The Trump factor in the UK December 12 general election

Having Donald Trump on his side is not necessarily going to help Boris Johnson stay in Downing Street as prime minister! All the talk about huge and beautiful trade deals between the UK and US after Brexit sounded fne until the president himself today cast serious doubt on anything like that happening. Either he has actually read the Boris Brexit deal in full or someone, probably on Fox News, has told him the deal means the UK can't do any trade deals with the US. This is effectively what Trump said on the UK's LBC radio station today (what a scoop for LBC by the way). The Brexit deal negotiated by Boris will "preclude" any trade bonanza with the US, Trump said. Well, thanks Trump, Boris will be muttering to himself. Bang goes one of the juicy morsels he was hoping to promulgate during the election campaign. But don't worry, Boris, Trump still thinks you are terrific and he loves you, especially because people are saying Boris and Trump are like-minded chaps, twins if you like. In a UK election, the name Trump is not going to win votes. It may do in the Nigel Farage Brexit party - he also took part in the LBC programme - but traditional Conservatives are probably as wary of Trump as anyone else. Trump described Jeremy Corbyn as probably a pleasant sort of guy but said he was bad for the country, not his sort of bloke at all. But that may play well for Corbyn because he can tell the voters that he, Corbyn, is his own man and is certainly no poodle to that fellow with the funny hair in the White House. Yes I reckon Corbyn is probably delighted by the LBC programme. Trump dismissed Boris's Brexit deal! Oh dear, poor Boris. Mind you, were Corbyn to win the election, he has promised to spend six months renegotiating Boris's Brexit deal and his version would no doubt make it even harder for the UK and US to enjoy big fat trade deals. But Corbyn won't care two hoots about that if he is sitting in Number 10 Downing Street. He will be so excited and astonished that he has made it that he will refuse to take Trump's congratulatory phone call. I fear that on day one of the election campaign, Boris has suffered a huge setback, thanks to Trump. The trouble is, Trump is probably right. Any Brexit deal is going to make it hard to negotiate with the US as an independent nation because the UK will still be tied to complex legal trade regulations for years while talks go on and on about a new trade relationship with the EU. It's going to be five years of uncertainty and economic misery. Unless Boris can lift the country out of this gloom over the next six weeks, he could well be replaced by Corbyn who looks vibrant and refreshed, and promising a new world. A world without Trump breathing down the UK's neck.

The name Vindman is echoing through the impeachment corridors

Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman is a brave man. He already proved his courage on the battlefield, winning medals for brave actions and a Purple Star for being wounded. But dressing up in his uniform and giving evidence to the House committee investigating allegations against Trump that could lead to his commander-in-chief's impeachment is a different kind of courage. Fo heaven's sake, the colonel works for the National Security Council. How on earth is he going to carry on with that job now that Trump knows what he thinks about that very dodgy phone call the president had with the new leader of Ukraine on July 10? Colonel Vindman wanted the committee to know that he was NOT the whistleblower who set off this whole Ukrainegate controversy but he did reveal he listened in, legitimately as the Ukraine expert in the National Security Council, to THAT phone call and was so disturbed he went off to seek the advice of a White House legal counsel. Trump must have been very angry when he heard that. What's this Vindman guy doing going off behind my back? Vindman must be having a very uncomfortable time back in his job today. I sympathise with him but surely he won't be long in the job. One thing Trump demands is total loyalty and he wanted all his advisers and officials to refuse to cooperate with the Democrats' "witch hunt". But poor Vindman was subpoenaed, so like the good citizen he is, he went along to do his duty. Vindman has now become a crucial component of the Democrats' case against Trump. Who else will give evidence from the National Security Council? Well, John Bolton, ex-national security adviser, of course! He knows a thing or two and no longer feels loyal to the president I assume. The Vindman and Bolton show. Could be devastating for Trump.

How the hunt for Isis leader Baghdadi matched the hunt for Osama bin Laden

MY TIMES ONINE PIECE YESTERDAY: The hunt for the leader of Islamic State relied on old-fashioned, on-the-ground spycraft that succeeded in finding Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by identifying couriers who were trusted to pass on messages to the jihadi’s followers. Tracking Baghdadi to his compound in Idlib province, northwest Syria, followed exactly the same covert routine used in the search for Osama bin Laden. In both cases it was CIA human intelligence (known as “humint”) that eventually paid dividends. The reliance by terror leaders on couriers proved their downfall. Bin Laden, killed by the US Navy Seal Team 6 in May 2011, and Baghdadi, who died from a suicide vest explosion when cornered by the US Army’s Delta Force, learnt early on that using satellite or mobile phones was potentially fatal. America’s National Security Agency (NSA) with its global signals intelligence satellites, linked to Britain’s GCHQ eavesdropping centres in Cheltenham and Cyprus, was on 24-hour alert to snatch electronic communications from Bin Laden and Baghdadi. The US also had a massed array of surveillance aircraft to try to pinpoint them. Each of these terror leaders made mistakes. Bin Laden used his satellite phone once when on the run in Afghanistan in 2001 and his location was pinpointed by a US satellite. But he escaped because it took too long for the US military to receive orders to target him. Likewise the Isis leader once risked revealing his identity by using his mobile phone when hiding in Mosul, northern Iraq. He made a brief call outside the city in November 2016, urging his followers to keep fighting. The call was picked up by a US electronic surveillance aircraft and the caller was swiftly identified but he, too, escaped before the strike aircraft arrived. The CIA in both cases was forced to turn to the intelligence game of recruiting agents close to al-Qaeda and Isis to try to track down the terrorist targets’ whereabouts. In each case the courier link became the key factor. The capture in the summer of one of the couriers used by Baghdadi, and information supplied by one of the Isis leader’s many wives, also seized around the same time, helped the CIA to work out a “pattern of life” that finally led to the discovery of the compound in Idlib province. Baghdadi’s apparent habit of wearing his suicide vest at all times, including at night, was the clearest indication that he was aware the Americans were catching up with him. The disappearance of one of his couriers and wives would have raised alarm bells. The wife of a senior Isis figure captured by Delta Force commandos in Syria in 2015 revealed that Baghdadi was more confident about his security in Iraq where he had hidden for years. But he took the risk of village-hopping across northern Syria before reaching the compound in Barisha in Idlib province close to the Turkish border. A picture of his quick-change routines was gradually built up by the CIA with the help of Kurdish and Iraqi intelligence agencies. As President Trump disclosed, his location was pinpointed on a number of occasions, but each time he had moved on to another village before settling in the compound in Barisha. The scene was set for the Delta Force attack. A similar scenario played out eight years earlier when the founder of al-Qaeda was located and killed. The CIA began its hunt for Bin Laden shortly after the 9/11 hijacked-plane terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The intelligence agency with a dedicated team started collecting information on key individuals linked to or providing help to the al-Qaeda leader. A courier with the operational pseudonym of Kunya was uncovered although it took several years before he was identified. The CIA with a network of agents tracked the named courier to a compound in the town of Abbottabad, about 35 miles north of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. It was 2010. The compound had extensive security features with high walls topped with barbed wire. There were no phone or internet connections and all rubbish was burnt, not collected, all adding to the conviction that the tall man spotted taking walks every day inside the compound without ever looking upwards was Bin Laden. It took ten years to hunt down and kill Bin Laden. It took five years to locate Baghdadi. In each case the courier loophole was the greatest weakness in their personal security arrangements.

What about the US and Syria now?

It is always difficult to keep up with the current president of the United States' policy on Syria. In his press conference yesterday announcing the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Donald Trump said it made no difference to his decision about pulling out troops from Syria. Syria is over, he said. Now leave it to the Russians and Turks and Syrians and whoever, but not Americans, he said. Well fine, but at this very moment a convoy of US armoured vehicles flying the American flag are crossing over from Iraq into northern Syria and heading for the oil wells which Trump has decided belong to the US and not to the Syrian government. Then there are the 300 or so US troops who have been held back somewhere in southern Syria just to be a presence. So a total number of troops of say, around 500-600 or perhaps even more. Is Syria over, Mr President? It doesn't look like it. He ridiculed the idea that the US military would still be serving in Syria in a 100 years. Yet at the same time he gets persuaded by the Pentagon to keep quite a lot of troops in Syria one way or another, having brilliantly come up with that crucial word "oil". It was like a light coming on in Trump's head. Yes, yes, we must preserve the oil. Why shouldn't we benefit after spending so many trillions of dollars on fighting wars we don't like or want? That seems to be his thinking. Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, who is right in the middle of the shall-we-shan't-we have troops in Syria conversation, would surely have emphasised the importance of stopping Isis from getting their hands on the oil wells again. I can't believe he and General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, would have recommended the US control the oil in order to bring in revenue for the US Treasury Department. But Trump clearly thought that would be a by-product of havng US troops defending the wells from Isis. The Russians have already accused Trump of oil "banditry". Anything Moscow says about banditry makes one laugh, with their sort of reputation for exactly that in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine. But it does make me slightly uncomfortable to say the least that Trump seems to think it's America's right to grab some of the Syrian oil. Especially when his overall policy is supposed to be to leave Syria to its own devices and bring all US troops home to their families. Anyway the convoy of troops is on the way and I can't see them returning to their families in time for Christmas. The Kurds who felt abandoned by the US threw potatoes and rocks at the armoured vehicles when they were leaving northern Syria for Western Iraq last week. They must be as confused as everyone else when they see the same armoured vehicles popping back again over the border heading for their new mission and presumably rejoining the Kurdish-led forces who have been guarding the oil wells from Isis until now. Perhaps the Kurdish people in the region will throw roses and forget-me-nots at the returning US convoy.

Donald Trump in full flow over the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

President Donald Trump was positively imperious when he announced the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during a raid on his compound in Syria by US special operations troops. When Barak Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, he did it in a quiet, albeit dramatic, way, with a statement about the historically important moment and the American military's brave involvement. For Trump, the death of al-Baghdadi provided him with a unique political opportunity to show that he was the US commander-in-chief and gave him a chance to boast of the brilliance of the US special operations team that chased al-Baghdadi down a tunnel under his compound until he blew himself up and three of his children he had dragged with him rather than be captured. Trump gave amazing detail and kept on repeating that the Isis leader had run down the tunnel screaming and crying and whimpering before he detonated his suicide belt which apparently he always wore at night. It was an incredibly riveting performance, superb television and a sort of impeach-me-if-you-dare address. All the credit of course should go to the Delta Force commandos who executed the mission, the CIA and other intelligence agencies who contributed vital clues to al-Baghdadi's whereabouts and the special operations helicopter crews who flew the troops to the Idlib compound in northwest Syria. But this was a political blast from the White House pulpit like nothing else in living memory. Trump had got rid of the most wanted terrorist on the planet. Obama had done pretty much the same thing with Osama bin Laden and he definitely benefited politically as a result. But Obama didn't swagger like Trump did. Trump positively swaggered, and, for good measure, to prove his infinite diplomatic skills, he thanked Russia and Syria and Turkey for their assistance. Amazing!! They were not involved in the operation in any way, but Trump and co had tipped off the Russians and Turks and Syrians that they were going to be engaging in an operation that would involve US aircraft flying low over where they had troops on the ground. Trump even said the Russians were told they would like whatever the US was about to do. Trump said Russia hated Isis as much as the US. Clearly the Russians who now have hundreds of troops in northern Syria had to be forewarned of the approach of eight Black Hawk helicopters and an escorting ground-attack aircraft and three surveillance drones. Otherwise the whole lot could have been shot down. But it was a high-risk move. The one thing Trump hates more than anything is leaks and there must have been a danger that this extraordinary tidbit of intelligence might be leaked by Moscow. But Putin is a cunning guy. As soon as he was told, he would have kept it a secret although, I suspect, with a quid pro quo, that well known phrase or saying!!! "When you announce whatever you are doing, make sure you thank Russia for its cooperation". Trump was totally triumphant in his address and sbsequent Q and A session and had no compunction about thanking the Russians. The Democrats with their impeachment hopes have just lost their cause. Trump killed al-Baghdadi and he made sure every voter in the land knows it.

Free press but not in the Trump government

Donald Trump has been ranting and raving against The New York Times and The Washington Post for so long it was hardly surprising that he has now ordered the whole of the federal government to cancel their online subscriptions to the two newspapers. Trump paticularly hates The Washington Post because it is owned by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon boss, who is a strong critic of the president. But it's tough for federal workers who rely on their individual department's subscriptions for these two papers to find out what the hell is going on in Washington and especially inside the White House. They will still be allowed to read The Wall Street Journal which is an excellent newspaper but very often the big political scoops seem to appear in The New York Times or The Washington Post. It's an extraordinary move by Trump hinting that he is so irritated by the leaks appearing in the papers that he wants them banned. As some US four-star general suggested today the subscription ban recalled the actions of Mussolini who hated newspapers and freedom of speech. Of course federal workers can still go out to their newsagent and buy a copy of either paper but will there also be a ban on bringing them into their place of work? "Excuse me Sir/Madam, can I check your bag to see if you have a copy of The New York Times or The Washington Post? I have orders to seize them and shred them." Trump must hope that everyone in government reads just the Washington Times wich is pretty pro-Donald or watches Fox News which he can rely on to get his views across. Being hated by Trump is not a good business objective. Bezos has had two blows to his business empire this week. First came the ban on The Washington Post subscription, then, under orders from the White House, the Pentagon gave a $10 billion contract to develop new digital computing technology at the defence department to Microsoft even though Amazon had been the favourite to win. That smacks of revenge, although I'm sure Microsoft will do a good job. But Trump could not face giving Amazon a juicy Pentagon contract while Bezos's paper is constantly criticising his presidency. I wonder how Bezos and The Washington Post will deal with these two blows. I suspect the sparks will fly. Bezos is not a brilliantly successful entrepeneur for nothing.

Yet another Trump reversal on Syria

First Donald Trump orders the Pentagon to withdraw all US troops from northeastern Syria. Then he says a couple of hundred or so will stick around to guard the Syrian oil fields in the region to stop a reemerging Isis from getting their hands on them to boost their funds, and now the White House has a new plan: to keep FIVE HUNDRED US troops, plus tanks and armoured vehicles, to protect the oil and presumably to stop anyone, including the Syrians, Iranians or Russians, from selling the oil. It's topsy-turvy decision-making. Are the Americans going to keep the oil and sell it on the open market? I'm all for stopping Isis from seizing back the oil wells, but these wells belong to Syria. Gross though the Syrian regime may be, the oil is theirs and, I assume, necessary for boosting the Syrian economy and helping to power electricity. Does the US have the right to grab this oil? But that's another issue. The point I'm trying to make is: what is Trump up to? Withrawing all troops and then keeping 500 of the 1,000 for oil well protection is bizarre to say the least. I'm sure the Pentagon and the CIA argued relentlessy for this outcome, fearful that Isis would come back and once again sell oil on the black market as they did before when they were running their caliphate. In fact, through middlemen, much of the oil actually got sold to the Syrian regime. As soon as oil was mentioned, Trump was persuaded. But how will this fit in with his desire to get the hell out of Syria and leave the mess to Turkey, Syria, Iran and the Russians? The 500 plus tanks and all the paraphernalia needed to sustain such a force in a hot desert area for, possibly, years, will be hugely expensive. They will have to be rotated every nine-to-twelve months which means another 500 back home have to start training and preparing. And so it goes on. What this back-and-forth decision-making shows is that there is no long-term, proper planning being carried out, and the Pentagon is in the middle in a total muddle. Mark Esper, US Defence Secretary, announced to the world that 300 or so of the troops leaving northeast Syria would set up home in western Iraq as a counter-Isis anti-terror force, only to be snubbed by his Iraqi counterpart in Baghdad who told him: "No you can't. I want all these troops out of Iraq within four weeks." How humiliating was that for Esper and for General Mark Milley, his new chairman of joint chiefs? Esper bizarrely explained that it had never been his plan to keep the 300 troops in western Iraq for an "interminable" length of time. But four weeks!!! I don't think that was what he had in mind. So where will they go? Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Qatar? No, what's the point? There are enough US troops in these places already, and anyway these are highly experienced anti-Isis special operations troops. There's no reason to have them sitting around in Kuwait or Qatar. So presumably they will go home. Humiliating and embarrassing for those poor guys. Unless, of course, they just turn around and go back into northeastern Syria to start guarding those oil wells. These elite Green Berets must be wondering what the hell is going on.

Do Republicans in Washington really want another four years of Trump?

Very few Republican voices speak out against Trump. First because they get instantly attacked on Twitter by the president. Second because they might be endangering their chances of getting reelected. Third because they don't have the courage to be a lone voice in the Republican establishment. And fourth because they are scared that any criticism of the president might help the Democrats to win the 2020 presidential election. So, four good reasons to stay quiet. Senator Lindsey Graham was highly critical of Trump's decision to withdraw US troops from northeast Syria and spoke harsh words in public. But strangely he reversed his criticism within 48 hours or so and decided, after all, that Trump had thought brilliantly out of the box and had devised a strategically sensible solution to the endless war in Syria. Wow that must have been a helluva phone call he got from the White House! With Graham back in the Trump fold, the only one speaking out critically against the president is Senator Mitt Romney, former presidential candidate. As a result he is having a hard time with the president who singles him out for personal attacks in his tweets. Romney who claims his future is behind him - ie he has no presidential ambitions - generally comes across as a common-sense politician who knows what he thinks is right and has the courage to say so when his views clash with those of the president. Romney is well respected in the Senate but other Republicans are getting uneasy about his public forays against Trump. The president is in enough trouble already with the Democratic Party impeachment inquiry, and Romney's fellow Senators and Representatives seem not to want the former presidential candidate to rock the boat further. They would rather Romney stayed quiet and leave the personal attacks against the president to the Democrats in the hope that they will damage the campaigns of their presidential election candidates when/if they fail in their impeachment attempts. I doubt Romney will keep quiet. He has nothing to lose, apart from the friendship of angry Republican colleagues, but, to be honest, he is voicing anxieties about Trump which a lot of Republican politicians must be feeling now. Does the Republican Party really really want another four years of Donald Trump? What would life be like with a second-term Trump? But the reality for the Republicans is this: however worried they are about Trump, his seemingly dodgy quid pro quo chats with the Ukrainian leader - no US military aid unless you dig dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter - his maverick decisions on foreign policy issues, especially Syria, and his war with the media and trade war with China, Republicans are never going to ditch their encumbent president. If they do, the Democrats will win in 2020. So, whether or not Romney continues to bash Trump, the Republican estabishment will stick with their president. If anyone is going to unseat Trump I suspect it will be from wthin the Trump administration. The State Department, for example, is now a disillusioned organisation, with officials leaving in droves. Several senior State officials are coming clean about Trump in evidence to the impeachment inquiry committees. Trump has denounced them as traitors, but these are honourable men and women who can no longer remain silent about what they have seen and heard. If impeachment is going to succeed it will be the testimony of these professionals which will play a major role in exposing allegations of executive wrongdoing.

Boris is blocked whichever way he turns

I am amazed Boris Johnson just doesn't give up. Whatever he says, whatever he tries, whichever way he turns, he is blocked and stymied and thwarted by MPs of different political persuasions who want to exploit the impasse over Brexit to their advantage. It's not democracy, it's anarchy. It's not the will of the people, it's the ill will of parliament. I'm a Remainer, I want the UK to stay in the EU, but I lost the 2016 referendum. More people said they wanted to leave than remain. Referenda are a disastrous way to run a democracy but the vote was a democratic process. So, as a democrat, albeit disappointed and somewhat despairing for this country's future, I have had to go along with that 2016 referendum result. And as a consequence I supported Theresa May and now Boris Johnson in their individual attempts to do what the voters wanted which is to leave the EU in an orderly fashion. There is no such thing as the perfect Brexit deal, especially with Northern Ireland as a key component. Compromise has to be involved, and having read as much analysis and factual reporting as possible over the last three years, it's obvious that there HAS to be a concession over Northern Ireland. There HAS to be some form of border control procedure whether it be in the Irish Sea or a large warehouse or whatever. But the rigid faces of the Democratic Unionist Party don't do concessions, they only do rigid obstruction. First they went along with Boris but now they are voting against him and are adamantly opposed to him because he dared to include in his Brexit deal a compromise in which Northern Ireland would be part of the UK customs union AND the EU customs union. For goodness sake, DUP, get real and acknowledge that if the UK is to leave the EU, Northern Ireland has to be given a special status unlike the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no other way around it. It's geography for God's sake. Unless you cut the island of Ireland in half and drift off into different parts of the Irish Sea, geography is going to dictate how everything will have to be run after the UK leaves the EU. They must see that but they refuse to see it. The only way round it was to accept the Theresa May deal which was to keep the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, in the EU customs union for a period until the future trade relationship with the EU has been signed and sealed. But her deal was rejected three times by parliament. Now, more than ever, I think the May deal was probably the best on offer for this country and better than Boris's complicated border checks by mirrors arrangement. But it's all too late. Parliament approved the Boris deal but while that might seem a victory it wasn't because MPs voted by a majority to throw out Boris's three-day timetable for a debate on the EU exit bill so they can introduce hundreds of amendments to the deal over a period of weeks/months. The amendments would destroy the Brexit deal, and would include having a second referendum which would be disastrously divisive for the whole country whichever way it went. Boris wants a general election to clear the whole thing up but, ridiculously, it's not in his gift to order an election. Under new parliamentary arrangements approved when there was a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats under the leadership of DAVID CAMERON (him again!), an election held before the statututory period of five years has passed HAS to be approved by MPs. Because Boris has a minus majority - ie no working majority at all - he can't dictate how anything goes and certainly can't order the Labour Party and other opposition parties to get ready for an election. The timing of an election is in THEIR hands, not his. Despite all this, Boris appears not to have given up. Does he have a few more cards up his sleeve? I can't imagine he does unless somehow under the constitution he can threaten to crash the UK out of the EU without a deal - Michael Gove, the crash-out minister, is spending more and more money on this very scenario - unless all MPs agree to an election in a few weeks' time. Whatever happens it now seems impossible for Boris to honour his pledge to remove the UK from the EU at midnight on October 31st. Failing to make that deadline will do him no good at all and could see the rise and rise of Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party.

First Syria, now is a US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan next?

The US military don't know what's hitting them. They have troops based all over the world, but their commander-in-chief keeps trying to bring them home. First it was Syria, with the vast majority of the 1,000 troops now heading out of northern Syria across the border into western Iraq, leaving 100-200 behind to fly the flag. Now military planners are having to look at the possibility of Trump getting fed up with the stalemate in Afghanistan and ordering home all the 12,000 troops left there. They have started to make contingency plans so as not to be caught short if Trump suddenly announces by tweet that the Afghanistan mission is over, finished, kaput. The US military are adamant that while the security conditions on the ground remain as they are it would be unsafe, unwise and pretty outrageous if Trump were to reduce the number of troops below the 8,600 figure which they regard as the barest minimum, never mind a zero figure. But knowing Trump's propensity for making sudden decisions, the US military are looking at how they could phase a total withdrawal over a lengthy timetable. General Scott Miller, the US commander in Afganistan, will I am sure advise in the strongest terms that Trump must not do a Syria and leave Afghanistan for other nations to worry about. A premature withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan would hand the Taliban a gift and bring turmoil to the country. It is perfectly understandable for the American president to say to himself, "What the hell are we doing still in Afghanistan after 18 years and more than one trillion dollars spent? It's not on our border so let's go." But I'm afraid this is what the United States has to do and her loyal allies who have been in Afghanistan just as long. The US-led coalition troops cannot leave until there is a firm and verified ceasefire and a political treaty/agreement with the Taliban. This is likely to take many more months. When and if it does get signed, then the US can bring home a majority of the troops with dignity. Look what is happening to the US troops in northern Syria. They are leaving the country in convoys and the local Kurds are throwing stones and potatoes at them in disgust. What a shameful way to end an extraordinarily courageous mission. Very very sad. I don't want to see the same thing happening in Afghanistan!

Democrats in US now struggling to anoint the best candidate to defeat Trump

There is no longer any common sense in politics. Anywhere in the world. In Britain Boris Johnson is fighting to get his Brexit deal approved and is facing monstrous obstacles in the way. But is the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn now riding high in people's minds as the next government-in-waiting? No, definitely not. Why? Because the Labour Party is in a total mess with disagreements between Corbyn and almost everyone else. If there was an election in the UK tomorrow, Corbyn would lose. It's the same story in the United States, only for different reasons. President Trump is facing impeachment, his foreign policy decisions have little if any merit, he makes up his mind in a flash, he is waging a trade war with China that sees no end, he removes US troops from Syria then seems to want to keep 100 or so in eastern Syria (what for exactly?), he sacks everyone who dares to disagree with him and thinks it was perfectly all right to arrange for the next G7 summit to be held at his fancy resort in Florida. By rights the Democrats should be feeling confident of ousting Trump in next year's presidential election and one of the candidates should already be measuring the curtains in the White House. But no, this is just not the case. The Democrats are in a muddle. They don't know who they really want as their presidential nominee. There is no one who has stepped forward with a shining light above his or her head.The polls are going mad, first it was Joe Biden all the way, leading by a comfortable margin, then he started to slip and Elizabeth Warren raced up behind him and overtook him in many of the primaries. But her financial policies are so complex it reminds you of Obama's Obamacare health reforms which are still reviled across the country. I still find it extraordinary that people who refuse to sign up to Obamacare have to pay an annual fine! Warren will slip down the polls, take my word for it. Biden is never going to make the nomination. Ukrainegate will get to him eventually because people the odious Rudy Giuliani will dig up enough dirt about him and his son Hunter to make voters think twice about supporting the Biden name for the presidency. So no Biden and no Warren. Who amongst the plethora of candidates is going to rise to the occasion? Who is honestly going to stop Trump from winning a second four-year term? The guy creeping up the polls at the moment is Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He has star-quality good looks, is young, and sounds articulate and inspirational. A natural you would have thought. But will he become the Democratic party establishment's favourite candidate? It seems doubtful although it would be terrific to see someone like Buttigieg taking on the ageing encumbent president. Kamala Harris I still like a lot but she is so low down in the ratings it's impossible to see her advancing much further. Likewise Tulsi Gabbard (what on earth was that "she's a Russian asset" allegation by Hillary Clinton all about?) and Amy Klobuchar and not popular enogh. That leaves dear old Bernie Sanders, now recovered from his heart attack and ploughing on like an ox with a heavy cart behind him. No, Bernie won't make it either. Thus the Democratic Party, like the Labour Party in UK, is all mixed up and suffering without a leader-in-waiting. Unless Buttigieg suddenly turns into everyone's dream candidate, there will be no one with exceptional qualifications and charisma to defeat Trump. Trump will thus win by default.

Can US troops fight Isis in Syria from Iraq?

It sounds like a move of desperation. Instead of bringing the 1,000 US special operations troops in Syria home - as Trump had demanded - Pentagon chiefs have come up with this idea of moving at least 700 of them from northeast Syria to Western Iraq from where they can keep an eye on Isis and mount commando raids when required. I really don't see how this is going to work. For a start, the American troops won't have their faithful Kurdish militia fighters to serve alongside as they did during the successful campaign to destroy the Isis caliphate. And if the 700 to be sent to western Iraq do pop back over the border to launch a raid against an Isis hideout, for example, how will they do this without interfering with or colliding with Turkish/Syrian/Russian troops who are now milling around all over the place in northern Syria? I can foresee dangers here of serious confliction. In the air, the US and Russia have for a long time shared a deconfliction regime over Syria under which either side about to launch an airstrike informs the other to make sure there is no miscalculation. Amazingly it has worked pretty well and the American and Russian bomber pilots have never came to blows in midair. But on the ground it would be more difficult if the US troops are based in western Iraq and come over the border for an operation. Will they have to warn the Syrians and Turks and Russians of any impending raid? That could prove disastrous. In the shifting alliances in northeastern Syria who could be trusted with such knowledge. But if the US commandos are prevented from crossing the border what is the point of having them in western Iraq at all. They are certainly not needed to support the Iraqi forces. There are already 5,000 US troops in Iraq engaged in anti-Isis operations and supporting the Iraqi government. The 700 commandos would be expected to collect intelligence of Isis movements across in Syria and then decide what to do about it. But it's going to be a major challenge. The only positive thing is that these hugely experienced commandos could watch the border for signs of Isis fighters travelling from Iraq to Syria but they are not going to get a free pass to hop over into Syria whenever they want. I doubt the Syrian regime will sanction this, the Russians think they are now in charge and even the Turks won't want US troops getting in the way. I expect it won't be long before Trump asks Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, why the hell the 1,000 troops in Syria are not boarding planes to come home.

Will the Russians, Syrians and Turks fight Isis?

All the American troos in Syria are now so far away from their former patch in the north east that there's little they can do anymore about Isis on the ground. This is crucial because for all the US intelligence apparatus in the air, there is no substitute for intelligence gleaned from close quarters in the battlefield on the ground. The US special operations troops - Green Berets and others - had developed such close working relationships with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that a mass of intelligence was gathered every day about Isis, where they were, what they were doing, who their commanders were, what they might do next. This togetherness was a vital ingredient in the defeat of Isis. Now the US special operations troops are sitting twiddling their thumbs further south and the Kurds of the SDF are being ordered to abandon their bases and remove themselves out of the war zone. So now Isis have lost their main opponents. OK, the US can still fly bombing missions and drone strikes but targeting will be so much more difficult because the northeastern area of Syria is filling up with Turkish, Syrian regime and Russian troops. They have taken over. But will they be as devoted to destroying what's left of Isis as the Americans? Somehow I doubt it. Will they guard the prisons containing thousands of Isis fighters and make sure none of them escape, ever? Well they better, otherwise the whole campaign to destroy Isis will be turned upside down. What an appalling prospect. I don't think Isis will be able to revive their caliphate. Those days are over. But without unrelenting pressure on them, they will revive, they will reemerge. To think that we are now dependent on Russians and Vladimir Putin to be our anti-Isis-in-chief fills me with dread. The Turks will be too busy hunting down Kurds and the Syrian regime forces will be under orders from Bashar Assad to grab back as much lost territory as possible. In between all these different priorities for the big players, Isis will do their damnedest to exploit weaknesses and mistakes. It's kind of scary.

General Jim Mattis honoured by Trump hoho!

Ever since he resigned as US defence secretary, General Jim Mattis has had to put up with caustic comments from Donald Trump. Not a very good general, Trump said. Bad advice on Afghanistan. He, Trump, knew better. Now the comments have turned even nastier. When Mattis's name came up in discussions on Syria with Congress leaders in the White House this week, Trump interrupted and calmly said: "Mattis is the world's most overrated general." Apparently his remark brought astonished expressions on the faces of those present. Mattis is still a god as far as Congress is concerned, and once upon a long time ago Trump, too, thought he was pretty special. But now the very name Mattis makes Trump boil because this retired four-star Marine Corps general dared to disagree with him on a host of key foreign policy issues, notably Syria and Afghanistan. And then he dramatically resigned. Alhough Trump claimed he sacked him. Mattis is not one to attack his former commander-in-chief. He has been discreet and cautious. But of course he keeps on getting invitations to events, such as dinners and conferences and TV interviews and inevitably Trump comes up. By chance or good fortune Mattis, all dressed up in white tie and tails was giving an address at a charity dinner in New York the day after Trump's remark in the White House and clearly felt he needed to respond. He did so brilliantly and with humour. He said, with a smile on his face, that he was honoured by Trump's remark because the president had also once called Meryl Streep an overrated actress. "I guess that makes me the Meryl Streep of generals," he said. Hoho. I doubt Trump appreciated his remark but clearly the once-good relationship between Trump and Mattis is so over it doesn't matter. Mattis and Meryl Streep should get together for a drink to swap notes.

Trump gives a bollocking to Erdogan

We have got used to Donald Trump’s politics and diplomacy by abuse. But abusing an ally, a crucial ally at that, seems to be a new departure for the president of the United States. He wrote a letter with his splendid flamboyant signature to President Erdogan of Turkey and warned him not to try to be a “tough guy” and to stop being a “fool”. While the letter was intended to make the Turkish leader think again about having his troops advancing all over northern Syria, the effect of the president-to-president message achieved exactly the opposite result. According to the BBC Erdogan took one glance at the letter and threw it in the bin. Just when Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, and Mike Pence, vice-president, were in Ankara to discuss the whole Syria issue, using presumably more diplomatic language. Erdogan is no fool even if Trump thinks he is. So spelling it out like that in a letter was bound to rouse the Turkish leader. His response was unequivocal. He had planned to sort out the Kurds in northern Syria for years and now that he was actually doing it he wasn’t going to change his mind or slow it down and certainly not stop it, especially after Trump had ridiculed him and cast doubt on his wisdom and masculinity by telling him to stop making like a tough guy. So the offensive/incursion/invasion will contine although Erdogan DID agree to suspend the fighting for five days while all Kurdish troops were withdrawn from the areas they have so bravely liberated of Isis militia. That sounds like an organised ethnic cleansing of Kurds, agreed between Ankara and Washington. As for the letter in the bin, I advise Erdogan to retrieve it and put it in his files for his memoirs. Trump’s most famous abuse of course, before he fell in love with him, was thrown at Kim Jong-un. He called him the little Rocket Man which I’m sure made the North Korean leader’s blood boil. It’s a source of amazement to me that the two men are still talking. Well, writing letters to each other Trump has never been slow in using colourful language when addressing his political opponents back home. In his latest session with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, he told her she was a third-rate politician. No wonder she walked out in a huff. Abusive language I guess has its place in the political world although showing respect even to one’s opponents can surely do no harm. But this is not Trump’s way. He says what he feels and he says or tweets what comes into his head. It has to be remembered that, reportedly, Rex Tillerson, long gone secretary of state, once referred to Trump as a moron. But not to his face of course.

Relations between the US and Turkey must not be irreparably damaged?

Turkey has refused to stop its military incursion into northern Syria until it has achieved what it set out to do which is to forge a 20-mile-deep security zone across the border from Turkey. That could take weeks if the Turks come up against either Syrian government or Russian troops. So the rhetoric between Washington and Ankara is going to get worse in the meantime. Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, and Mike Pence, vice-president, are currently in Ankara to see President Erdogan but if the Turkish leader thinks Trump gave him the green light to invade northern Syria he's hardly going to back down when confronted by Pompeo and Pence. There are grave dangers here. The US and Nato as a whole cannot have one of their strongest allies becoming hostile towards the alliance. OK, you might ask, would Turkey have invaded northern Syria with or without the green light from Trump? Yes, definitely. This was the reason for the phone call on October 6, for Erdogan to warn Trump that his long-planned incursion was about to be launched and if he wanted to get US troops out of harm's way, they should be withdrawn straightaway. That's why Trump made his statement about withdrawing US troops, thus effectively abandoning the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to the invading Turks. I feel desperately sorry for the Kurds and am not remotely surprised that Putin has jumped in to take advantage and to deploy Russian troops to the border to complicate Erdogan's strategic decisions. But I say again when this is all worked out and resolved, somehow Turkey must still be a valuable part of the Nato alliance. Otherwise Putin will win all round. He has cleverly exploited the Trump-ordered withdrawal of US troops and thereby improved his influence in Syria, AND if there is a serious rupture between Turkey and the US and the rest of the alliance, he will have achieved what he has always wanted, a disunited Nato alliance. And to think that he was handed all this on a plate by the president of the United States!

Pentagon chief goes totally undiplomatic against Turkey

US Defence Secretary Mark Esper, still fairly new in the job, dropped all pretence of being diplomatic towards one of America's strongest Nato allies and went for Turkey in a big way in a statement last night. I assume he did so under strict instructions from the White House. I cannot believe he came up with this sort of verbal attack on his own, no offence meant. Normally when the US or anyone else in Nato faces trouble with an alliance member the language is carefully couched, underlining the importance of the particular country but appealing for common sense or whatever it might be. But in his statement, Esper accused Turkey of "irresponsible actions" by advancing across the border into northern Syria. He said it put at risk the anti-Isis campaign, let loose dangerous Isis prisoners, placed American forces in the northeast in danger and opened the door to a wider conflict. He also accused Turkey (for Turkey read President Erdogan) of "unnecessary and impulsive action". And as if that wasn't enough angry verbiage, Esper went on: "President Erdogan bears full responsibility for its consequences, to include a potential Isis resurgence, possible war crimes and a growing humanitarian crisis. The bilateral relationship between our two countries has also been damaged." Wow! I can't think of any former US defence secretary sounding off like that against a Nato ally. There was all that trouble over Erdogan buying Russia's SS-400 anti-missile defence system instead of America's updated Patriot defence system and the quid pro quo refusal by Trump to sell Turkey any more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, but the language was far more cautious, not nearly as belligerent as Esper's statement. It all goes back to the phone call Erdogan had with Trump. Did Trump say to him: "Don't you dare invade northern Syria because if you do, the full wrath of the whole Nato alliance will come down on you." No, I don't think so. Did Trump say, "And by the way if you kill even one Kurdish fighter who have been so loyal to all of us in the anti-Isis campaign, I will destroy Turkey's economy." No, definitely not, not then anyway. Did he say, "Ok, we understand your concern about the Kurdish terrorist threat to your country, so do whatever you have to do but do it quickly and don't go mad." Maybe he did. And then he must have said, "If you are going to come over the border I'm going to announce the withdrawal of our boys from that region." That, says everyone, was the green light Erdogan took from the phone call. But there is no mention of that in the Esper statement. Well there wouldn't be because Trump is trying to make everyone forget what he actually told Erdogan. So Esper was given his script and suddenly the US is denouncing Turkey in an unrpecedented way and the Pentagon is ordering the withdrawal to safety of all 1,000 US special operations troops from northern Syria. Now no one is Turkey's friend and the Russians, determined to play a role, have calmly announced that they will not let Turkey and Syria go to war following the Syrian army's moved up to the border. No one knows what that means. All this after one phone call between two leaders. It's a diplomatic and military disaster on all fronts.

The Syrian army is back in the news

So the Syrian army is back in the news. For months the Syrian story has been solely about Kurdish troops and the US involvement and now also the Turkish incursion. What one might ask have Bashar Assad's forces been doing all this time? The civil war which was supposed to oust Assad from power is effectively over. Much of the ground occupied by anti-Assad militia has been recovered. Isis in the north and north-east has been routed. Assad himself has been very quiet, perhaps happy for everyone else to do his dirty work. But now after this extraordinary and opportunistic deal between the Syrian army and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, trained and funded and weaponised by the US, Assad's troops have joined forces with the Kurds to hold back the Turks from crossing the border. It's a clever move by the SDF although they had little choice. With the US out of the picture who else could they turn to? I would love to know who attended the meeting that led to this anti-Turk arrangement. The Russians must have been there. The Iranians too would have been represented. Trump must have realised this would happen once he ordered the Pentagon to withdraw all the US troops to a safe area well away from the northern border. I suspect Trump doesn't care. In his head he will be thinking, what the hell were we doing in Syria in the first place? Ok, fighting Isis but did Isis threaten the United States? Trump must have hated Obama for getting the US involved in Syria. What was it he called it? Ridiculous wars. So with no Americans around to get in the way, Assad has reasserted himself. He's the boss again. He sends his army to drive the Turks back. This is the leader, remember, whom the West wanted to overthrow and replace with a nice western-loving democratically-elected president. Well, Assad and his army are back!

Could Isis caliphate dreams in Syria reemerge?

Since his resignation as US defence secretary, Jim Mattis has made a few forays into the public limelight, written a book but has generally stayed out of the political muckraking going on in Washington. But in his latest appearance on US TV the former four-star Marine Corps general has made a comment which chilled me to the bones. He warned that the Trump administration's policy of pulling American special operations troops back from northern Syria would inevitably lead to the rise-again of Isis. He is not the only one warning of this possibility but if General Mattis says it I have to believe it is probably true. After all those years of tempestuous fighting in which Isis was effectively crushed and driven from their occupied territory, it would be the gravest and historically most shameful outcome if decisions by the Trump administration allowed Isis to return. They have never gone away of course, there are still thousands of them with their hateful ideology around the world, and at least 11,000 in prisons in northern Syria. But the attritional warfare waged against Isis by the Kurdish-majority Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) backed by massive airpower and artillery power and special forces support from the US and dozens of other members of the anti-Isis coalition including the UK (the SAS have been at the heart of the battles) DID defeat Isis. They were scourged from the towns and cities they had occupied. Now the Isis leaders who are left must be looking to exploit the new chaos in northern Syria. Chaos is what they love, what all terrorists and insurgents love. Anarchy is eminently exploitable. Especially for the Isis fighters who are currently holed up in several prisons guarded by the SDF. The SDF are now turning their backs on Isis and confronting the Turkish troops who are trying to seize the towns which they had controlled ever since liberating them from their Isis occupiers. With the number of SDF guards around to keep the Isis prisoners in their jails dwindling by the day, there is a danger there could be a mass breakout. Then General Mattis's warning of a resurgence of Isis could really come to pass. This is a frightening prospect and I sincerely hope that the new chairman of the US Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, is warning Trump over and over again of the dangers of pulling all US troops out of Syria. If all the US troops leave - the 1,000 there are still working with the SDF - the SDF will give up their role as guardians of Isis prisoners. Trump has told Turkey that it will have to take over the role if President Erdogan succeeds in setting up his 30-kilometre-deep security zone in northern Syria. But Turkey has gone into northern Syria to keep Kurdish militias further back from the border, not to guard prisons holding thousands of Isis fighters. I fear Isis is waiting for that moment when it will relaunch its terror campaign.

Trump sends more troops to the Middle East!!!

Donald Trump has said it so many times that the whole world now knows that he doesn't want US troops in the Middle East anymore doing other people's work. He wants them at home, presumably with their families and getting lots of rest and going to the supermarket like everyone else. And he definitely does not want the US to be a world police force anymore. So that's clear. But heyho last night Mark Esper, the very solemn-looking US defence (defense, for my American friends) secretary, announces that he is sending another 2,000 troops to Saudi Arabia, bringing the total to 3,000 in a matter of months, plus two fighter squadrons, more Patriot anit-missile batteries and the formidable THAAD anti-ballistic missile system. More reinforcements to protect Saudi Arabia from possible future Iranian aggression. Poor Trump. He just can't get what he wants because events get in the way. As Harold Macmillan, the very Etonian Conservative prime minister of Great Britain said many many moons ago (PM from 1957-63), what brought him the greatest problem as leader was "events, dear boy, events". Trump cannot escape events. So even while he is plotting to remove all 1,000 US troops from Syria, he is giving his authority to Esper to send big reinforcements to Saudi Arabia which the last time I looked is in the Middle East. We know of course that the US - and the UK - will do almost anything the Saudis want and the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, wanted more protection from the Iranians. So off goes a shopping list from General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, to the Pentagon, and as the new Turkey versus Kurds war erupts in northern Syria, Esper stands up to make his Saudi announcement. Trump is always going to be thwarted in his desire to withdraw US troops from everywhere because, quite frankly, they are needed. They are still needed in Syria, not just to serve alongside the Kurdish-led anti-Isis Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) further south but also to stop Russia and Iran from massively increasing their influence in Syria. They are needed in Saudi Arabia because of Iran, they are needed throughout the Gulf region because of Iran etc etc. Nostradamus said the third world war would start in the Middle East, so America needs to do its stuff as the world's only superpower to prevent a mighty clash in this region of the world. The US HAS to play a role, a big role in the Middle East. Mark Esper knows that. So too does General Mark Milley, the new chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who, judging by his first press briefing alongside the defence secretary yesterday, is going to be a really tough no-nonsense cookie which is good news.

The abandonment of the Kurds in Syria will be a stain for ever

Gradually the military are speaking out. Former commander of US Central Command, General Joseph Votel, has condemned the abandonment by the US of the Kurds in northern Syria. Other former special operations commandos have given anonymous interviews saying how appalling the decision was to leave the Kurdish militia fighters to their fate. OK so there were only 60 or so US special operations troops serving in the part of northern Syria where Turkish forces were about to invade. But these 60 Americans were the sole reason why President Erdogan hesitated before ordering his army to cross the border. He didn't want American soldiers in harm's way. So I assume he asked Trump to withdraw these 60 commandos and Trump said ok. Thus the way was cleared for the occupation by the Turkish army, and Kurdish fighters, just a week ago regarded as loyal comrades of the US, were left to fight the Turks. Many have been killed already. History will condemn this president-to-president deal. But Trump's attitude is simple: he no longer wants US troops to be involved in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East, and he seems less than interested in the fate of the ex-Kurdish allies despite calling them wonderful fighters. Perhaps one of his more bizarre comments was to make the point that Kurds didn't fight alongside American troops in the invasion of Normandy in the Second World War. Why on earth did that idea come into his head? I can imagine that every American soldier still serving in Syria will be seething that their commander-in-chief ordered them to abandon their Kurdish partners. As the casualties mount up and the number of people fleeing the fighting rises rapidly, what will Trump do next? Will he, can he, turn against Turkey despite giving Erdogan the green light to advance into northern Syria? No. He made the decision to allow the Turkish president to launch his long-planned-for operation and he can hardly then dictate where the Turkish soldiers should go and how they should conduct themselves. Let alone impose economic sanctions on Turkey. You made the decision, Mr President, and it's no good backtracking now that the killing has started.

Did Trump consult with anyone before he made his Syria announcement?

President Obama agonised for ages over whether to arm the Syrian rebels. He sought the advice from everyone. But even when his secretary state, Hillary Clinton, his defence secretary, Leon Panetta, and CIA director David Petraeus gave their support, he still couldn't make up his mind whether it was the right thing to do. He did eventually. Donald Trump on the other hand seems to make decisions just like that. A phone call from a foreign leader and he says ok. This appears to be what happened when President Erdogan of Turkey rang him up to say he wanted to invade northern Syria. We don't know the exact wording of the conversation because no whistleblower has yet put out a transcript or made a complaint about the contents of the chat. The result, however, was that Trump announced the pull-back of US troops from northern Syria and what was interpreted by the Washington media as a green light for Turkey to launch its long-threatened incursion into northern Syria to create a buffer zone clear of Kurdish militia. The question is, did Trump have long sessions with the likes of Mike Pompeo, Mark Esper, defence secretary, General Mark Milley, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his whole National Security Council team? It doesn't look like it although the Pentagon put out a statement a few days ago in which it dismissed reports that Esper and Milley had been sidetracked. Both the defence secretary and the chairman had been consulted, the Pentagon's chief spokesman said. But consulted in what way? Did the president ask their advice about the appropriateness of letting Turkey invade northern Syria? Did he ask what this might mean for the American military strategy in Syria or did he just say, ok, guys,this is what I'm going to do, you better tell your lot to get the hell out of there. And what did Pompeo say about it, and the new national security adviser, Robert O'Brien who knows a thing or two about hostage-taking but not, I guess, a huge amount about military strategy? Did they all say no no no Mr President. And why didn't Trump seek the advice of his Republican friends, such as Senator Lindsey Graham who was clearly given no advance notice because he was furious when he read Trump's tweets. Well, there's the reason Trump didn't ring Graham before he spoke to Erdogan. He knew Graham would shout at him and tell him not to give Erdogan carte blanche to send his troops over the border. So he left him off the consultation list. I would love to know what Esper and Chairman Milley advised. Milley generally says what he thinks and would not have been slow in giving his views. The statement from the Pentagon was very carefully worded, giving the impression that the Defence Department and the White House were on exactly the same page. When the leaks start we will see who is telling the truth.

Is Trump omniscient?

"In my great and unmatched wisdom". That phrase has been worrying me all day. These words appeared in one of Donald Trump's many tweets yesterday when he was seemingly changing his mind about allowing the Turkish army to invade northern Syria and kill off all the wonderful Kurdish US allies who helped defeat Isis. The president of the United States of America believes he and he alone has unrivalled wisdom. That's worrying for a start. But much more alarming is that the president of the United States of America, a country I loved living and working in for three years, felt it was perfectly all right to announce to the world that he was blessed with unmatched wisdom. That's bizarre, creepy, kind of I-am-a-deity-sort-of-person, matching the language of Kim Jong-un or his late father and grandfather or Mao Tse Tung. Is Trump a deity, like the king of Thailand? Well, I really don't think so. Omniscience is supposed to belong to whichever God you might believe in. But Trump is so convinced of his total wisdom that he wants everyone to know it. I'm perfectly prepared to consider some people on this Earth are born with a special kind of wisdom. Sometimes it's a child or a philosopher or a man or woman of the church. But I'm afraid, Mr President, I cannot in all fairness put you in that category of specialness. Moreover, making such a claim in a tweet read by millions of people invites, not admiration, but ridicule and laughter. How can you treat seriously someone who believes he is so wise that any decision he makes has to be right. Where is the wisdom in the present Syria debacle? First he announces that US troops are to be withdrawn from northern Syria to allow the Turkish army to come in and set up a secure area. In other words snatch a piece of Syrian territory to make Turkey bigger and less full of Kurds. Then, after an uproar from pretty well every adviser who pointed out this decision was madness and a betrayal of the Kurds of the Syrian Democratic Forces who fought so valiantly aainst Isis, Trump tweeted a whole lot of nonsense about how he would obliterate the Turkish economy with sanctions if the Turkish troops over-exploited the withdrawal of US soldiers. What sort of wisdom is that? Now no one knows, least of all the poor Kurds and the Turkish army lining up on the Syrian border, what the hell is going to happen next. Is that a wise position to be in if you are the president of the United States of America, allegedy the most powerful man on Earth? As every lawyer likes to say by way of summing up a legal argument, "I rest my case".

America's Kurdish allies in Syria are being abandoned

The last time Trump ordered all US troops to leave northern Syria and come home there was such an outcry from some of his strongest supporters and such cries of betrayal from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the largely Kurdish militia trained and funded by the US to fight and defeat Isis, that the president was persuaded to change his mind. But no one thought that would be for ever. Basically Trump has been desperate to get the troops home for more than a year. His view is, Isis has been defeated, the caliphate is destroyed, so what on earth are several hundred special operation troops doing still in the region? Now he has done it again. But this time there is a more sinister game. After a phone call from President Erdogan of Turkey, Trump agreed to leave the north of Syria to the Turkish army and let them invade the country to set up a huge secure border area free of Kurds, all of whom Ankara condemns as terrorists, part of the same family as the PKK who have been fighting for independence in Turkey for as long as one can remember. So Erdogan has been given a free pass to send thousands of troops into northern Syria to kill Kurds, the very same fighters who fought loyally for the US to drive Isis into extinction. Thank you Mr Trump, nothing like a bit of loyalty returned. Trump sees a bigger picture. Keeping Turkey on side is crucial in the strategic aim of preventing Ankara from turning more and more to Russia. Erdogan has already bought Russian SS-400 missile defences, screwing up its purchase of US F-35 joint strike fighters. So Trump wanted to do Erdogan a favour and told him he could do what he wanted in northern Syria but to wait until all US troops had left the area. Kurds? What Kurds? It's one of the most cynical acts by one of the most cynical US administrations. Will Mark Esper, newish US defence secretary, resign in protest? Only a few days ago he was lauding the joint US/Turkish patrols going on in northern Syria. Those patrols will now come to an abrupt end. Even Senator Lindsey Graham, the staunch Republican supporter of Trump, has expressed shock and dismay and has urged the retention of US troops in northern Syria. But this time I doubt Trump will be persuaded. He thinks the whole exercise is ridiculous and is more than happy to leave Syria to everyone or anyone else. And there is one extra ingredient in this betrayal which he is happy about. When the Turkish army pours over the border, its troops will have to take over control of the prisons holding about 12,000 Isis prisoners, 4,000 of them foreigners. The SDF had until now been in charge and had threatened to release them unless other countries took over. So now it will be the Turks. That's the deal. That suits Trump and now he can cross Syria off his list of things to do. The SDF has been betrayed and many of its fighters will now die in yet another war in Syria.

Bye bye EU, says Boris, we're out of here in 25 days.

Unless the UK and EU really are playing high-stakes poker and there will be a true winner at the end of the Brexit drama, both sides are going to lose. There is no deal in the making. Or to put it another way, there is a no-deal in the making. It is impossible to believe that the EU leaders and negotiators will suddenly decide that some form of border checks, whether in a warehouse or on a boat or up a tree will be ok for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It's such a red line for them that they will NEVER agree. They will only sign up to a deal with Boris Johnson if he deletes all reference to checks on the island of Ireland. And Boris can't do that, otherwise it means Northern Ireland will remain in the EU and the rest of the UK will be outside it. So there can't be a deal by October 19 or 20 or 30 or 31. So then the UK leaves without any deal of any kind and the first thing that will happen is there will have to be checks on trade in the island of Ireland!!! Boris says there won't be border checks as such but there will have to be exactly the same sort of checks that are currently in the Boris proposal because the UK as a whole will no longer be part of the EU. Doesn't everyone in this farce realise that? It seems not because the EU negotiators are continuing to say the same thing over and over again. No to border checks, no to border checks, no to border checks. Why? Because it will undermine the Good Friday Agreement, bring back terrorism and be totally contrary to the great EU founding philosophy or no borders. Really!! Terrorism which by the way hasn't gone anyway, will engulf the island once again if there is no deal!!! Really? I doubt it or I sincerely hope I can doubt it. So, after listening to Michel Barnier and others today, I no longer believe that the EU is playing the greatest brinkmanship game in history, and that at three minutes to midnight on October 30, the EU leaders will say ok ok ok you win, we'll sign the bl...y deal. Why would they accept defeat? They can't accept defeat. So, as Boris put it today, we're packing our bags and preparing to leave. Pathetically, both sides are blaming each other for the failure to reach a deal. But we the simple voters know who is to blame. The whole bl...dy shower on each side of the English Channel. Well, David Cameron first, then everyone else involved in the Brexit debacle. Now with the clock ticking I do believe Boris WILL take us out of the EU on October 31 and we will all suffer the consequences.

The US is back talking to the Taliban

Trump said that peace talks with the Taliban were dead, but now the top American official dealing with the insurgents and representatives of the militant organisation have met again. Not to negotiate it seems but just to try and reinstate the political settlement process. Special envoy for Afganistan Zalmay Khalilzad is a tough cookie and must have realised that even though Trump had scrapped the peace negotiations which he had so painfully maintained over a period of months, the president would eventually change his mind. There is no other way after all. Meanwhile Trump has taken a leaf out of the Taliban's book and has ordered military commanders in Afghanistan to step up airstrikes against the Taliban. I don't know how many Taliban fighters have been killed in the last 18 years but it is probably three times the number of American soldiers killed in the war, around 2,400. Do the Taliban care about the attrition rate? Or do they just regard these dead fighters as martyrs for the cause? They don't seem to have any trouble getting more recruits. But do the constant US airstrikes, now redoubled, eventually get to them? Is this why the Taliban seem keen to continue pursuing dialogue with the Americans? They always claim they will fight on for eternity but there must come a time when even the most hardened insurgent commander wants a different life, one that does not include daily slaughter. I hope that's true. If so, the renewed possibility of negotiations might just work this time. The most staggering statistic of the war is the number of Afghan soldiers and police killed. The Afghan president Ashraf Ghani claimed in January that since 2014 45,000 Afghan military and police personnnel had been killed. Since 2014!!! So you can add another 10,000 at least for the period between 2001 and 2013. It does make you wonder why young Afgan men enlist for such slaughter, even though they get paid a decent wage. But for how long? Anyway Khalilzad and Abdul Ghani Baradar, co-founder of the Taliban, are back talking. Trump scrapped the earlier talks when an American soldier was killed by a suicide bomber as the negotiations were going on in Qatar. He cancelled the talks out of sheer anger. Now after a few weeks he is once again hoping that a deal can be reached before the 2020 election. It is the only way forward but the non-stop killing by both sides to engineer peace is, well, sickening!

Boris tries to square a circle!

All very confusing and contradictory. This is how the Boris government explains what it plans to do re leaving the EU on October 31. The UK WILL leave the EU on October 31 with or without a deal. That we know because Boris has told us many times. It's his only raison d'etre. But there is a thing called the Benn Act which was drawn up by Hilary Benn, Labur MP and fancy speaker and son of the late Tony Benn, pipesmoker, interminable diarist, former cabinet minister, renounced upper class lord of the realm and a man with a bee in every bonnet he may have owned. So son Hilary who seems a regular sort of guy and spends all his time when not in the House of Commons on BBC Newsnight or the BBC Today programme, presented his legislation to parliament which was duly approved that made it obligatory for the prime minister to seek an extension to the October 31 deadline IF he failed to get a Brexit deal agreed by October 19. By law, Boris has to seek an extension if that wretched, sorry Brexit, deal is not reached within the next 15 days. However, while he promises to obey the law, and apparently this is in writing in a Scottish court case, he also absolutely promises that the UK will leave the EU on October 31. How does he square this circle? If he doesn't get a deal from the increasingly stoney-faced EU bureaucrats by October 19 he will be prevented by law from taking our beloved country out of the EU on October 31. But this doesn't seem to bother Boris. He carries on saying that he WILL take the UK out of the EU on the last day of October, never mind the October 19 deal deadline, never mind Hilary Benn and his Benn Act and never mind the law. Although of course he will obey the law? There is only one way to work out this conundrum and if it's what Boris has in mind then it will be a bit like a magician pulling a couple of rabbits and a giraffe out of an empty hat. This is the scenario: Boris fails dismally to get a deal by October 19, even though he reckons he has enough votes in the House of Commnos to get it approved by a majority of MPs. So he sits down at his desk in 10 Downing Street and dictates to his secretary that he is formally asking for an extension. However, he won't mean it and he will tell our EU friends on the phone that when they get the extension letter they should ignore it and instead, place it in the archives as proof that Boris didn't break the Benn Act. So, no reply required. He will then tell them all on the phone that he intends to exit on October 31 BUT will very soon after hold a general election and if he wins a big majority which he thinks he will, then and only then will he come back to Brussels and present an Option B deal which they would be out of their minds not to accept. Thus No Deal becomes a special Boris Deal which will be strictly NO customs Union, NO single market, NO European Court of Justice and NO more UK taxpayers' donations but a new-style trade arrangement that will take on board the border issue in Northern Ireland without having any checks at all. So Boris will obey the law but break it at the same time and not even the eminent judges on the Supreme Court will be able to fathom what the hell happened.

Impeachment of Trump is all about lawyers, lawyers and more lawyers

If ever there was a perfect time to be a lawyer in Washington DC it's now. Lawyers, lawyers and more lawyers are queuing up to get involved in the Trump impeachment process. The bills are going to be phenominal. As Politico brilliantly reports today, there is now a mighty battle going on between the Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, Californian Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who want to get on as rapidly as possible in gathering material for impeaching Trump, versus the White House which is doing its best to drag on the whole process by thinking up every conceivable legal loophole or lawyer-created justification for not handing over documents or making officials, particularly from the State Department, available to appear before Congress. Everyone who is anyone in this battle is getting "lawyered up", as the awful expression goes. There must be 100 lawyers already involved, each on huge hourly rates. Trump of course is surrounded by lawyers or legal counsel/advisers. But his favourite one seems to be Rudy Giuliani, described as his personal lawyer. Well we all remember what happened to Trump's previous "personal" lawyer, Michael Cohen, now a convicted felon. He was involved in the payment of $35,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels on Trump's behalf (allegedly) to keep her quiet about an alleged brief affair Trump had with the exotic lady. Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for a range of offences including tax fraud and lying. And oh my goodness didn't he turn on his old master and dish out as much dirt as possible? So beware, Mr President, don't upset Giuliani. He must have enough inside knowledge of the Trump world to fill a football stadium. Anyway right now the former Mayor of New York and former failed presidential candidate is as loyal to Trump as a golden labrador. I say golden because I guess Giuliani is earning a fat fee for advising the president. Now Giuliani is under fire from the Democrats because they want him to hand over all kinds of fascinating material and he is being subpoenaed every time he opens his front door. So he has, of course, got himself lawyered up to make sure that every time he says NO to the Democrats he has reasonable legal grounds for saying so. You would have thought that, being a lawyer, he would be able to advise himself. But, just as Michael Cohen had his own lawyer, so Giuliani feels it's necessary to get a fancy legal chap at his side to protect him. Who pays for that, Giuliani or the White House or Trump perhaps? Pelosi and Schiff have lawyers at their beck and call, and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state who is increasigly under pressure to do things he doesn't want to do, such as allowing his senior officials to appear before Congress on Ukrainegate, is I'm sure also receiving daily advice from highly-paid lawyers to make sure he stays within the law and the constitution. Trump will need all the legal advice he can get if he is to prevent his impeachment. Slowing the whole process down with endless legal obstacles is probably quite a clever move. The Democrats don't want impeachment to be the only issue at stake when the presidential election campaign gets closer and closer to November 2020. They want it all nicely wrapped up well before then, preferably before Christmas. If, thanks to Trump lawyers, it's still dragging on well into next year, the Democrats will begin to rue the day they ever went for impeachment. If that's what happens then I guess all these Trump/Giuliani/Pompeo lawyers will have earned their lucrative fees.

Impeachment is a dangerous path for the whole of the United States

Nancy Pelosi is determined to get Donald Trump. She is fighting from all corners to seize all the relevant documents with subpoenas flying around like wedding confetti. Meantime, Pelosi is talking about legislation to reduce prescription charges. All well and good but it's difficult to believe that anything is going to be achieved until this wretched impeachment inquiry is over. Trump is getting angrier by the day. Today he denounced the whole thing as "bullshit". Not a very presidential word. There is little dignity left in American politics right now. It's the same in the UK, with MPs getting more and more angry and the public getting more and more desperate, and bad language heard everywhere. All because of Brexit. Trump may think the impeachment inquiry is bullshit but there is nothing he can do about it. The momentum is building up and the haste with which the Democrats are gathering material could mean that by the end of November we could have a result, one way or the other. But could the impeachment bandwagon have unpredictable consequences? Trump today has tweeted that the Democrats are hell-bent on ruining the country and destroying the economy. It's an exaggeration but it is probably true that as impeachment becomes the only issue in Washington, it could have a spectacular impact on the economy because of a loss of confidence in the administration. Businesses and industry could suffer, especially if the feared recession emerges. Does Pelosi really think that government can continue as normal with impeachment hanging over the White House? If Trump is impeached and forced out of office she will no doubt believe that it was all worth it. But if she fails and the Senate votes against impeachment, AND the economy dives, she will be blamed, and whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president will be massively defeated. It was a huge gamble when she decided to approve an impeachment inquiry. Whatever the result, the United States of America will suffer.

Ukrainegate could catch Mike Pompeo and William Barr

Ukrainegate is building up to be a mighty scandal that could spell the end of Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, William Barr, attorney general and a whole host of others. They were all in on it, allegedly co-conspirators in the president's strategy of getting foreign leaders to dig dirt for the White House against Trump's political rivals and organisations, including the intelligence services, who the president accused of undermining his status. It seems incredible and bizarre that William Barr was sent off overseas to seek help from foreign governments to undermine the case put forward strongly by the CIA and FBI and others that the 2016 presidential election had been manipulated by Russia. How many foreign leaders did Barr go to with his begging bowl and what did he get for his pleading on behalf of the president? Trump is supposed to have made a call to the Australian prime minister to get him to collaborate with Barr in finding anything that could damage the investigation by Robert Mueller, special counsel for the Russia/Trump collusion allegation. Why Australia? Well Australia is part of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence club - the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand - which shares all or nearly all secrets about everything gathered by the different intelligence services. The American National Security Agency has a twinned signals intelligence facility at Pine Gap in central Australia, southwest of Alice Springs. The Americans and Aussies work together at Pine Gap. It's a huge listening station. Was Barr supposed to pay a visit to Pine Gap to help himself to anything which disproved what the US intelligence services and Mueller were investigating - Russian skulduggery? Examining Barr's travel itinerary for 2018/19 might be an eye-opener! As for Pompeo he was one of many, perhaps a dozen officials who eavesdropped on Trump's phone call in July to President Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader, in which the US president sought his help in uncovering alleged wrongdoing by Joe Biden and his son Hunter. When the call was over did Pompeo raise any personal disquiet about the content of the conversation or did he just keep it to himself? Pompeo will be forced to give evidence to the Democrat impeachment committees and will be asked that very question. If he didn't object to the call and make this clear to Trump, where does that place him in the scheme of things? It also won't look good for him if he reveals he HAD been concerned but said nothing. And it won't do him any good vis a vis his relations with Trump if he says he WAS alarmed AND told the president as much but Trump did nothing but laugh in his face. In other words it's Catch 22 for Pompeo. Likewise what about the other officials who had their ears glued to the phone during the president-to-president call? We know a CIA analyst was seriously worried because he/she complained officially, eventually, to the intelligence community inspector-general and that led to the Nancy Pelosi decision to start impeachment proceedings in the House. But could there, should there, have been a dozen or so whistleblowers, all coming forward with their worries? Right now it's just the one whistleblower who is fighting to keep his/her name out of the public domain, no thanks to Trump who wants to meet him/her face to face to tell him/her what he thinks of him/her. Ukrainegate marches on.