the National Security Adviser to replace the disgraced Michael Flynn is a smart move by the billionaire property and casino magnate who never served one day in military uniform for his country. General McMaster has the right stuff to head the National Security Council. He won't kowtow to anyone, least of all, I hope, Trump's man in the NSC, Steve Bannon. McMaster is a tough guy but also totally honourable in the old-fashioned sense of the word. He knows what's right and sticks by his values and principles. For example, he made sure when he was a commander in Iraq that all prisoners were properly and humanely treated. Maybe a small point, but I predict that McMaster, in his new role, will vociferously oppose any move by Trump to revert to using torture against suspected terrorist detainees. McMaster will want to have his own staff around him in the NSC and this could lead to trouble, particularly with Bannon, who has his own ideas about the sort of individuals he would prefer sitting in the NSC. When Flynn departed there were still about 60 appointments out of 230 unfilled, and that was partly because of reluctance among serving CIA intelligence officers and State Department officials to join the NSC under Trump/Bannon. If McMaster can bring in his own men and women, then there's a sporting chance he will survive longer than the three months some of his friends were giving him last night. McMaster has a superior brain, he's a former protege of General David Petraeus who has welcomed his appointment as national security adviser, and is a highly respected strategist. So well done, Trump, you've chosen the right man. I never thought I would say that.

Trump contradicted by his own men

It seems that whatever Trump says he wants, his minions push out a different line altogether. It's government by contradiction, not the easiest form of administration for the rest of us to follow with any degree of confidence. So, for example, Trump says Nato is obselete and he won't any longer jump to members' defence unless they boost military expenditure. Nato goes into freefall. The Baltic countries start thinking they're going to be abandoned if Russia invades them. Then along come James Mattis, defence secretary, and Mike Pence, vice-president, who claim the US remains solidly behind the alliance and that all is well. Mattis threw in a spanner about "you pay more or we do less". But, frankly, that's been the message from Washington from nearly all his predecessors. Bob Gates was always going on about other alliance countries needing to spend more on defence. So the president wants a Nato upheaval but Mattis and Pence do the reassuring bit.  Since coming into office, Trump has been sounding off about the dishonest media, and in his latest tirade called reporters the enemy of the United States, guilty of writing false stories about him. Up steps Mattis and says, no, the media are not the enemy of the US. He actually quite likes the media and is well used to dealing with the fabulous bunch of reporters who are members of the Pentagon press corps. I was a member for three years when I was Pentagon correspondent for The Times from 2010-2013, and can vouch for their professionalism, and patriotism. Then Mattis arrives in Baghdad and makes it absolutely clear that, despite what his president said, the US was not about to seize Iraq's oil. The general said the US always paid for its oil thank you very much. Relief for the Baghdad government. I wonder if Trump is getting a little peeved with Mattis. Watch out "Mad Dog". But the nation needs people like Mattis, distinguished old soldiers prepared to stand up to the nonsense spouted by the president most days of the week. But the contradictions do make you wonder whether there is ever going to be any form of unity in this new administration. Normally, whatever the president says he expects his underlings to follow in the same vein. Rejecting the views of the president, I would have thought, could be a fairly risky career move.

Sad about Petraeus

If it wasn't for that cataclysmic decision by General David Petraeus to give his biographer Paula Broadwell a pile of classified military documents (oops, he was also having an affair with her), this distinguished soldier could have been secretary of state, defence secretary or national security adviser. Now I don't know whether he would have wanted any of these appointments under the present president. But I'm pretty sure he would have seized the chance to serve his country once again in a high-profile role. He would have been a perfect balance in a team of Trump cabinet members and White House advisers, able to influence decision-making in a more sensible direction. I've met Petraeus on a number of occasions. He's a good man, very very bright and astute, quite quiet in a studious sort of way and a strategist par excellence. I don't know his politics for sure, but I reckon he's a Republican - big-time military types often are - and he could have been a brilliant member of Trump's team, providing for us lesser mortals, getting increasingly alarmed by the new president's wild ways, with a sense of hope. But his indiscretion put a black mark on his otherwise distinguished career, and for that, he has to pay for the rest of his life. It is a great great shame and a huge loss for the country and for the American people. But who knows, perhaps Trump will wake up and say, "let bygones by bygones, we need this man in the White House!" That would be one of the first sensible things considered by this president in a long time. Well, it seems a long time although it has only been four weeks.

Alice in Wonderland Part Two

It will go down in history as one of the most bizarre press conferences of all time, at least in Washington.  Donald Trump woke up, read the newspapers, watched the big broadcasters, and came down for breakfast determined to tell those dishonest reporters what the real world was all about. He was going to have his say, big time! There must have been timid souls around him desperate to say, Mr President please don't. It's not wise. Leave it to that nice Mr Spicer to rant and rave at the press. But I reckon having Trump in the White House is a bit like it was when Saddam Hussein was in charge in Baghdad. None of Saddam's advisers dared to advise him unless they were going to say what he wanted to hear. It's got to be the same with Trump. If he wants to do something he will do it. So he swept into the room filled with all the top dogs of the media and gave what can only be described as a vaudeville performance. There was no script, no direction, just solid lies lies lies. That may sound disrespectful, even rude, to a man who succeeded in winning over around 50 per cent of the American voting population and had entered the White House as the legally elected 45th president. But come on!! You only had to look at the faces of the journalists in front of him to see that everyone in the room was sharing the same astonishment at the sheer gall of the president. The White House running "like a fine-tuned machine"?!!! So, if that's true, everything written in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal has been made up, fabricated, FAKE NEWS? Yes, according to Trump, everything is going smoothly, and if it wasn't for those stupid judges who haven't a clue about national security, he would have had his travel ban on nine Muslim countries up and running, presumably like a fine-tuned machine. But I'm sorry, Trump is into fake news in a big way. What he said simply wasn't true. It was a bravura performance but most of his answers were as far away from the truth as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Off with his Head

The Alice in Wonderland situation in the White House continues apace. All Trump's men followed him down the rabbit hole but no one knew where it would lead to. Michael Flynn seemed to know where he was going but, oops, he slipped up and got marched off to oblivion for telling Big Lies. Off with his head, shouted Queen Trump! Almost as soon as former Lieutenant-General Flynn entered the White House he was on a slippery slope. The mere fact that he was only a three-star general and was coming up against former military comrades who were four stars - such as General James "Mad Dog" Mattis at the Pentagon and General John Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security - spelled trouble. There's nothing a four star likes less than being told what to do by a three star, espceially when that particular three star (Flynn) had been sacked from his last military job (director of the Defence Intelligence agency), and was considered by some to be as mad as the Mad Hatter.  Trump, not being a military man of any shape or form, having never been required to fight for his country, wouldn't have understood that. He appointed Flynn as his National Security Adiviser because he had been a loyal and trusted sidekick during his presidential election campaign. Flynn, remember, led the chorus to "jail Hillary Clinton" over her unwise use of a private email to conduct government business when she was Secretary of State. Trump is slowly getting the message that something called integrity is a key ingredient, or should be a key ingredient, when running the United States of America. The fathers of the Constitution took that as read, and all presidents vow to serve and protect the nation. Flynn was caught out. Before he had started his job in the White House he phoned up the Russian ambassador to Washington and had a  nice chat about the possibility of lifting the sanctions against Moscow which the then encumbent president, Barack Obama, had imposed on Russian individuals, and had just added to on the same day Flynn picked up the phone to Putin's chief representative in the US. Worse than that, he claimed he didn't raise sanctions, then he said he didn't remember raising the issue. Then, oh my goodness, someone must have told him that every word he had uttered had been picked up by those nice boys in the FBI who make a habit of tapping into every phone call involving the Russian ambassador and his fellow Ruskies serving in America. Quite surprising Flynn didn't realise that. It must have come as a shock when Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General, head of the US Justice Department, told the White House she had incontrovertible proof that Flynn DID mention sanctions. So off with his head and out he goes. Not much magic for him in the White House Alice in Wonderland world.

Come back Obama, Bush, Clinton, anyone!

Aren't you already fed up with Donald Trump? He's so full of himself, so sure he's right, so determined to upset everyone, so unaware of people's feelings, so intent on bullying the judiciary into authorising his scary policies. I'm fed up with his constant tweets, not even well written, often in capital letters, always the sign of a madman. Like everyone else, I want peace and love and humanity and generosity and magnanimity and kindness. Ok, that's not the way the world works unfortunately, but it's still true that if the leader of the free world, who happens to be the president of the United States, is even half a decent guy, or gel,  then the rest of us mortals feel a lot better and more hopeful for the future. Right now, there are no good feelings around. Trump wants to tear up the climate-change agreement, which would be a disaster for mankind, he has at least one person advising him (Stephen Bannon) who is already thinking ahead of war between the US and China, he hates the nuclear deal with Iran, but, seriously, what is the alternative, and he couldn't care a stuff about Europe.I don't want to see any more pictures of Trump doing his thumbs-up as he comes down the steps from Air Force One. Who's he doing thumbs up to? By all accounts Trump spends his evenings in the White House alone and watching cable television, no doubt shouting at CNN when he sees a news report he disagrees with or objects to. His wife stays at Trump Tower in New York. I don't blame her. Have we really got four years of Trumpism?

Trump in destructive mood

There's a brilliant commentary piece inThe Washington Post today, written by David Ignatius, a very well connected writer on national security issues which, among other things, says Trump is in a destructive mood, basically throwing everything out, everything that people had got used to for decades. The question he posed was, what does Trump want to build once he has destroyed everything around him? I don't think anyone knows, perhaps not even Trump. This is why for the next six to nine months the US, America's allies and America's enemies, are going to be in a state of confusion, anger, and outrage. Whatever my personal feelings about having a man like Trump in the White House, I am slowly coming to the view that perhaps it would be wrong to underestimate this extraordinary individual. That doesn't mean he's going to be a force for good, absolutely not. But it's possible he has a plan. In other words, it's not just government by impromptu tweeting. That's for the destruction period, to make sure his supporters stay on side and his opponents remain bewildered and in shock. Then, eventually he will emerge after the Establishment in Washington is on its knees, and produce his take-it-or-leave masterplan for the United States and for the rest of the world. If this is even remotely along the Trump line of thinking, it's not a comforting thought, but it is possibly an explanation for why he is acting the way he is at the moment. The danger, of course, is that Trump may only be capable of destruction. He may be so determined to undo everything achieved by his predecessors in the White House, so intent on breaking down the traditions and customs and morals of the country that he will never emerge as a president with a unifying vision. Right now, it's impossible to predict what is going to happen.

Is Trump clever enough to be president?

The brainpower of previous presidents of the United States has often been called into question. When Ronald Reagan became president there were a lot of people who scoffed at the idea of having a Hollywood B movie star in the White House, implying he wouldn't have the brains or the knowledge to run the free world. Well the scoffers were proved wrong, not because Reagan was an intellectual or that he had a degree in nuclear physics but because he was smart, focused, persuasive and, ultimately, likeable. George W Bush was always portrayed as a president with insufficient brains, so much so that British ministers and officials used to say in the manner only a Brit from Eton or Balliol could say: "Actually President Bush is really quite intelligent." All very patronising and condescending. There was nothing wrong with George W's brainpower, just some of the judgements he made during his eight years in office, notably invading Iraq. No one accused Bill Clinton of being stupid or thick. He was always smart but had other failings and weaknesses. Barack Obama came with all the right degrees and intellectual capabilities. His main weakness was his inability to make decisions in a hurry. He always wanted all the arguments and options in front of him and then be given weeks to make up his mind. So now we have Donald Trump. Is he intellectually gifted? No sign of it yet. Is he cleverer than anyone else, and therefore knows more about everything than any of his advisers? Well, clearly he believes he is. But based on his endless tweets, all of which seem to come off the top of his well-haired head, there is not much evidence of a superior brain at work. I don't mean to be rude or condescending, but just look at the facts, or even the alternative facts. What seems to be true is that Stephen Bannon, his chief strategist, does have a lot of brainpower and is supremely clever. But he is using his intellect to spray the White House with extreme right wing demagoguery, just as he did during the election campaign as Trump's manager. So he is the one to watch. Meanwhile, Trump can carry on tweeting to stay in the news and make the rest of the world nervous. He doesn't have to be clever. He's got Bannon at his side masterminding the show.

To Kill or Not to Kill

So what are Trump's real views about killing? State killing, that is. Without spending any time, presumably, thinking about the question of moral equivalence, Trump's reply after being asked on Fox News whether Putin was a "killer", was, "well what about the United States?" America was no innocent in the killing department, he suggested. Well, this argument will run and run, but let's look at the facts, something Trump doesn't like to do, unless it's alternative facts. Putin, it is alleged, has been behind the killing of  "opposition" figures, including outspoken journalists, and, of course, the most notorious of the lot, the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, the former officer in the FSB who fled from prosecution in his country, sought political asylum in Britain and ended up dead in November 2006 from radioactive polonium-10 poisoning. A British judge ruled that Putin was "probably" responsible. Now is there an equivalent to this assassination in the United States? Not that I can think of! People have said, hey what about the CIA trying to assassinate Fidel Castro with a poisoned cigar etc? Moral equivalence is a tricky one here. But there is an argument that might say, ok, that was a US-government-sanctioned attempt to kill another foreign leader but it was part of a strategy to rid the world of a Communist dictator, supported by the Kremlin, during the most dangerous part of the Cold War which potentially put the whole planet at risk of nuclear annihilation. Not quite the same as waking up one morning and saying to your heavies:"This swinehood journalist writing rubbish against me should be eliminated."
So what could be on Trump's mind? Well, then you have to think of all the extrajudicial armed drone attacks on suspected or known terrorists in Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen etc etc - deadly killings from 15,000ft. But again, there's no moral equivalence here. This is war on terrorism, something that threatens not just the US but the world. Does Trump think the drone war is the same as bumping off opposition folk in Russia? He didn't spell it out, and Fox didn't force him to spell it out. I don't suppose he could spell it out even if he was asked by Congress to do so.
I agree that few governments in the world are absolutely innocent. British Empire history is filled with appalling deeds. French special forces put bombs on board the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, in 1985 when it was anchored in Auckland, New Zealand prior to French nuclear testing, and sank it with the loss of one Greenpeace member. I could go on. But I still think Trump was wrong wrong wrong, and loose with his language, to praise Putin and to belittle his alleged executive kills by highlighting America's lack of innocence. What do you think?

Gallant Acts in War

In war, soldiers do extraordinary things, beyond human understanding. Having just seen the exceptional Mel Gibson Second World War film, Hacksaw Ridge, the abiding image is of Private Desmond Doss, played brilliantly by Andrew Garfield, carrying wounded comrades in a fireman's lift in the heat of a raging battle. The film portrays with awesome skill the sense of comradeship and sacrifice in war that can never be truly trained for. In war, amazing sacrifices and incredible acts of courage are performed by young men who discover, in the most terrifying circumstances, an instinct for valour. In Private Doss's case, the valour is all the more extraordinary because he was nearly kicked out of the US Army for cowardice and insubordination because he refused, for religious reasons, to carry, let alone fire, a rifle during his training. He was a conscientious objector who wanted to serve his country in battle, but as a combat medic who could save lives, rather than be an infantry soldier who killed the enemy. He saved the lives of 75 wounded comrades during a period of about 24 hours, for which he won the Medal of Honor.

That striking image of Private Doss struggling through the mist and fog of Hacksaw Ridge on the Japanese island of Okinawa reminded me of a similar image, never really publicised, of an incident in the Falklands War in 1982. I was then defence correspondent on the Daily Express, but covered the war from Whitehall. My noble colleague, Bob McGowan, a veteran reporter, was chosen to join the troops by ship en route to the South Atlantic, along with Tom Smith, a photographer. It was much later when Bob, now sadly no longer with us, had returned to London that he told me of an extraordinary act of gallantry by Tom Smith. The Express photographer had gone up one of the hills held by the Argentine troops, in the company of British soldiers, in order to photograph the imminent battle. When Bob next saw him, Tom was coming back down the hill, carrying a wounded soldier over his shoulder, just like Private Doss. I never learned why he felt the need to do this courageous act. The only explanation is that war generates hatred and fear, but also nobility and honour and comradeship.

I'm attaching a passage from my memoir, First with the News, not because I'm trying to prove my own courage in war but because it demonstrates how reporters assigned to cover wars find themselves in circumstances which will never be replicated back at home. I was then defence correspondent on The Times. See below:

"My most traumatic moment during my first trip to Bosnia in 1992 came on the road from the town of Tuzla, in the north of the country. Bob Stewart [Colonel Bob] was determined to get aid to Tuzla, which had been cut off by the fighting. Tuzla was a Muslim town but to reach it you had to drive through Serb-held territory. For months, the Serbs had refused to allow anything past their heavily-gunned checkpoints. Now they had relented, but the journey was going to be tense, potentially dangerous and, as everywhere in Bosnia, unpredictable. A bunch of reporters set off with the aid convoy and the Cheshire Regiment to try and reach Tuzla. I travelled in an armoured Land Rover with Mark Laity of the BBC. It was a great story, British soldiers relieving the starving town of Tuzla. When we all arrived, the first people to greet us were children. Kids in war zones are the most resilient. They kick footballs around houses shattered by rockets and artillery shells, and carry toy guns, shooting whoever comes near them. It’s the only world they know, and somehow they lead as normal a life as possible. Their faces lit up when the soldiers climbed out of their armoured vehicles and held out their hands. Not for food, but for basic gifts, especially pens and pencils, and notebooks. A pen for a child in Bosnia was like a packet of Marlboros for the checkpoint militias.

It had taken a long time to reach Tuzla, so I rushed off to find electricity to link up my Tandy. I found a socket in an abandoned warehouse but never really expected it to work. I plugged in my computer and attached it to a large fan-shaped satellite system. After a few agonising moments, I saw on the screen, ‘Welcome to News International’. It was a truly wondrous moment. I typed out my story and sent it.

By now it was late afternoon. Another golden rule in a war zone is not to travel at night, but to get back to base before the sun goes down. We all climbed into our vehicles and set off with a Spartan armoured vehicle ahead of us. Suddenly, a pick-up truck travelling fast towards us struck the side of the Spartan and the glancing blow lifted it right up into the air. It hurtled towards the Land Rover in which I was a passenger and then came crashing down onto the road, with a terrible sound of tearing metal. We all leapt out, reporters and soldiers. The sight before us was horrific. There were two men in the truck. The older one had had a leg torn off and blood was pouring from the wound. The younger one, who had been the passenger, had received a massive blow to the head and was also bleeding.

Kate Adie took charge. She called to a few of us to grab the man with the severed leg. She shouted, ‘Hold the leg up!’ The leg had been ripped off just below the knee and shards of bone were sticking up like stalagmites.

We carried him to a bench, holding up the remains of his leg. The second victim was clearly suffering from concussion and was wandering around looking dazed. Both men stank of alcohol, and when I checked their truck, I found a half-empty bottle of Slivovitz lying on the floor. In minutes, a makeshift ambulance arrived and took both injured men away. Carrying a man with a severed leg was a shocking experience, and yet all of us rallied round as if it was a natural occurrence. This was Bosnia."

Trump declaration

So President Trump is now doing what all his predecessors have done before him, declaring certain months for particular celebrations or campaigns. He wants February to be African American History Month. And so it shall be. But surely this tradition will give Trump the chance to convert it into something more advantageous to his style of leadership. Perhaps March could be National Twitter Month, April, Think About Torture Month, May, Building Wall Month, June, Support Stephen Bannon Month, July, Support Jared Kushner Month, August, Forget Obama Month, September, Rebuild Guantanamo Month, October, Smash Raqqa Month, November, I said forget Obama Month, December, Trump Month. The first two weeks of the Trump administration have been extraordinary. He must be getting cramp in his fingers with all the Executive Orders he has been signing. And then there are all the orders to the Pentagon to produce warlike plans within 30 days. Poor Mad Dog Mattis must be twitching with the stress of it all. A plan to destroy Isis in Raqqa, that's the big one. Trump is not impressed with Obama's slow crawl to the terrorists' caliphate capital. Look out for some serious bombing, although Mattis, four-star general though he was, is quite a cautious man. He doesn't want American bombers killing hundreds of civilians. Isis in Raqqa is embedded within the population, every family is a  human shield against the bombers which is why Central Command's daily dose of airstrikes continues to take out a bulldozer here, an oil well there, and a garden shed suspected of containing fertiliser somewhere else! Raqqa itself remains untouched, and the advance towards the capital by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces is so slow and tentative that it could take years to take down the Isis flag in the centre of the town. Trump has other ideas, or to put it another way, he wants Mattis to come up other ideas. Perhaps we'll have a Support Mattis Month.

Beware the Trump phone call

Who dares pick up the phone when Trump is calling! Poor old Malcolm Turnbull got an earful when Trump rang the Australian prime minister and basically said: "What's this rubbish refugee deal you did with Obama? Why the hell should I honour it? I'm Trump and by the way did you see my electoral college votes? Better than anyone in the history of the United States." Then slam goes the phone. Bye bye dingo-lover. Whose turn is it next? How about a call to Ayatollah Whatsit in Tehran. "Hey Ayatollah, you better get your Republican Guard in order or I'm going to start messing with you in a big way. Did you see my electoral college votes? I'm more popular than you could ever be. Oh and Ayatollah, if you so much as dare start working on a nuclear bomb again, you can kiss your ass goodbye, cos I'm going to be coming after you. My man Mike Flynn has already put you on notice. One false move and you'll be seeing B2s flying past your window." And then perhaps President Duterte in the Philippines. "Hey, man, good stuff with liquidating all those druggies. I'm on side. I told the Mexican president if he didn't sort out all the drug barons in his country I'll send the Marines in to annihilate them. What you think of that?" Quick call to Hollande: "Hey, Froggie, you couldn't run a business if it was just selling sweets. You're fired, or soon will be, hahaha."

"Mr President," interrupts one of his aides," the president of Luxembourg is on the line."
"Where the hell is that?" Trump asks.

Tests for Trump

It doesn't take long. Only in office for 12 days (though it seems like a lifetime), Trump is now facing some serious defence/security challenges as other countries look for advantages while the White House continues to focus on domestic issues. Here are the main tests in the wind:
*Iran: The ayatollahs thought it would be a timely moment to fire off a medium-range ballistic missile, blatantly breaching a UN resolution although some people, including Putin, try to say it's not a breach. Alternative facts Moscow-style perhaps! With a US-led naval exercise beginning in the Gulf, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is bound to be gearing up for some hostile confrontations with their speedy missile boats. All grist to the mill for Bibi Netanyahu who is desperate for Trump to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran, preferring to keep open the Israeli military option of bombing Iran's nukes plants to smithereens. Trump said he wouldn't allow US Navy commanders to back away from attacking Iranian missile boats if they dared to challenge American warships in the Gulf. So wait for some lively action in the famous waterway over the next few weeks. Until now, the US has just fired warning shots when challenged by the Iranian boats, but a direct hit would lead to mayhem and could undo all the John Kerry-led diplomacy that produced the infamous nuclear deal with the ayatollahs.
*Ukraine: Putin has started to stir up more trouble in eastern Ukraine, ordering his "irregular" heavy mob troops to launch offensives. The Kremlin boss clearly feels he has a more-attuned president in the White House who will dismiss this new prevarication as a regional matter irrelevant to America's national security interests. Trump will probably tell Chancellor Merkel to sort it out. Watch out for Putin. Ever eager to exploit weaknesses around the world, he could initiate some cyber attacks or even some "unofficial" military ventures in Lithuania or elsewhere in the Baltics to test Trump's action thresholds.
*China: at some point there's going to be a dangerously volatile moment in the South China Sea when Chinese ships approach one of the islands they illegally seized and started to convert into military bases. Trump seems keen to prevent China from any further island-building. One shot fired from either side and we could be in a navy and air battle with unpredictable consequences.
*Kosovo: this former Yugoslav province is looking shakier than ever. Recognised by the US and more than 100 other countries as an independent state since Milosevic's bullyboy Serb troops were forced out in 1999 in a Nato peacekeeping operation, all the old problems are coming back with a vengeance. Belgrade, backed by Russia, is stirring up trouble, wanting the province back under its wing. If Trump knows where Kosovo is, he's going to have to decide whether he wants to get more involved. Currently there are around 700 US soldiers serving in a peacekeeping role in Kosovo. What if there's a clash and an American soldier is killed?
*Terrorism: the Seal Team Six raid on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula at the weekend was pretty disastrous. The Seals had to be rescued when they came under fierce fire, and Marine Cobra helicopters and ground-attack aircraft were summoned to bomb the AQAP compound as the Seals were evacuated. Civilians, including a child,  were killed. Trump authorised the raid although it had been planned under Obama. But it will be a lesson for Trump: America's military might doesn't always mean instant success. AQAP are a deadly, well-armed, very determined terrorist organisation, presumably always on the alert for a US special forces ground raid.