The worrying aftermath of a terrorist attack

The latest terrorist attack in London is another appalling example of how vulnerable we are in a big city to determined fanatics who decide to commit acts of hatred in broad daylight. What is inevitable is that with two people dead and three others wounded, all victims of 28-year-old Usman Khan, a convicted terrorist released early on licence from his prison sentence a year ago, serious questions are being asked: why was he released on licence, was he under surveillance by MI5 and the police, if not why not, was he part of a broader radicalised group, why did he target those attending the special conference on the rehabilitation of prisoners at the Fishmongers' Hall, near London Bridge, how did he manage to take into the conference two large knives and a fake suicide belt without being security-checked, had he been planning this attack for a long time, had he duped the authorities by pretending that he was a new man determined to cast off his terrorist past, and, lastly, did the police have no choice but to shoot him dead even though he had been restrained by heroic members of the public before they arrived? The aftermath of a terrorist attack is always uncomfortable for the security authorities because it is difficult to avoid asking these questions. MI5 has expanded its workforce significantly in recent years but, as I have pointed out in the past, it is never possible to follow every terrorist suspect or terrorism supporter. Every day priorities have to be made. In the case of Usman Khan he had been released in December last year and as far as is known he was trying to put his past beind him. Or at least, he appeared to be interested in rehabilitation and had not been spotted engaging in anything suspicious. But he was a known terrorist. He had been part of a gang which plotted to blow up the London Stock Exchange. So surely he was on some form of watch list even if he was not regarded as high-risk? It may have looked like he was trying to lead a normal life but one has to ask: can a person like Usman Khan who had mingled with other terrorist-minded individuals in the past ever be a normal person with normal ambitions and hopes? Would there not always have been a dark corner in his mind, and after serving time in prison might there not have been a growing urge for revenge? Should MI5 and the police take this sort of possibility into account when selecting which individuals to watch and follow and which to put in a lower-risk category? Unless MI5 and the police have seriously messed up and ignored signs that were clearly available, I don't think they should be blamed for failing to mount 24-hour surveillance on Usman Khan. That would be unjust. But unquestionably very serious questions have to be asked about the justice system which allows a man like this to be released early when a judge in his original trial stated that he posed a danger to the public. How right he was and how wrong were those who decided that it was ok to free him on licence. That's where the blame lies in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. But Usman Khan, shot dead by the police because, I assume, they judged him still to be a threat to life, is the only one to blame for this latest appalling slaughter on our streets.

The backwash from the US Navy Seals saga

MY ANALYSIS IN THE TIMES The US Navy Seals saga has driven divisions between the top officer class and lower ranks, pitted Pentagon leaders against their commander-in-chief and narrowed the separation between politics and the military. President Trump’s intervention in support of the highly decorated veteran Seal operator Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher has also led to anguished reappraisals of a special forces community which has in the past relied on secrecy and anonymity.There had been plans to expand the Seals organisation, creating more combat platoons to deal with the ever-increasing demand for their unique talents around the world.That has now been put on hold while the Seals command hierarchy examines whether the elite units are adequately trained in leadership skills, following a series of headline disciplinary breaches. CPO Gallagher’s photograph next to the body of a young Iraqi prisoner was not the only breach in accepted conduct. However, the case of CPO Gallagher who retires tomorrow (Saturday) posed the greatest dilemma, not just because of the president’s outrage over the way the US Navy had handled the war crimes charges against him, but because the publicity it generated disrupted strictly regulated internal procedures which military chiefs and Pentagon officials felt should not be undermined by political interference. The result is that US Navy chiefs in particular will now be more wary than ever of the need to avoid Mr Trump’s displeasure. He had already castigated them for failing to resolve technical problems with the new-generation Gerald R Ford class aircraft carrier. By contrast, the president’s support for CPO Gallagher and his pardoning of two soldiers charged with war crimes, one of whom had already served more than six years of a 19-year sentence, went down well with the troops. Knowing they have their commander-in-chief on their side will increase Mr Trump’s popularity across the military. Polls among armed service personnel consistently show majority support for the president. Only their commanding officers will be worried at White House political intrusion. General Jim Mattis, ousted by Mr Trump as defence secretary, remarked last month that he had earned his spurs on the battlefield while the president had “earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor”. However, the fact that Mr Trump was given a medical deferment from serving in the military in the Vietnam war because of bone spurs has had little if any impact on his popularity among troops. Above all, Mr Trump has reemphasised in the boldest possible terms that as commander-in-chief he has the right to intervene because he is at the top of the chain of command. It has been a grim reminder for the Pentagon.

Will Brexit actually ever happen?

Top of the list of priorities in the Conservative party's election manifesto is to "get Brexit done". These three words are drilled into all of us as if there is nothing else more important in the world. In some respects it's true because Brexit or no Brexit, the future of this country depends on a final resolution to the European question. But is Brexit going to be done just like that if Boris wins a mandate in the election which some polls seem to be taking as read. Those very helpful politicians who make up the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland have made it clear today in their manifesto that no no no they won't accept the Boris Brexit deal as it is currently drafted for reasons which I am sure I don't need to spell out. Basically any wording which even smells of a requirement for border-type checks on goods to keep the EU happy will meet their disapproval. So if Boris sweeps into power with a new mandate on December 12 - just two weeks away - he is going to be confronted by the DUP with their shaking heads and cries of "over my dead body". So Brexit won't get done. There will be endless negotiations because the DUP will be supported by the dreaded European Research Group of mad Tory Brexiteers. Deadlines will be breached. Brexit will simper on and the country will yawn to death and businesses will go potty and Boris will stamp his feet. As the months go by there might well be a new surge of feeling in the country that perhaps after all the Lib Dems got it right and that the exit from Europe should just be cancelled. Could Boris ever countenance that? I guess not, but as a Remainer I'm still wishfully-thinking.

Will the elite US Navy Seals be damaged by the Eddie Gallagher saga?

When Osama bin Laden was shot dead at his compound hideaway outside Abbottabad in Pakistan by American special operations commandos, the US Navy Seals, and in particular Seal Team 6 which carried out the mission in May 2011, enjoyed the sort of limelight which rarely comes their way. They became legendary overnight. For these sort of covert troops, limelight is not something which they normally encourage. Like spies they need to operate in the shadows. But there was so much pride and excitement throughout the US, and around the world, that it was impossible to keep the operational details secret for long. Only the identities of the raiding party remained classified. Pretty well everything else was publicised ad infinitum. Then things went a bit wrong. One of the Seal Team 6 members, Robert O'Neil, wrote a book in 2014 in which he claimed he was the one who had killed Bin Laden. That caused a right rumpus, not just because he had come out into the open to reveal more about the raid but because he seemed to be seeking personal glory, and money, for being the commando who actually fired the shot that killed the al-Qaeda leader. His claim was disputed, and the revelations in the book can't have been welcomed by his fellow Seals. Now, five years on, the famous Seals have once again been in the news because of war crime allegations against one of their senior members and all the repercussions that followed. Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher, head of Seal Team 7 in Iraq, was accused and acquitted of killing a wounded 17-year-old Iraqi prisoner but convicted of having his photograph taken beside the body and was demoted to petty officer as a result. The brouhaha ever since, with Donald Trump declaring his support for Gallagher and reinstating his higher rank, the decision by the Seal hierarchy to bring disciplinary proceedings against him, Trump's fury, the sacking of Richard Spencer US navy secretary when he tried to intervene without telling his boss Defence Secretary Mark Esper, all of this has put an unwelcome spotlight on the elite special operations unit. Gallagher retires officially on Saturday (November 30) and thanks to Trump's insistence as commander-in-chief, he will retain his much-coveted Trident pin which means he leaves the Seals as an honoured member of one of America's most illustrious military organisations. For the sake of the Seals and their future operations I would hope that the Gallagher saga sinks into oblivion. As General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week, the "case is now closed". Until of course someone from within the Seals pops up and writes a book about it! Literary agents will no doubt be relishing the chance to get their hands on the "true account" of what went on.

Counter-Isis operations in Syria are back in style

When Donald Trump announced he wanted all US troops to withdraw from Syria, everyone with any knowledge of the region warned that as a result Isis would reemerge as a major threat. This was officially confirmed by the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency which produced a report saying basically that the withdrawal of US troops would be good news for Isis. Well of course all of that was true. Syria may be full of different military forces and militia and terrorists but they all have their own agenda and only the US with its Kurdish comrades had one goal and one goal only and that was the destruction of Isis. The Trump decision was not just to please President Erdogan who wanted the green light to invade northern Syria but it seemed to be his view that the US had done enough with destroying Isis and others could get on with finishing off the remnants. Since then the president has changed his mind so many times that it's difficult to keep up. However, now General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, commander of US Central Command who has had to plan his Syria campaign like a juggler with 30 spinning balls, has revealed that combat operations between US troops and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces against Isis are back in vogue. Isis is once more being bashed wherever they turn up in northern Syria. It was only a week or two back that Trump said the troops remaining behind in Syria would be guarding the oil wells in eastern Syria, giving the idea that the 500-600 military personnel would be standing around with their guns ready in case Isis came over the horizon to snatch the oil back. But, thanks to General McKenzie, we now know anti-Isis missions are going ahead as robustly as ever. I assume Trump has been told and that he's happy with the turn-around. Well done General McKenzie I say.

The firing of an honourable man - the US Navy Secretary

The firing of US Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was an act of political abuse of power. Spencer is an honourable man with a long service in the Pentagon who not that long ago was acting defence secretary when Donald Trump was trying to find someone suitable for the top job following the dramatic announcement by Patrick Shanahan, then acting defence secretary, that he was withdrawing his name for the role of Pentagon chief for family reasons. Spencer was never in the frame to be the official defence secretary but he was always well respected by everyone in the Pentagon. Now he has truly fallen foul of a mighty heave-ho battle between the Pentagon and the White House. He lost out because Trump's defence secretary Mark Esper saw which way the wind was blowing and got rid of him before the president declared war on the Pentagon. The massive row had been buildng up steam for weeks, ever since Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher of the US Navy's Seal Team 7 was acquitted of war crimes in Iraq, including the killing by a hunter's knife of a 17-year-old Iraqi prisoner of war. Gallagher was just found guilty of being photographed next to the body of the prisoner for which he was demoted one rank. Trump had espoused his cause from the beginning, tweeting that he was a war hero, and then declaring that as commander-in-chief he had decided to reinstate Gallagher's rank to chief petty officer so that he would get his full pension on leaving the Seals. But that was not the end of the story. The top Seals commander said he planned to summon Gallagher for a disciplinary hearing over his conviction for having his photograph taken next to the dead boy, viewed as a serious offence. Trump was furious and told the Seal boss to get on with his work and leave Gallagher alone. Gallagher's Seals bosses had considered removing his "Trident" pin (badge/insignia), thus making him an ex-Seal. This is where Richard Spencer stepped in. He could see dangers ahead, with the president having an almighty row with the Pentagon and in particular the US Navy. As the civilian head of the Navy it was his responsibility to deal with personnel matters such as this. He wanted the Gallagher case to go away before it caused even more damage, and, unwisely as it turns out, spoke to the White House about a deal: he would allow Gallagher to keep his Trident pin and retire from the Seals without a stain on his character in return for Trump agreeing to stop interfering in military justice matters. Basically Spencer thought it was constitutionally disgraceful and bad for the US Navy for the president to override decisions by Gallagher's superiors. But for future peaceful relations with the White House, he proposed his deal without telling Esper. When this was passed on to Trump I am speculating but I bet he was so angry being told what to do by a lowly navy secretary that he got on the phone to Esper at the Pentagon and told him: "Get rid of this man or else...." Esper jumped. He called in Spencer and said he was very upset that he had gone behind his back to the White House to try and solve the Gallagher problem. He, Spencer, should have gone to Esper not to the White House and therefore he had to resign for failing to keep Esper in the loop over what he planned to do. In the very familiar language used by commanding officers when they sack subordinates, Spencer was told he had lost the confidence and trust of the defence secretary. Actually, David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist and son of a former US navy secretary, revealed today that Esper told Spencer: "Trump wants you out." Spencer wrote aletter to Trump, handing in his immediate resignation, but made no reference to the row with Esper. It was all about his distaste for a commander-in-chief who had different views than him on good order and discipline. So another good man at the Pentagon gets his marching orders. Both Trump and Esper played their roles in removing a senior official who had tried to do his best for the service he loved and respected.

The Bloomberg decision is bad news for Joe Biden

The announcement today by multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg that he will definitely run for president is such bad news for Joe Biden. It must be so tough for the former vice-president. He really thought that 2020 had been earmarked for him, the obvious Democratic candidate to beat Donald Trump and enter the White House to fulfill his dream. Of course there was never any guarantee that he would beat Trump but this was to be his great chance. Basically it has been downhill all the way, despite leading the polls pretty consistently. His rivals began to look good and his often stumbling performance at debates started making his supporters nervous. Above all, there was a growing feelng in some Democrats' minds that the candidate field was just not Trump-beatable enough. Now Bloomberg who has enough money to buy a country or two is firmly in the race. He is already spending millions and millions of dollars on adverts. Can he win the nomination by being the richest candidate? Yes he could because his message will be in everyone's face from now until he either wins the nomination or drops out. Must be nice to be able to spend such huge sums - from his own money, not from donations - and still may be lose the lot. But Bloomberg is going to do serious damage to Biden. The former VP's downbeat campaign was the reason why Bloomberg decided to go for it. That message will hit Biden every time he opens his mouth at a rally. "Bloomberg doesn't think you're good enough!" I doubt Bloomberg will last all the way to the end. But over the months ahead the Bloomberg/Biden rivalry could be a wholesale bust-up, with both losing out. But watch Bloomberg. He is taking a very robust line on Trump, saying the country cannot take another four years of Trumpery. Bloomberg will force the other candidates to follow suit. It's going to get much dirtier.

Could there be a coalition deal between Labour and Lib Dems?

Of all the possible outcomes of the UK general election, could this be one of them? Labour wins a tiny minority victory and has to turn to the Lib Dems to form a coalition because the Jo Swinson-led party does well and wins a dozen more seats. Swinson who has always made it clear she would never share government with Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, agrees a deal but only if Corbyn is replaced, and hey presto Kier Starmer, decidely sensible and acceptable, is swiftly voted in as leader with Corbyn politically stabbed in the back. A Starmer-led Labour government with a remain-in-the-EU Lib Dem party could work! Possibly. Provided, of course, the Labour government goes for remaining in the EU and campaigns for it before a second people's vote referendum. I don't think this will happen but it's an intriguing thought, assuming that a Keir Starmer-led Labour government would drop over the cliff the ridiculous back-to-the-past election manifesto of Corbyn and co which includes renationalising everything from the Royal Mail to trains and water and electricity etc. A coalition government with a sensible spending programme and a reversal of the 2016 EU/UK referendum mandate would basically be good news. But sensible politics went out of the window a long time ago. First of all, if Labour were to win a minority victory, Corbyn and his merry Marxists would fight of any coup attempt and start ruining the country's economy without coming to any sort of coalition deal with the Lib Dems or anyone else. Nobody these days likes coalitions. The David Cameron/Nick Clegg partnership never worked. So Corbyn, having got the taste for power, would hang on to it like a barnacle to a rotting ship. So the option I have outlined is probably fantasy land. Most likely is the result I have predicted in earlier blogs: Boris wins with a small majority and presses on with his Brexit deal which inevitably means years and years of negotiations with the EU to get a trade agreement, guaranteeing a long period of uncertainty. Boris's pledge to forge a trade deal with the EU by the end of next year is I'm afraid pie in the sky. Boris knows that but he wants people to believe that he can do his magic trick and get it all sorted in double-quick time. Most of us are not going to be fooled, Boris.

Trump and Ukrainegate. Who cares?

After endless impeachment hearings at the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives I doubt there is anyone but the president himself who does not believe that Donald Trump asked the former comedian-turned president of Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden as a quid pro quo for arranging a visit to the White House AND ensuring Kiev got the fat chunck of military aide from the US which it needed to fend of those pesky Rusian mercenary troops in the eastern part of the country. So many witnesses have now revealed in the public hearings that this is what happened that I'm sure it's true. But the next question is: does anyone really care? Well the Democrats do because they think they have a tiny chance of actually getting Trump impeached which might give their party a better chance of moving back into the White House with a President Biden or Warren or Sanders or Buttigieg or even perhaps after her excellent performance at the latest TV debate, my favourite, Kamala Harris. With Trump frogmarched out of the Oval Office, Mike Pence would be sworn in and no one wants Mike Pence, the very creepy vice president, to take charge of the United States. So President Biden etc etc would be voted in. But I really don't believe Ukrainegate is going to be the smoking gun to remove Trump. And not just because the Republicans will vote against impeachment in a Senate trial. The quid pro quo "bombshell" as the American newspapers and broadcasters like to describe it, is inceasingly becoming less and less explosive. One witness was sure he heard someone else say that Trump had said bla bla bla. Another witness said he had been ordered to set up a quid pro quo agreement. Another witness was scandalised when he heard Trump indicate to President Zelensky of Ukraine that if he wanted a fancy red-carpet visit to the White House he better dig some real dirt on the Bidens and their involvement in a Ukrainian gas company. The quid pro quo definitely happened. But, excuse me, who ever thought politics was a pure and gentlemanly/ladylike business? There's rough dirty stuff going on all the time, isn't there? How many similar quid pro quos went on in, say, Richard Nixon's time, or Bill Clinton's, or George W Bush's or even Barack Obama's? Were they all clean and above-board? I don't know if other presidents have rung foreign leaders and told: "Do this or else...." But I would be surprised if they didn't. Politics can be a dirty game and superpower politics can be the dirtiest of them all. This is not to excuse Trump, and his behaviour, if proven, sounds like bullyboy tactics, not the conduct of a president of integrity. But impeachable? I don't think so.

Voters in Britain are as confused as ever after the Boris and Corbyn TV debate

Apparently nearly seven million people watched Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn debating against each other on ITV last night. That's not as many viewers who watch Strictly Come Dancing every Saturday, but then the BBC hit show is decidedly more entertaining and has an element of suspense and excitement and audience participation when it comes to voting celebrity dancers in or out. However, seven milion is not a bad figure, but did any of them come away satisfied with the answers from either leader? There was no real clarity from either of them, apart from Boris Johnson's insistence that he had a Brexit deal all oven-cooked and ready to go. But even that had a degree of obfuscation. When Corbyn accused him of negotiating a deal that meant there would be border checks dividing north and south Ireland, Boris said that was not true and reminded the seven million viewers that Northern Ireland would enjoy its own customs union as part of the UK and would not be subject to border checks. Well, there are some mirrors here. There will be checks, although not necessarily on the border itself, and in certain circumstances there will be tariffs on goods which the rest of the UK will not have to pay. Politicians are good at broad sweep statements that don't take into account the small print. But with the Brexit deal it's the small print, especially in relation to Northern Ireland, that may still cause Boris trouble in the future if he remains as prime minister. Corbyn was also all over the shop when Brexit came up. He just would not say whether he would vote remain or leave if there were a second referendum on the EU. Surely by now the leader of the Labour Party should have a firm fixed policy on the UK/EU. All he would say was that he would leave it to the people to decide and that a Labour government would then implement the public's choice. But, excuse me, that happened in 2016, and look where we are today, divided as ever. Isn't it encumbent on the major political parties to declare where they stand, to help voters make up their minds if nothing else. The Tories under Boris are definitely going for leaving with a deal. Corbyn says he would negotiate a new deal and then present it to voters in a second referendum. But, no, he would not say whether a Labour gvernment under his leadership would campaign to remain in the EU, or leave. No wonder the Liberal Democrats who want the UK to stay in the EU have made it clear they will never share government with Corbyn in any sort of coalition. Like me I expect most of the seven million viewers last night ended up just shaking their heads in confusion and disbelief.

Most extreme Hong Kong protesters are undermining the cause of democracy

The Hong Kong protests have been going on for more than five months and have generally attracted sympathetic and supportive headlines in the West. The protestors started their campaign because they opposed new legislation which would have allowed residents of Hong Kong accused of crimes to be sent to China for trial. After weeks of protests and demonstrations and massed gatherings in the streets, the Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam announced that she would suspend the planned legislation and eventually dropped it altogether. But by then the fire in the belly of the protesters had reached red-hot level and the demos continued, this time in the name of democracy. The protests became a rallying cry for help against China and the spectre of Tiananmen Square was raised, with the suggestion that Beijing would send in the army to quell the protests, just as it did in the Chinese capital in 1989 when troops opened fire on protesters with tanks and rifles, killing hundreds, and maybe thousands. Again their fears attracted supportive headlines although wise commentators dismissed the idea that Beijing would make the same mistake and send in the army. Now the Hong Kong violence has reached a new level and I believe sympathy for the remaining protesters holed up in the polytechnic university complex in Kowloon will vanish. The scenes of violent action have been horrific, with protesters launching arrows that burst into flame on impact, catapulting rocks and bricks and throwing petrol bombs. This is anarchy not a fight for democracy. The most extreme protesters are destroying what was a justified and acceptable cause. And to make it worse, they have called on youngsters to join them, and children did just that and became embroiled in what will always be the most frightening experience of their lives. The Hong Kong police have used extreme violence too with water cannon, rubber bullets and even on at least two occasions, live rounds, the most notorious occasion being when a police officer fired a live round into the chest of a protester standing just feet away. Excessive measures such as these have provoked more and more violence by the protesters. If there is to be any solution to this appalling breakdown in law and order in what used to be Britain's most flourishing colony, the violence has to stop, on both sides. Jeremy Hunt, the former UK foreign secretary, suggested last night on BBC Newsnight that some of the most extreme protesters were deliberately trying to provoke Beijing into launching another Tiananmen Square. I think he may be right. Using extreme violence to further the cause of democracy is wrong. My lasting impression of the hate and fear on the streets of Hong Kong will not be the masked faces of those firing their deadly arrows at the police but the petrified faces of the kids coming out from the hell-hole university campus and having their "data" taken down by the authorities before being allowed home.

What did the Queen think of the Prince Andrew interview?

Depending on which headline you believe, the Queen either gave full permission for her son Prince Andrew to speak to the BBC about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or she definitely did not give her authority for such an interview. Either way, if she watched it on Newsnight last night, she must, like the rest of us, feel pretty horrified by his answers. What we don't know is how much schooling was given to Andrew by lawyers and PR advisers before he agreed to talk to Emily Maitlis, the Newsnight presenter. However, someone who worked closely with the royal family at Buckingham Palace for several years once told me that nothing happened inside the palace unless it had first gone through the rigorous protocol procedure. There is no such thing as individual initiative. Everything has to be pored over by the palace top advisers and, ultimately has to receive the ok from the Queen herself. She is the boss of the firm. She is never left out of decision-making. It would be like the chairman of the board of a major company not being involved in a decision that might affect that firm's future. There is absolutely no way that Prince Andrew decided off his own bat to be interviewed by Emily Maitlis on his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, convicted sex offender, without discussing it with his mother. He just couldn't do it. That's not the way the palace hierarchy and the royal family work. Now I agree times are changing, especially with Prince Harry and Meghan. They seem to be breaking away somewhat from the rules of royal family life. But again that wouldn't have happened unless the Queen had been involved in giving her views and making her wishes known. I cannot imagine that the Queen would have been happy at the thought of Prince Andrew appearing on the TV for a confessional interview but she might have been advised by her senior staff that it could work in his favour. The decision to hold the interview in a room in Buckingham Palace rather than in a BBC studio would surely have been taken by the palace and not by the BBC, as a way of ensuring the interview went ahead on royal family terms. Maitlis admitted in a personal article in The Times today that she had felt very nervous. The palace surroundings exacerbated her nervousness. She looked quite tense while Andrew sat back and looked positively relaxed. But those who advised the Queen and advised Andrew got it wrong. He looked as if he thought he had got away with it - the interview I mean. There were reports that he told family members that he reckoned it had gone pretty well. No one else agrees, and I doubt the Queen does either.

Prince Andrew has "no recollection"

The BBC interview between an unusually respectful Emily Maitlis and the Duke of York/Prince Andrew covered most of the questions begging to be asked about his friendship with Jeffry Epstein, convicted sex offender, and the allegations that he supplied the prince with an under-age girl for sex. But the interview achieved nothing by way of revelation or admission of guilt or regret or acknowledgment ofanything notable. It was full of words but by the end of it I felt it had all been rather pointless. However, there were two words which stuck in my mind which seemed both bizarre and inappropriate. When asked about his alleged sexual relations with 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, and in particular the photograph of him seemingly standing next to her with his arm around her waist, the prince said he had "no recollection" of ever having met her. Maybe these are the two words he was advised by lawyers to use but to me it seemed strange that he should pick "no recollection" rather than, say, "I've never met this girl in my life," or, "this is completely false, I have never been photographed with my arm around this girl...or any girl". Does "no recollection" mean "I don't remember" or does it mean "nothing I have done in the last 30 years bears any resemblance to what you can see in this picture"? The trouble with the interview was that however many times Maitlis asked the same question, Prince Andrew was not going to say: "this girl is a liar and this picture is a fake". That would have laid down a sort of princely gauntlet, and lawyers would have been watching for that. Virginia Roberts/now Giuffre had given a well-publicised television interview in the US in which she said she had been told she was going to meet a prince and subsequently had sex with Andrew on three occasions. If this is false, as the prince seems to be implying, then he has been massively defamed. But all he could say, on numerous occasions, was that he had no recollection of ever meeting her let alone anything else. Unless I missed it, I don't think Maitlis asked the prince about the other picture, showing Andrew waving from the front door of Epstein's house in New York at a girl who was seen leaving the residence. I would love to have known whether he had any recollection of that little wave. Maitlis did her best - she is an excellent presenter/interviewer on BBC Newsnight - but the question and answer session inside Buckingham Palace with royal portraits on the walls and expensive carpet on the floor, was almost doomed to be disappointing, which it was. Nothing was really resolved. I fear that Prince Andrew, while insisting on his innocence, didn't do so robustly enough to make it all go away.

Trump pardons three, rejecting Pentagon advice

Donald Trump has used his executive privilege to intervene in the US military justice system and issue pardons for three high-profile servicemen, all charged with committing war crimes. Special Warfare Officer First Class Eddie Gallagher who led a Navy Seal team in Iraq, is possibly the most notorious case. He is a highly decorated commando and almost as soon as he was charged with fatally stabbing a teenage Iraqi prisoner of war in 2017, Trump made it clear he was on his side, never mind the evidence against him provided principally by his fellow Seals who were there at the time of the alleged execution. We all know that in the fog of war, terrible misdemeanours do take place where discipine breaks down and individuals commit acts which are against the laws of war and breach all human rights conventions. The military, whether the US or British or any other professional army, are trained to make decisions under extreme pressures and soldiers know what is right and wrong. Especially special forces units who have to undergo intense training just to be considered for selection. Gallagher was a tough guy in combat and has a string of medals and awards to show for it. When he was brought to trial, the prosecution's case was all over the place because witnesses came up with different versions of the alleged crime. One witness even said it was him who ended the life of the injured 17-year-old prisoner of war. As a result of all the confusion and Trump's very public interest in the case, Gallagher was acquitted of all the serious charges and was just convicted for having a photograph taken of him beside the dead body, for which he was sentenced to demotion. Trump has now reinstated him to his full rank of chief petty officer which will guarantee a better pension. On the face of it, the death of the Iraqi prisoner of war was a bad deed. Prisoners of war have to be treated fairly and humanely and if they are injured they have as much right to be medically assisted as someone from friendly forces. The number of occasions when the lives of prisoners of war have been saved by surgeons must run into the thousands in conflicts over the last seven decades. However, the Gallagher case was incompetently handled and the decorated Seal was acquitted. Had he not been acquitted I suspect Trump would have pardoned him anyway. Instead, all that was left to reinstate him to hero status was to give him back his senior non-commissioned rank. The Pentagon wanted the justice system to follow its natural course without the intervention of the commander-in-chief. I think that is the right approach unless the evidence is overwhelming that an invidual soldier has been wrongly or unfairly treated by the justice system. The two other cases where Trump has declared pardons involve 1st Lieutenant Clint Lorance who was convicted on two counts of murder for ordering his troops to fire on three men in Afghanistan in 2008, and Major Matthew Golsteyn, a Green Beret who had been awaiting trial for the alleged killing of a suspected terrorist bombmaker in Afghanistan in 2010. In both cases, former teammates of Lorance and Golsteyn have spoken out against the Trump pardons. The president has the right to make these decisions but pardons have to be totally justified and fully accepted by the military as a community. I don't believe Trump's action in these three cases will leave anything but a sour taste in the mouth for other comrades-in-arms.

What has happened to Colonel Vindman?

Since the appearance of Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman, Ukraine expert in the National Security Council, before the House Intelligence Committee giving evidence in the impeachment inquiry, almost nothing has been heard of him. Has he gone back to work for the National Security Council or is he on gardening leave? What he said basically backed up the allegations against Donald Trump, that the president had been engaged in a dodgy phone call with the new Ukrainian leader in which he asked for help in uncovering any dirty dealings by Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Fox News did its best to discredit Vindman for daring to speak out. But Vindman is a miitary man and military men tend to do what they are told to do and to do it to the best of their ability. So when he was asked to appear before the House committee that's what he did, presumably because he thought it was the right thing to do even though his commander-in-chief had made it clear he did not want any of his admnistration officials to go anywhere near the committee. A sense of duty to his country overrode his obedience and loyalty to the president. And he wore his full military uniform to underline the point. As a result I would have thought that Trump would have got rid of him but we simply don't know what Vindman is doing. Robert O'Brien, the national security adviser, has hinted that Vindman would no longer be serving on the National Security Council and would be sent back where he came from. No, not Ukraine where he was born, but the US Army from where he had been seconded to the National Security Council because he speaks fluent Ukrainian and Russian. But according to Vindman's lawyer, his client is still working for the NSC. It must be highly uncomfortable for Vindman. Even when he does go back to his old mates in the army how will they treat him I wonder. Will get the cold shoulder? It's a risky business speaking out against the commander-in-chief.

US military deploys awesome firepower in eastern Syria

The Pentagon has now confirmed on a number of occasions that 500-600 US soldiers are now deployed to protect the Syrian oil wells in Eastern Syria, with the income from the drilling being handed over to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). But the deployment is so much more than a battalion of troops. These scattered oil wells are also home to some of the US military's heavyweight warfighting equipment. They include armoured Bradley fighting vehicles and Apache attack helicopters, one of America's most prestigious and combat-proven firepower platforms. Apaches have been used in every confict since the US offensive operation in Panama in 1989 and were the scourge of Saddam Hussein's forces in the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. They are a mighty weapon of war and several of them are now playing their part in warding off any unwelcome visitors to the oil fields in the Deir el-Zour province in eastern Syria. There are aso believed to be Chinooks and Black Hawks for ferrying troops around and providing additional firepower, and self-propelled artillery. The US military prides itself on being able to demonstrate overwhelming force wherever it is facing potential enemies. In this case there are any number of opposing forces which could present hostile intent: Syrian regime units trying to recover the oil wells, Russian and Turkish troops on joint patrols in the region, Iranian militia and Isis fighters tryng to surge back into contention. So the US firepower amassed in Deir el-Zour should act as a powerful deterrent. What a contrast to just a few weeks ago when Trump ordered all 1,200 US troops out of northeast Syria to make way for the invading Turkish army. Apart from the firepower presence and 600 troops, the US military is once agan serving alongside its old anti-Isis comrades from the SDF. The alliance is back in style. When US troops started to leave their bases prior to the Turkish invasion they were pelted with rocks and potatoes by the local Kurds who felt they had been abandoned. When US troops came back to protect the oil wells, the locals greeted them with enthusiasm, all bitterness forgotten. What the Pentagon is not confirming, for obvious reasons, is whether the SDF comrades-in-arms are selling the oil on the black market to the Syrian regime. This is exactly what Isis did when they seized control of the oil wells in eastern Syria. I would be amazed if the SDF is not using the same middlemen whom Isis depended on, to get the revenue it needs for paying and feeding its fighters.

Jeremy Corbyn would have arrested Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Jeremy Corbyn must have been missing from the planet during the week US Delta Force special operations troops raided the compound home of Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in northwest Syria. The Labour leader who thinks he is going to be the next British prime minister, has criticised the US military over the death of Baghdadi. In a radio interview he said it was his view that Baghdadi should have been arrested and brought to trial because that was the way true democracies worked. He made similar comments when Osama bin Laden was killed at his secret compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan in May 2011. Well, all fine and dandy, Mr Corbyn, in a world where the bad guys, when confronted by the police or military, just put up their hands and say, "Ok, guv, you got me, I surrender." But as Corbyn should know if he had bothered to read the reports of Baghdadi's demise, Delta Force commandos DID try to persuade Baghdadi to give himself up. He had run down a dead-end tunnel under the compound with two of his children in tow hotly pursued by Conan, one of the military dogs that Delta Force commandos brought with them, and at least two special operations soldiers who shouted to him to surrender. They never fired a shot at the trapped Baghdadi. But as soon as Baghdadi realised there was no way out he detonated his suicide vest killing himself and his two children. He did not die under a hail of bullets. The soldiers were under strict instructions to avoid civilian deaths, specially as they knew there were several children living in the compound. So the US military did not kill Baghdadi. Baghdadi killed himself and sacrificed his two children in the process. Under what sort of scenario does Corbyn think the Delta Force commandos could have arrested Baghdadi? The Osama bin Laden killing was different. Two US Navy Seals had started to climb the stairs up to his bedroom when the a-Qaeda founder appeared at the top. Assuming he was armed, the lead commando shot him dead. Now, theoretically, they could have asked him nicely to lay down his arms, whether he had a weapon or not, and put his hands up. But there had already been shooting exchanges when Seal Team 6 arrived at the compound by helicopter. It was in the middle of the night. Expecting Bin Laden to come quietly was fanciful. It would have been a split second decision. Under the circumstances, the fatal shooting of Bin Laden was justified and unavoidable. Corbyn has no experience of war and clearly does not understand the extreme dangers of mounting operations of this kind. In the case of the Baghdadi raid, Delta Force did not even go hunting for the Isis leader until they had safely evacuated all the unarmed civilians from the compound. It was an immaculate operation. During the counter-terrorism war in Northern Ireland, the SAS, Britain's Delta Force, was sometimes accused of operating a shoot-to-kill policy, laying ambushes for IRA terrorists and killing them. There were certainly many instances where SAS units WERE involved in fatal shootings. But statistics show that the SAS was responsible for more arrests than deaths during the 30 years of the Troubles.

Nigel Farage should step down full stop!

Everybody is talking about Nigel Farage. While I'm sure this makes the leader of the Brexit Party very happy, his announcement about withdrawing candidates from Tory seats won in 2017 has put the cat among the pigeons. It sounded like good news for Boris because it means that in Tory majority and marginal constituencies, Conservative candidates will not have to fight for votes with the Brexit Party and should therefore manage to hold on to their seats, all vital if the prime minister is to stay in power with a decent working majority. But now some Tories are saying Farage must go a step further and stand his candidates down in Labour marginal constituencies. This is because if Boris is to get a proper majority in parliament, the Tories must win as many Labour marginal seats as possible and they might not be able to do that if a bunch of Brexit Party madcap Brexiteers who want to crash out of the EU with no deal are clogging up the doorsteps and selling the Farage vision to disillusioned electors. So, pleae, Mr Farage, these Tories are saying, we don't want your candidates in any Tory-held seats OR Labour marginal seats. There are enough Labour marginals to make a big difference to the numbers game, such as Kensington in west London where Labour has a majority of only 20, and Crewe and Nantwich, a Labour majority of 48. Farage has said absolutely not. But what if Labour hangs on to all its marginal seats as a result of Brexit Party successes cutting into the Tory voters? And it ends up with Jeremy Corbyn in power and either a much softer Brexit deal under a Labour government or a second referendum which leads to a reversal of the 2016 vote and a decision to stay in the EU. Farage would be blamed for keeping the UK in the EU AND bringing Corbyn to Number 10. Could he ever live that down? If Farage wants, above all else, for the UK to leave the EU, then he should do everything in his power to keep Boris in Number 10. The only way to do that is for Farage to scrap the Brexit Party, withdraw all its candidates, resign and go and live somewhere far from Westminster and take up pig farming or whatever. But I guess he is not going to do that. He will feel he has already made the big gesture by removing his candidates from Tory-held seats, and he wants Brexit Party representation in the House of Commons, although, weirdly, he himself isn't standing. He has lost so many times he can't face further humiliation. So he will pursue his policy of having candidates standing in all other seats and screw the consequences. My feeling, based on nothing in particular, except gut instinct, is that Farage and the Brexit Party will fail catastrophically. Boris has got a Brexit deal which the EU has approved, and I really don't believe there can be many voters who would prefer to throw Boris's deal out of the window and opt for the crash-out option. So Leavers, whether Farage supporters or not, will vote for Boris. They won't vote for Labour because Corbyn can't be trusted to stick to the 2016 referendum mandate. They won't vote for the Liberal Democrats because they want to remain in the EU. So Leavers, and Remainers who have resigned themselves to exiting the EU but with a deal, will reject Labour and Farage and the Lib Dems. Farage has made his gesture and will be crushed. Labour will hang on to some of its marginal seats, such as Bury North where there is an excellent young MP, James Frith, but will not win a majority of any kind. The Lib Dems will damage the Tory majority by winning several marginal seats. But Boris will scrape in with a small majority. Voila!

US military back to square one in Syria

If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. Watching the US administration troops-in-Syria policy is like witnessing a tug of war between the White House and the Pentagon. One moment the White House tuggers are winning easily and pulling all the troops with them, the next the Pentagon big boys have dug their heels in and have started to pull back the rope, with the White House tuggers gasping for breath. Right now the Pentagon team is winning. There used to be roughly 1,000 US troops in Syria, most of them in the northeast and some further south at al-Tanf. Then a mighty rope-pull from Trump virtually defeated the Pentagon team when he announced that all US troops were to come home. Syria, he said, was over. Since then the Pentagon has been fighting its corner and winning a lot of points. In the intervening time, 300 or so American troops crossed the border into western Iraq where they found they were unwelcome and after a bit of toing and froing between the Pentagon and the White House, they were ordered back into Syria. How many were then still on Syria territory was a little unclear. Then came the new policy which was to have several hundred troops guarding the Syrian oil wells in the northeast. Now, the numbers game has become a little clearer, possibly. General Mark Milley, stalwart chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has declared that around 500-600 US soldiers will stay in Syria indefinitely, guarding those oil wells. He didn't say whether that figure includes the 200 or so US soldiers believed to be at al-Tanf, a garrison in the south. I suspect he wasn't. So that would mean there are going to be around 800 American troops staying in Syria, guarding the oil wells and training with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) at al-Tanf. We are almost back to square one, just 200 short of the 1,000 who were in Syria some months ago and on Trump's bring-home hit list. It's an extraordinary about-turn by Trump and a brilliant coup for the Pentagon, particularly for General Milley. But it means that during his reelection campaign Trump can no longer boast that he is bringing US troops home from wars he believes others should be fighting. With so much emphasis this week on the impeachment inquiry hearings going public, this bizarre Syria troop policy is not getting the coverage it deserves.

John Bolton could bring down Trump?

John Bolton must know everything about Trump and Ukrainegate. As national security adviser he would have been in all chats and debates and rows about Trump's determination to find dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter and to get the new comedian president of Ukraine to help out as a quid pro quo for getting US military aid. Ousted by Trump for disagreeing with him on a number of key policy issues, Bolton is potentially a huge witness for the House Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee in their impeachment investigation. Will muoustacheod Bolton be in the mood to tell all and help to bring down the president or will he prefer to hang on to all the juicy details of life inside the Oval Office for his memoir? Well if he gets subpoenaed he will have to turn up as a witness unless he has clever lawyers to keep him away from the inquisitive House committees. Bolton was a pefect choice for Trump as national security adviser because he is hawkish and believes, to a certain extent, in a lot of the views voiced by the president. Like Iran. He and Trump share the same opinion about Iran and the ayatollahs. But the two men became frustrated with each other to such an extent that the president started to ignore his advice. So now Bolton is a dangerous animal to be on the outside. He could do a lot of damage to Trump. It doesn't mean that his testimony will result in Trump's impeachment, because the Republicans in the Senate can and will still throw out the Democrats' evidence. But a Bolton thunderbolt could still cause lasting damage to a president desperate to win a second four years in office. Will Bolton want to do it? Is he the vengeful type? I suspect he will want to keep the best bits for his memoir. He has now been signed up by a publisher. He won't win any browny points by slagging off Trump in front of the Democrats. Better for him to give moderate and carefully-worded responses to their questions and wait and see how the impeachment inquiry goes. It might be all over by Christmas. Then he can bring out his blockbuster memoir next year and make tons of money. If he attacks Trump in the House hearings, he might undermine his potential sales because people will think he's just a busted flush, another traitor trying to make money. Oh this is a cynical business!

The last thing the Democrats want is yet another candidate

Michael Bloomberg's late late entry into the Democratic presidential nomination race is bad news for the Democrats for a number of reasons. First, the current frontrunners have been battling away for months trying to get their nose ahead of the race and are probably already suffering from campaign fatigue, so what they don't want is to hear about a billionaire putting his hat into the ring. Second, Bloomberg's decision to join the Democratic stampede says loud and clear that he doesn't think there's anyone in the hustings right now worthy or able to take on Donald Trump. Does that matter? Well, it probably does because it might make Democrat voters think Bloomberg is right and that Trump is going to get an easy ride for a second four-year term in the White House. Bloomberg has had three terms as mayor of New York and has a vast fortune, supposedly worth $57 billion, a figure beyond comprehension for the likes of you and me. It's so much that if he spends $1 billion on his election campaign over the next few months, he and his bank manager won't even notice. So no problem with promoting the Bloomberg vision, provided he has on, with marketing and ad camaigns. He is 77, so, like Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, he is definitely in the ageing generation of political figures. Trump has already derided him by focusing on his size. He is not a tall man. He is only 5ft 6ins. Trump is 6ft 2-3ins depending on his hair on any one day. So Bloomberg is filthy rich but short. Why does he feel he should enter the race, does he really believe he has a better chance to beat Trump than Biden or Warren or Buttigieg? When you are that rich you have a different view of the world, and a different belief in your own abilities. That's either a good thing if you are genuinely visionary and in touch with the common folk, or a bad thing if it means you have no idea how the average person lives. But having been mayor of New York for three terms I'm sure he must have got around to see how the other 95 per cent of people struggle along with their lives. So perhaps his late entry into the race may be a good move. It will certainly increase the competition between the current frontrunners. Whether his wealth and background will win the nomination, I suspect is unlikely. He will spend an awful lot of his own money but I predict that he will fall by the way side next year, as Biden, Warren and one other - Sanders or Buttigieg - keep ahead of the game.

More confusion over Trump's Syria oil policy

It must be getting increasingly difficult for the Pentagon to explain away Donald Trump's bizarre comment that the US planned to take some of the oil from the wells in northeastern Syria, now being guarded by American troops and Bradley armoured fighting vehicles. Asked by reporters at a Pentagon press briefing whether the US had the legal right to have some of this oil when it belonged to the sovereign country of Syria, the two officials on the podium insisted the revenue from oil sales was all going to fund operations by the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), those lovely allies who were deserted by the US only a few weeks ago when the Turkish army invaded, but are still relied on as valued partners against Isis remnants. The US troops sent to protect the oil wells, reversing Trump's decision to pull them all out and send them home, were primarily deployed to prevent Isis from getting their hands on them. The wells used to churn out 45,000 barrels a day when Isis was in control, worth a daily $1.5 million through the black market. So as soon as the Pentagon reminded Trump of that and warned of the risk of Isis returning to seize the oil wells, he agreed to send 200-300 troops with armoured vehicles to make sure Isis was refused access. More than anything, however, it was guilt that changed Trump's mind. The SDF have been guarding the oil wells ever since Isis was defeated, and after the abandonment of the Kurdish-led fighting alliance, left to fight and be killed by the Turks, the Pentagon has been looking at ways of keeping the partnership going. The oil wells supplied the answer. But the Pentagon still had to answer the key question, was the US going to help itself to the oil revenues as well as the SDF? The Pentagon's chief spokesman, Jonathan Rath Hoffman, and Rear-Admiral William Byrne, vice director of the US Joint Staff, simply avoided giving a direct answer but just stuck to the line that the revenue from the oil would go to the SDF. And never to Isis. But how long is this sustainable? At some point the Syrian government, backed by Moscow, is surely going to say, "Hey, this is our oil, we want it back to help our economy." When Isis controlled the wells, there was a bizarre arrangement under which the jihadists sold the oil to the Syrian regime via middlemen. Damascus thus helped Isis to flourish. The US will never forgive President Bashar Assad for that. But US troops and SDF fighters can't guard the wells for ever. The Turks for a start are going to wake up to the fact that US-protected Syrian oil is being used to fund the very Kurds whom they regard as terrorists. There will come a breaking point when US troops at the oil wells are confronted by either Syrian regime forces or the Russians or Turks. Then what? Admiral Byrne said the US troops would defend themselves against all-comers. I hope the Pentagon and the White House have thought this one through.

Don't vote Labour, says ex-Labour MP!

The UK election campaign has only just officially started but already it's turning into a decidedly quirky event. So many Tory MPs have announced they are not going to stand for reelection that Boris and his team must be scrabbling around desperately for new candidates to fill the vacancies. But the most quixotic development was the appeal put out by former Labour MP Ian Austin - he resigned from the Labour Party and became an independent MP in February - for all Labour supporters to vote for the Conservatives. Now that's the sort of gift which Boris has been dreaming about. And it came in the nick of time. Until now Boris's message to voters has been scuppered by all sorts of stupidities by one Conservative or other, most notably the remark on radio by Jacob Never-Forget-I-went-to Eton Rees Mogg about how, if he had been living in one of the burning Grenfell flats, he would have got out fast, ignoring the advice of the London Fire Brigade to stay put. It was common sense, he said. Only someone of Rees Mogg's upbringing - I doubt he has ever lived in a flat - could say such a thing. It might seem common sense while sitting comfortably in a radio studio but to make such a decision when you and your family are trapped in a furiously burning building would have taken huge and risky courage, especially when the voice of authority - the Fire Brigade - was saying "Don't leave". I think I would have stayed if only because at such a frightening time you cling on to the advice of the professionals. Leaving your flat to take your children down a burning stairway would have been more terrifying than hiding in the corner of the flat and praying for rescue. Rees Mogg did more damage to Boris's campaign at that point than anything to do with Brexit because it gave Labour the opportunity to deride the Conservatives as a party out of touch with ordinary folk. But then up pops Ian Austin. He made it simple. There were only two possible prime ministers running in the election, Boris and Jeremy Corbyn. No one else stood a chance, he said. And he couldn't recommend any voter should go for Corbyn because he was an extremist and posed a danger to the nation. Strong stuff. His voice may well be the voice that lasts loudest over the next few weeks. If so, he will have done an enormous service to the country.

Climate-change disbeliever Trump is putting wealth before planet survival

Climate change, global warming, call it what you will, HAS to become the key issue in every election in every country between now and 2050. The warning signs are now so overwhelming that even Donald Trump must have sneaking concerns that perhaps he has got it wrong, although clearly he is never going to admit it. He has now formally entered the first phase of America's withdrawal from the Paris climate-change treaty. Trump believes the historic treaty signed in 2016 was and is unfair to the US and would damage its economy. So he presumably doesn't read the latest scientific warnings or watch the ice in the Arctic melting or think anything is strange when he sees extraordinary new weather patterns around the world. I do believe that advancing technology will play a huge part in reducing the threat from global warming, such as electric cars, wind turbines and solar power for energy etc. But this will all take time and require huge investment. Right now heavily industrialised countries have to make decisions to reverse decades of complacency. Trump is a non-believer and I doubt there is anyone or anything that will convince him otherwise. He wants coal to come back in style. It is beyond belief. If he is ousted in November 2020, perhaps the Democratic successor, whoever he or she is, will make a firm commitment to lead the world on climate-change policies. But since I doubt Trump will be defeated, we're going to be stuck with his to-hell-with-the-climate-change-rubbish approach for another four years. If Boris Johnson wins the UK election on December 12, will he devote his time to investing in alternative energy resources and putting climate-change policies at the top of his agenda? No, he will surely spend his first three years devoted to Brexit and forging a new trade relationship with the EU. Jeremy Corbyn has said a Labour government would deal with climate-change, so he is not all bad, but he, too, would be immersed in Brexit and reversing the country's fortunes with socialist obsessions such as renationalising the railways and giving more power to the trade unions. Ironically, as we leave the EU, it wll probably be the European Union which will lead the way on climate change, seeing as how the US, China, Russia, India and Brazil are not going to set the right example. When Trump eventually ends his time in the White House he is going to leave behind a legacy from which the rest of the world will suffer for decades to come. Unless like with so many of his other policies, he changes his mind on global warming. No sign of that at the moment.

Jo Swinson Lib Dem leader, saviour or fantasist?

I would love to think that Jo Swinson, the young leader of the Liberal Democrats, could win the December 12 election and march us all back into the European Union like happy campers and forget the whole Brexit thing ever happened. But to do that she would have to see such a massive and historically unprecedented swing towards her party that it seems far-fetched, inconceivable and close to fantasy land. Even if her party were to win, say, 100 seats, she would still not be prime minister. That role, unavoidably, has to go to the leader of either the Conservatives or Labour, Boris or Corbyn. That's the way it goes. We are effectively a two-party state. Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg joined together in a coalition in 2010 but from that exeperience I suspect neither of the two big parties would want to contemplate such a marriage ever again. It proved disastrous and pointless and undermining. So what's the point of voting for Jo Swinson? Is a protest vote by EU Remainers for the Lib Dems responsible at a time when we need firm decisions about our country's future, no more dither and confusion? Well, it's for this very reason that I think a vote for Jo is actually a good one. She is the only leader who has come out and said categorically that she hates the idea of the UK leaving the EU and will revoke Article 50 on her first day in office and scrap Brexit. The Conservatives will stick to their Boris deal, and Labour will.....well what will Labour do? No one really knows. Corbyn and co hint at a possible second referendum, with Remain as one option and a Corbyn-inspired deal on the other. But Labour has been a party of such muddle over Brexit that I don't think Corbyn can ever be trusted with taking the UK out of the EU or leaving it in. So Jo's promise to stay in the EU, which I support, has to be a creditable policy, even though it will infuriate the millions who for reasons I never fully understood desperately want to get the hell out of the EU. These anti-EU voters will never vote for Jo. So either they will go for Boris because of his deal or try Corbyn in case he produces a better deal or choose Nigel Farage, the King of Brexiteers. As a result we are heading for a massive split in voting. Jo will probably get her 80-100 seats, the Tories and Labour will lose a pile of seats, the Brexit Party will win a handful and the Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist Party will hold on to their seats. No one will be in charge of anything and Brexit will go on being a mess.

Trump, Biden, Warren or a surprise outsider? One year to go

Three years of Donald Trump have flashed by. The United States of America is as divided as ever. Is there any one among the Democratic presidential hopefuls who could change all that? I fear not. The reason is that if Trump is ousted in November 2020 by a Democrat, the country will not be drawn together as a unified nation excited at the thought of a new era of political stability. If Trump loses, his supporters will be outragedand will blame the Democrats for ruining their lives, whether it be Joe Biden, Elazabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or one of the outsiders such as Pete Buttigieg. If Trump wins, it will be the same old same old, with anti-Trump voters believing the election must have been corrupted by shady dealings or interfered with, again, by Moscow or North Korea or whoever. I don't believe, as of today, that there is any Democratic candidate strong enough or able enough to take on Trump and win in November 2020. But a year is a very long time in politics. Trump has his one foreign victory - the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - but a lot could go wrong in the next 12 months. A terrorist attack claimed by Isis in the US or in Europe could wipe out the benefits of Baghdadi's demise at the hands of the US Army Delta Force commandos. And a serious setback for Trump with North Korea, China, Iran or Afghanistan, could pile on the pressure and give the Democrats a chance to exploit what they will see as the president's failed foreign pledges. But the same goes for the main Democratic contenders. Biden is now besmirched, fairly or unfairly, by the Ukrainegate saga, Warren's health plan looks to be extortionately expensive however she tries to explain the mathematics - and anyway most Americans don't like the idea of a socialist national health system - Sanders is even more left wing and I don't think the average US citizen is ready for a radical shake-up on the lines he has in mind, and Buttigieg is great but is more likely to be a vice-presidential nominee. The rest are beginning to look like also rans, although I still hold a candle for Kamala Harris. So the next 12 months are going to be just as good or bad for the Democrats as they will be for Trump. Anything could happen that might screw up their individual chances of being the boss in the White House. Trump is facing impeachment but the Republican majority in the Senate will surely gather round their president like barnacles to a sunken ship and will brush the Democrats aside if or when there is an impeachment trial. Baghdadi may be forgotten by November next year, although I'm sure Trump will remind everyone as often as he can that he was commander-in-chief when Delta Force struck. The key will be the economy, immigration and jobs. Unless there's a recession, Trump could win those arguments.

The raid on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's secret compound

The planning for Operation Kayla Mueller began six weeks before the raid last Saturday which resulted in the death of the world's most wanted terrorist leader. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Isis founder, had moved to his final home at a compound in Barisha, in Idlib province, northwest Syria, in mid-July. However, despite constant surveillance by American satellites and surveillance drones, there were two reasons why US military chiefs were forced to bide their time: Baghdadi had already shown that he was paranoid about staying long at any one location; and the Barisha compound was in the middle of an al-Qaeda-controlled region of Syria, four miles south of the Turkish border and where the Russian and Syrian air forces dominated with constant combat air patrols. The raid in May 2011 on Osama bin Laden's compound outside the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan had been complex enough because the US military had to breach Pakistani airspace without being detected. A huge Pakistani army barracks was also located in Abbottabad. However, planning for Operation Kayla Mueller, named after the American aid worker murdered by Isis, had to take into account the possibility of hostile confrontation not just from Isis fighters guarding Baghdadi but also from al-Qaeda-linked militia, Syrian air defences and Russian combat aircraft.The military planners at US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, devised an operational framework which would involve a massed array of firepower and the deployment of the US military's most specialised and elite troops.The build-up of intelligence over the previous three and a half months, led by the CIA, had provided near-certainty that Baghdadi was still at the Barisha compound. He had never left the complex, and the "crown jewels" information provided by a trusted but disillusioned Baghdadi bodyguard recruited by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces finally convinced the Pentagon and the White House that the moment for a raid had come. The assault force selected for the raid had been training on a replica of the Barisha compound constructed at a military base outside Arbil in northern Iraq where the US Army's Delta Force special operations unit has had a permanent team for several years. The assault force was put on high-readiness alert in the second week of October. The timing of the raid on Baghdadi's compound would depend on the lunar cycle and last-moment intelligence of all the ingredients that would play a part in the success or failure of the mission: Baghdadi's confirmed location and Russian and Turkish acceptance of an imminent US operation in the Idlib region.The raiding party consisted of two key components: around 30 members of Delta Force would carry out the breach of the compound and hunt for Baghdadi while eliminating any threats and removing civilians, and 50-60 soldiers from 75th Ranger Regiment, the "shock troops" of the US Army, would guard the compound perimeter to confront any "hostiles" approaching the building and to prevent anyone - especially Baghdadi - from escaping. The assault force of an estimated 80-100 troops arrived close to the compound at 1am local time in eight helicopters, a mix of MH-47 Chinooks and MH-60 Black Hawks, all especially modified for special operations missions at night. They came from the famed 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment known as the Night Stalkers, also used in the Bin Laden raid. The troop-carrying helicopters were backed by 3-4 Apache attack helicopters armed with Hellfire missiles, up to six armed Reaper drones, F-15s (used for destroying the compound) and what the Pentagon described as "fifth generation" fighter aircraft, either F-22 Raptors or F-35 Lightning IIs. The US Navy was also on alert in the region if required. Navy officials said that at the time of the raid there were two guided-missile cruisers, three guided-missile destroyers and, notably, USS Lewis B Puller, an expeditionary mobile base vessel designed to support US Marine and special operations missions. They were all in the Arabian Gulf area, close enough to make a contribution if needed. The nearest carrier was USS Abraham Lincoln but it was in the Northern Arabian Sea, too far to play a role. On the ground, Operation Kayla Mueller took two hours. Once all the civilians had been removed to safety, questioning by the Delta Force team produced crucial intelligence: confirmation that Baghdadi was still inside and the whereabouts of tunnels where he might be hiding. With the Rangers surrounding the compound, Delta Force knew they had time to locate Baghdadi. Conan, one of the combat-veteran military working dogs with Delta Force, hunted down Baghdadi to one of the tunnels where he had gone along with two of his children, both under 12. President Trump and his top team of advisers waiting and watching 6,000 miles away in the White House situation room bunker knew they had their man when one of the Delta Force commandos shouted "Jackpot". How certain were they that it was Baghdadi's body parts spread around the tunnel after he had detonated his suicide vest? Thanks to a DNA sample taken from Baghdadi when he was a prisoner at the American Camp Bucca detention facility in Iraq in 2004, the level of certainty that it was a match was "one in 104 septillion". And that, said General Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, commander of US Central Command and overall in charge of Operation Kayla Mueller, was "beyond a shadow of doubt". Baghdadi's body parts were buried at sea, probably from off USS Lewis B Puller which has deck space for a Chinook or Black Hawk.

The rise and rise of Nigel Farage

There has been talk in recent weeks of Nigel Farage suddeny becoming a nice sensilbe politician with his apparent offer to the Conservatives to stand aside in certain constituencies to make sure the Tory candidate in each case has a better chance of winning rather than being faced with a strong Brexit Party candidate. But oh no, there's a huge quid pro quo, that lovely phrase which now seems part of the international political woodwork (see Trump/Ukrainegate's quid pro quo). Farage has told Boris today that he must drop his Brexit deal altogether in return for the Brexit Party stepping aside in some constituencies. Farage of course wants to crash out of the EU with no deal because, even though he enjoyed a nice fat salary and huge expenses for years as a member of the European Parliament, he wants Britain out of the EU full stop, with no concessions, no nothing. It's not an unexpected bit of blackmail but pretty outrageous. Farage has no parliamentary representation and yet he believes if he fields candidates in all constituencies he is going to end up with an avalanche of MPs in the Commons. Thus his ultimatum to Boris, drop the Brexit deal. The Boris deal is considerably harder in terms of eliminating links to the EU than Theresa May's version which included sticking with the customs union. But it's not good enough for our Nigel. And we are only in the first day or so of the election campaign. It is truly going to be a monstrously awful next six weeks. Boris can't possibly throw away his deal after winning plaudits for changing the EU's position vis a vis Theresa May's version. So I assume he will tell Farage to get st**fed. But that means there will be a full confrontation between Tory and Brexit Party candidates in every constituency which maybe will be good news for Labour, certainly not good news for Boris. How many blackmail scenarios will Boris have to face? The Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist Party of course will be plotting to get what they want from Brexit, never mind Boris's deal. All terrible news for us all. The end result? A hung parliament with no winners and Brexit back to square one!!!