Afghanistan war: the violence never stopped despite the US-led coalition's best efforts

MY ONLINE PIECE ON AFGHANISTAN WAR IN THE TIMES TODAY: From the very beginning of what would become America’s longest war, there were fundamental errors in strategy, tactics, equipment and objectives. In some senses, Afghanistan has been transformed by the mere presence of US-led forces: more schools; a dramatic expansion in medical centres; new roads; a better life for women and education for girls; a multi-billion dollar programme to build Afghan defence forces; and shaky but constant protection of the nation’s vulnerable democratic government. However, the violence never stopped — the killing was relentless. The Taliban insurgents were successfully driven from key areas but soon made their way back. There were no safe areas, not the capital Kabul, not Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the south, not Herat in the west, not Kunduz in the north, nor Jalalabad in the east. The Washington Post reported recently that the US government and the Pentagon had persistently lied about the appalling status of the military campaign in Afghanistan. But in fact the US and western coalition commanders overseeing the war were often brutally honest about the challenges they faced throughout the 18 year conflict. Whether it was right or wrong to send a huge interventionist army into Afghanistan, rather than keeping a small elite force of special operations troops as recommended by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary from 2001 to 2006, it is too late to make an accurate judgment. The US and its partners did decide to go big, eventually. By May 2009, the US had 50,000 troops in Afghanistan but there were mixed views about the objectives of their mission. In 2006, Britain sent the 3,300-strong 16 Air Assault Brigade into Helmand to protect projects designed to help rebuild the war-ravaged country. But, contrary to intelligence assessments, Helmand turned out to be the most dangerous province in the whole of Afghanistan. The soldiers were well-armed but totally unprepared for such an onslaught. Troop numbers proved fatally insufficient. Platoon “houses” of around 30 British paratroopers were scattered around the various district centres in Helmand to fend off the Taliban. However, they found themselves immersed in colonial-style Rorke’s Drift scenarios, except that instead of a final glorious victory, they were slaughtered fighting day and night against hordes of insurgents. The word “reconstruction” was rapidly dropped. Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, former UK chief of defence staff and commander of the international force in Afghanistan between 2006 and 2007, said: “Don’t go to war unless your vital national interests are at stake and if you decide to, do it full-bloodedly and with total commitment, and there must be a political outcome integrated into one’s war plan from the outset or failure is guaranteed.” The US, British and partner nations were forced to adapt as the Taliban grew in strength. The British army’s Viking armoured vehicles proved incapable of protecting troops from the blast of improvised explosive devices. The US had to rush to build mine-resistant MRAP vehicles, and troop numbers continued to rise. By the height of the war in 2010, the US had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. The British made fatal errors with military equipment too. The worst was the deployment of “snatch” armoured Land Rovers to Afghanistan. Their use in the Northern Ireland troubles had been effective but in Afghanistan they became mobile coffins. Dozens of soldiers were killed by roadside bombs. When British troop numbers rose to 9,000 by 2009, there were fewer than a dozen heavy-lift helicopters to transport them around Helmand. That forced commanders to use road vehicles, leading to heavy casualties. The return of dead soldiers and marines in body bags to RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, became a national tragedy, with funeral corteges driving through the main street of nearby Wootton Bassett lined with thousands of mourners. All the while, as Western troops were failed by either too little equipment or the wrong hardware, the objectives of the war were multiplying: defeating the Taliban; nation-building; and bringing an end to opium production. Andrew Krepinevich, a former US army officer who also served on the personal staff of three defence secretaries, said: “The main lesson to be learned is that we Americans and our allies cannot win these kinds of wars by winning the local population’s hearts and minds. Only the Afghan government can accomplish this. “This is because eventually we were bound to depart and the [Afghan] government would be left with the challenge of convincing its people that they could provide them with a better life and protect them from insurgents.”

Mixed messages from the coronavirus crisis

It's difficult to know who to believe or who to listen to when deciding what to do about coronavirus. Can you fly to Italy or not? Can you attend a marathon contest? What about a concert or a football match or just going to the local supermarket? One lot of people, the sceptics/realists say, "Oh for goodness sake, look how many people have died from coronavirus, it's tiny compared with the number who die every year from flu." Yeah, but flu is flu, it doesn't soun so bad and most people get it and survive fine. Coronavirus is so infectious you can pick it up almost anywhere, and those who die suffer from grievous breathing problems. Not nice, and scary for their family and friends and work colleagues. It also sounds more deadly than simple flu. Also, you can have a flu jab whereas there's no antidote to this latest virus. Only the Israelis seem to be confident of creating an antidote within the next few months. Most other experts are talking of at least a year. By then, what will the world look like? Trump keeps on saying that he has everything under control as far as the United States is concerned. But he is very likely to be proved wrong. The virus entered the US not that long ago and already it's zipping around gabbing people in states all over the country. Very soon the US authorities are going to be talking about thousands of people affected. Here in UK, the figures are very low, fewer than 20. But the first death has been announced, and, again, there is every chance that the numbers will increase rapidly. Health experts and politicians seem to be keeping their fingers crossed that it will all stop, perhaps when Spring and warmer weather arrive. The trouble is, is it better to assume the worst and close all schools, universities, churches etc for the foreseeable future? Or stop all flights? Think of the business and economic damage that would cause. Over-reacting is as bad as under-reacting. We can't close the world down. On the other hand look what happened in Iran. They blatantly failed to take enough measures and the virus is spreading all over the place, reaching the highest in the land. There is a pretty good argument for banning all flights in and out of Iran, and the same for China and possibly South Korea, the three worst hit countries. But, again, the implications of that sort of decision would be horrendous. The World Health Organisation isn't helping by putting out statements saying there could be a pandemic, or a pandemic could be imminent, or a pandemic is unavoidable. With every continent except the Antarctic recording coronavirus cases, we already have an epidemic of sorts already. Comparisons with flu don't help. If only we could trust our leaders to get a grip!

The departure of top Pentagon official is a warning to all Trump critics

John Rood, undersecretary of defence for policy in the Pentagon, departs at the end of this week, following his enforced resignation on February 19. His demise from one of the most important jobs in the defence department should serve as a warning to all working for the Trump administration that if they can't be 100 per cent loyal and do and say what the president wants, they will be out. Rood by all accounts was not an easy man to have around. It's claimed he was short if not downright rude to his subordinates which is never a good sign for a leader of anything. But I doubt he was ousted by the White House for his temper or temperament but for his views on key issues which clashed with those of Trump and his National Security Council. Many many others have already departed the Trump administration for the same reason, not least of whom was the man who brought Rood to the Pentagon in the first place two years ago, the illustrious General Jim Mattis, secretary of defence until his abrupt dismissal at the end of 2018. Loyalty is one thing. You can be loyal to your president but without being a toady. Argument or at least forceful discussion has to play a part in any administration when key foreign and security policy decisions have to be made. A president should welcome the to and fro of debate. He has to make the final decision - bomb or not to bomb - but differing views is healthy in a democracy. Perhaps Rood went too far in his disagreements with Trump but I'm sure he argued his case and that of the Pentagon robustly and intelligently. That was his job. The trouble for presidents, not just Trump, is that on the whole the Pentagon and its layer of military chiefs don't like to go to war unless they really have to but once they do they want to stay to complete the job which, in their parlance, means winning. That's why everyone at the Pentagon, including Rood, was so anti Trump's wish to withdraw US troops from Syria last year because they knew the task of defeating Isis in northern Syria was not finished. Rood and co won that argument, eventually. But Trump will not have forgotten. Rood was on the skids ever since then probably. Anyway his time is up and his job, like many others in the department, will remain vacant or filled temporarily by a deputy.

Democratic presidential candidates get nasty

Donald Trump congratulated Bernie Sanders for being the Democratic frontrunner. But none of Bernie's rivals for the White House job have anything nice to say to him. In fact the TV debate in North Carolina was both unpleasant for him and unpleasant for us viewers. It was singularly undignifying as each candidate laid into the 78-year-old senator, basically doing Trump's job for him. What a shower they were. None of them gave a good account of themselves, all they wanted to do was put down Sanders. I guess this is the way it is. If you want to win you have to be rude to your opponents to try and put them in a bad light. This is politics. But at the end of the debate it would have been nice to see through all the abuse and pick on one of the candidates as a shining example of a president-in-the-making. There were none. Poor Bernie was so tied up trying to stand up for himself against the waving arms of his rivals that he came across as a battered old man. Which, technically speaking, he is. Old man that is. Biden doesn't seem to have a clue anymore. At one point he said if he was president he would force China to open up to international investigators over the coronavirus crisis. Oh please, even Trump can't order Xi Zinping around, and the Chinese president would deem it to be the height of insolence and humiliation for him to suggest that he, supreme leader for life, cannot sort out the coronavirus in his country, even if he can't. There has been very little about foreign policy in these Democratic debates. I can't for the life of me list what each candidate would do on on his or her first day in the White House on such thorny subjects as North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria, Middle East in general, Israel/Palestine, and, of course, China. Not a clue. But somehow I don't fancy any of these candidates trying to sort out the problems of the world. Nor Trump of course, although at least we know by now what he really really wants: to bring all American troops home but he just can't do it. Not yet anyway.

Trump has things to worry about: coronavirus damage to the economy and Russia

Donald Trump, now swanning around in India and hugging the Indian prime minister at every available opportunity, must have been thinking his reelection chances were looking pretty damned good, what with Bernie Sanders's scary revolutionary promises, Joe Biden's misery, Elizabeth Warren's never-wears-a-dress increasingly loud performances, Pete Buttigieg's youthful earnestness and Mike Bloomberg's, well, his Bloombergness (stinking rich and not a lot else going for him). But then along came coronavirus which could still bite him in the posterior if he's not careful. And then there are the pesky Russians, already it seems plotting to do malevolent things in the November presidential election to make sure Trump wins. Trump does NOT want anyone foreign helping him covertly or overtly to win reelection because if they did, he would probably lose! Trump from the Taj Mahal tweeted that he doesn't need anyone to help him win because he's going to win anyway. In other words: "Please, Vladimir, keep your spying hackers under lock and key, I don't want my supporters to think I can only win with Moscow's connivance, like in 2016 (ooops!)." If Putin was sensible, he should listen to Trump's plea from India. If he really wants his pal Donald to remain in the White House for the next four years - plus the eight and a half months left in his first term - he should keep his mouth shut. Trump will win without him and his cyber warfare maniacs. Unless of course Revolutionary Bernie who thinks Fidel Castro had his good points, and/or Coronavirus ruin his reelection party. The virus is probably the biggest potential spoiler. If it takes off in the US, Trump will be blamed for failing to take sufficient action. But much more important, the economy could go down the tubes as the world panics about a pandemic. The stock market is aleady going crazy with all the top-listed companies losing billions of dollars. It's not so much the virus itself that is destroying the world's confidence, it's the panic reaction that's sending stock markets falling into the mire. Trump is trying to stem the panic by claiming the US will be fine and that he has everything under control. But the virus is spreading in America, it has taken off in Italy and South Korea, it's very slowly building up in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and so many of China's cities are now in quarantine that the streets and shops are empty, despite President Xi Zinping's ominous order to everyone to get back to work. Trump needs a booming US economy to ensure he gets back in on November 3, and unless the virus seriously takes off in America or Putin does something stupid to undermine Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg, the guy now having fun in India should get reelected. But there are some buts, and Trump must be cursing those wild animal stall holders in Wuhan, capital of the Hubei province, who started the whole virus panic.

Spy bosses don't hold back their best secrets from their political masters or political mistresses

Priti Patel,the UK Home Secretary, is having a tough old time at the moment. Stories are doing the rounds, accusing her of bullying her staff, plotting to rid herself of her permanent secretary - her top civil service adviser - and being excluded from receiving the most sensitive intelligence from MI5, the Security Service which comes under her political wing as Home Secretary, because the agency's most senior officials don't trust her. I know nothing about the bullying charges other than to point out that a woman running the Home Office is always going to have a huge challenge from certain sniffy senior males who won't and don't like having a female boss. It's the oldest cliche in the Whitehall book. Senior male civil servants who are members of men-only clubs can never quite come to terms with having a woman in charge. Of course that's a massive generalisation. But I can envisage Priti Patel facing a battle every day to persuade her male top advisers to get the hell on with doing what SHE wants done and not what THEY want done. Women at the top of their political careers in government always face the risk of sexism. Priti Patel I bet has this every day, and Amber Rudd, a former Home Secretary, probably faced the same problem. And I'm sure Theresa May did when she was Home Secretary. Maggie Thatcher, who was never Home Secretary, was the exception. She was as tough as nails and men quailed before her, but a lot of very senior chaps, British and foreign, fell for her. Maggie could be quite flirtatious and men always adored that! I somehow doubt Priti Patel is flirtatious and I'm sure neither Amber Rudd nor Theresa May ventured down that path. They just battled with men every day and got angry when the male species smiled patronisingly and failed to carry out their orders. Remember that wonderful moment when Mrs May confronted the most patronising politician of all, Jean Claude Juncker, when president of the European Commission, and ticked him off in public after he had accused her of being "nebulous". Anyway, sexism is alive and well in the corridors of Whitehall and Mrs Patel will have to struggle with it while she remains in government whether at the Home Offie or elsewhere. But the latest development about MI5 bosses refusing to tell her everything she needs to know because they don't think she's capable of listening or understanding, that's a bit of bitchy sexism gone too far. MI5 is not some private organisation that does what it wants. It's fully accountable to parliament and to its political boss, the Home Secretary. I suppose in the most extreme of cases, if MI5 had evidence that the Home Secretary was a Russian agent or was working for Beijing, they might hesitate about revealing all, but then they would have already passed on their "evidence" in a special file to the Prime Minister. Other than that, no MI5 director-general nor his senior staff would hold back what the Home Secretary of the day needed to know and I am absolutely sure that the current one, Sir Andrew Parker, tells Mrs Patel everything she needs to know. How can she do her job properly if she is kept in ignorance of key intelligence material? So I think this particular spicy story is based on the briefing of a very bitchy individual who doesn't like the Home Secretary or has taken against her for some reason or who thinks he (she?) is far superior to Mrs Patel and wants to keep her in her place. The only thing that the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ DO hold back are operational details, including sensitive sources, unless there is a specific and urgent political requirement to pass this sort of stuff on. Some home secretaries and foreign secretaries have had the attitude: "Well don't give me the details, just the broad brush stuff." I don't know how Mrs Patel works when she chats to Sir Andrew Parker. But if, for example, she asks him to tell her exactly how an MI5 surveillance team discovered a Russian spy working in a defence company, he probably would be reluctant to give precise chapter and verse. But that wouldn't mean he was withholding vital intelligence. That's the way the intelligence services work, and Mrs Patel will be treated no different from any of her predecessors. I remember the same sort of stories were appearing in Washington about the US intelligence services and Donald Trump. It was claimed the president wasn't being told anything sensitive because the intelligence services hated him and distrusted him. That was nonsense too. Trump, like all his predecessors, receives his daily intelligence brief which spells out all the carefully analysed intelligence picked up by the 17 agencies but without going into operational detail. Whether Trump takes any notice of the presidential briefs is another matter, but he gets everything he should get whether he likes it or not.

Harry and Meghan are sounding increasingly bitter

Reading between the lines- and it's not very difficult to do so - the latest statement put out by Harry and Meghan is filled with anger and bitterness and disappointment and frustration. Slowly they are being isolated from the rest of the Royal Family and they are beginning to hit back. The language they use is carefully drawn up but the message to Buckingham Palace is unmistakable. Who was behind the sentence about the word "royal" on their website? Was it Harry dictating to Meghan or the other way around? So they agreed not to use the brand name SussexRoyal because the Queen or her advisers told them this was no longer appropriate. But the duke and duchess wrote that neither the Queen nor her government had world rights on the word "royal". In other words there's Royal and there's royal. Strictly speaking that's true. For example, somone might say, "The duke and duchess have made a right royal mess of things." Royal in that context is just a commoner's adjective. But His Royal Highness and his SussexRoyal brand.....well that's totally different. Harry and Meghan are not stupid, they know the difference. Of course there isn't a ban on the word royal but in their case there IS a ban on the word Royal because it's a rank, a title, a special status. So why put that silly sentence into the H and M statement? And then there's the bitter stab at Buckingham Palace over the fact that OTHER royals - in other words William and Kate - can use Royal, so why can't they? Because, as the couple (but really Meghan I suspect) also wrote in the statement: whatever anyone does they can't take away the fact that both Harry and son Archie have royal blood in their veins. Or should I say Royal blood? Well that's true, but saying that in a statement makes it all seem so petty and all rather pathetic. Whoever advised them about the latest statement advised them badly. Very badly. But perhaps they have stopped taking advice, or stopped listening anyway. This latest statement summed up more about their new situation than anything they have written or said before. Harry and Meghan are building a wall around themselves and loosing off poisoned arrows at anyone they perceive to be their enemies. All very unpleasant and unnecessary.

Will the Nevada caucuses clarify or confuse the Democratic race?

After the debacle of the Iowa caucuses when an app went haywire and the vote counting became confused and unreliable, the state of Nevada is doing the same caucus system today although they have sensibly decided against using an app. But things could go wrong again. What the Democrats need more than anything is a bit more clarity about who is going to be the frontrunner for the nomination, and Nevada could do just that, if the voting system works properly. Nevada is a different sort of state. The Latino population is large and crucial for the Democratic candidates, plus there's the Las Vegas factor. This is a city stuffed with restaurant, casino and hotel workers most of whom would normally vote according to the wishes of their union, the Culinary Union. But this time, unlike in 2008 when they asked their members to vote for Obama, the union has not favoured any of the candidates. So there is not going to be an easy ride for any of them. Bernie Sanders thinks he's going to scoop up more votes than anyone but not everyone likes his Medicare for all policy. The key ingredient is the Latino vote. If the Latinos come out in force, it could change the arithmatic and bring Sanders' bandwagon to an end or at least slow it down. After the most recent TV debate, also in Las Vegas, when Elizabeth Warren came out fighting, many of the voters might decide to change their mind about whom to support. The feisty performance by Warren, particularly when she attacked Mike Bloomberg, could help her in today's caucuses. But will there be a clear winner? Will Nevada point the way for the nomination or just add to the confusion? There are still eight candidates left in the frame. Apart from the leading candidates, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Mike Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar, there is also Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer. By the end of Nevada two or maybe three will have to drop out if they score badly, leaving the biggest bust-up for Super Tuesday on March 3 when the field will narrow further. Bloomberg is not featuring in either Nevada or South Carolina later this month, so he has to do exceptionally well on March 3 when 14 states plus Americans abroad vote or he will be out. I suspect the Nevada state organisers will have learned the lessons of Iowa and will be able to declare a clearer winner than the neck-and-neck results in Iowa and New Hampshire when Sanders and Buttigieg shared the honours. My prediction? Klobuchar, Gabbard and Steyer will fall by the way side, Warren will have a mini surge and will close the gap with Sanders and Buttigieg, and even Biden will do reasonably well. But either Sanders or Buttigieg will win by a couple of percentage points. All of them, however, will claim a victory of sorts, just by doing better than in the first two state votes.

Why Trump picked a man with no intelligence background to be his top spy chief.

FULL VERSION OF MY TIMES STORY TODAY: President Trump has chosen a loyal diplomat without any intelligence background to be the next US spy supremo. Richard Grenell, ambassador to Germany since May 2018 and a staunch Trump loyalist, is to be the next acting director of national intelligence (DNI), in overall charge of 17 agencies including the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA). Mr Grenell, 53, who is openly gay, was described yesterday by a former senior US intelligence official as “the least qualified person” to be America’s top spy chief. Before his appointment as ambassador in Berlin he served as America’s spokesman at the United Nations. During his election campaign and the early stages of his presidency Mr Trump demonstrated his suspicion of the intelligence services, dating back to when they unanimously agreed that Russia had interfered in the 2016 vote which led to the defeat of Hillary Clinton. All Mr Grenell’s predecessors since the post was first created in 2005 were steeped in the spying world either as top officials of the intelligence services or, as in the case of Dan Coats (March 2017 – August 2019), a longstanding member of the Senate intelligence committee. Senator Mark Warner, current Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, tweeted :”It appears the president has selected an individual ‘without any intelligence experience’ to serve as the leader of the national intelligence community.” Mr Grenell, like Mr Trump, turns to Twitter to voice his opinions, often in defence of the president’s foreign policies. Most recently he has been warning countries, such as Britain, against using 5G technology from China’s Huawei company or risk a reduction in intelligence-sharing. Mr Grenell will replace retired Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire, former director of the national counter-terrorism centre and an ex- Navy Seal who assumed the acting DNI role in August. Under federal law, Admiral Maguire whose appointment was received with enthusiasm within the intelligence community, could only serve in an acting role for 210 days and will step down on March 11. Mr Trump decided against nominating him for the permanent appointment which requires Senate confirmation. The retired admiral succeeded Senator Coats who was ousted, along with his deputy Susan Gordon, a career intelligence official, soon after the story broke about Mr Trump’s phone call to newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he asked him a favour: to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, a board member of a Ukrainian natural gas company. Admiral Maguire became involved in the Ukraine affair which led to Mr Trump’s impeachment and acquittal this month when a CIA whistleblower was the first to report alarm over the July phone call Mr Trump made to Mr Zelensky. The admiral said the whistleblower “did the right thing”. In another development, John Rood, undersecretary of defence for policy, has been forced to resign after being informed that Mr Trump wanted him out. He had clashed with the White House over Ukraine and Syria. Mr Rood, a former top Lockheed Martin executive and ex-CIA analyst who took over the most senior policy post at the Pentagon more than two years ago, had raised concerns over the freezing of US military aid to Ukraine last summer. The alleged “quid pro quo” ultimatum – the suspending of US military aid until Mr Zelensky cooperated with investigating the Bidens – formed the basis of Mr Trump’s impeachment trial. LATER DEVELOPMENT: Admiral Maguire enraged Trump when he sent one of his top lawyers to brief the House of Representatives intelligence committee who informed them that Moscow was plotting to interfere in the 2020 election, just like it did in 2016, to make sure Trump won. Trump tore into Maguire in a session in the Oval Office and he was ousted as director of national intelligence. Until then Maguire had been given a pretty good hint that he would be nominated for the permanent post. OUCH!

What chance of a new arms-cutting treaty?

Mark Esper, US defence secretary, visited the US Air Force base at Minot in North Dakota today, home of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)and B-52s, The question of a future arms control treaty came up. It's called the New Start (strategic arms reduction treaty). Esper was all for it but pointed out, as if in some dismay, that both Russia and China were furiously modernising their nuclear weapons and developing systems like hypersonic cruise missiles. So that all had to stop, he implied. That's all fine and lovely but, as I am sure Secretary Esper knows, the United States is also furiously modernising its nuclear triad as it's called: new ICBMS to replace the 400 ageing Minuteman III missiles, some of them held in silos at Minot, a successor to the B-2 Stealth bomber, called the B-21, and a new geeration of ballistic-missile submarines, the Columbia class, to replace the Los Angeles class. And there's a lot of money now going into hypersonic weapons to catch up with the Russians and Chinese. So, Mr Esper, everyone's in the same modernising game. But the crucial point he did make was that China must be persuaded to join the New Start process. China has always said nuclear arms treaties are for the big boys, ie the US and Russia, the former Cold War enemies because each nation has a stockpile of missiles that far outnumbers anything China has got. Well, true. But China is making headway to increase its arsenal and at some point Beijing needs to acknowledge that it has a responsibility to make sensible decisions with its fellow big-time nuclear powers to reduce or at least restrain the nuclear arms race. But China, unfortunately, will never go for that argument, at least not for 20-30 years, because only then will Beijing reach some form of parity with the US, with a rival force of aircraft carriers, ICBMS and submarines. So Mr Esper's hopes at Minot will blow away in the North Dakota wind.

The Harry and Megan royal show curtain comes down

So the Queen and her advisers have concluded that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex - Harry and Meghan - should not be allowed to use the word "royal" in branding everything from pencils to toothpaste in their new commercial venture to sell themselves for financial gain. That's according to all the media reports today and I believe it to be accurate, and inevitable. So the couple's plan to put Sussex Royal onto their commercially-available goods has been shattered. Now what do they do? Switch the name to Harry & Meghan, or just Sussex? To understand the finality of this decision by Buckingham Palace it's helpful to read or reread the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's website which is full of glowing words about their new role in life which is to remain as members of the Royal Family but "financially independent". The concept was false anyway because they were never going to be financially independent like you and me. They are financially "dependent" on the generosity of the Prince of Wales. Harry receives a vast sum every year from his father's Duchy of Cornwall estate, plus he has all the money left to him by his mother, Princess Diana, and his great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. All together that's a helluva lot of money, more than enough to live a very comfortable, luxurious life, thank you very much. But Harry and Meghan wanted to prove that, separated from the rigours and obligations of carrying out daily duty roles on behalf of the Queen, they could set up a business and actually make money on their own. Except that the idea which was to form the basis of their new status was still dependent on the acceptance in everyone's minds that they were still part of the Royal Family in every other way. No money from the Civil List, ok, but still royals, not commoners. Thus the Sussex Royal brand was totally crucial for a successful future. Now, if the reports are right, even that is to be taken away from them. And, sad though it is for Harry, in particular, the Queen had little choice. How could she agree to let her troubled grandson run around Hollywood selling Sussex Royal picture books and Sussex Royal nappies while effectively living in exile in Canada, and probably eventually the West Coast of America, without playing any meaningful role on her behalf. The Sussex Royal brand is actually a pretty yucky idea under the circumstances. It's ok if Harry and Meghan are living as fully paid-up members of the Royal Family and living in Frogmore Cottage, Windsor Park, and tea cosies with their names on are being sold at the Windsor Castle gift shop as part of the tourist business. The Royal Family is said to generate £1.9 billion in annual revenue for the tourism industry. But quite another for Harry and Meghan to have tea cosies with their Sussex Royal brand name on them to generate money for themselves. The banning of the Sussex Royal brand is another blow - and a major one - to the Harry and Meghan royal show. I really don't know how this sorry story is going to end up. Perhaps it's time for the Prince of Wales, father and father-in-law, to step in and say "Enough is enough, this life in exile has got to stop. Come home!"

Impeachment, what impeachment?

It's as if the impeachment of Donald Trump never really happened. All that drama and Democrat hopes of blasting Trump from office came to nothing and now it's difficut to remember what it was all about. Ok, Ukrainegate. But is that word going to feature big in everyone's mind as the presidential election campaigns become really serious? According to the latest poll, 86 per cent of Republican voters still support Trump which means that the vast majority of Repubicans couldn't care less about Ukrainegate and probably think, like the president, that it was all a political hit job. Of the 14 per cent of Republican voters who expressed dissatisfaction with Trump how many of them I wonder really want someone else from the party to take the job in the White House. There isn't another Republican candidate, so Trump will get the Republican nomination whatever happens. The Democrats on the other hand haven't a clue at this stage who is going to get the nomination. Bernie Sanders has suddenly gone way ahead of all of his rivals. The same poll says that Sanders has a 19 points lead ahead of the others in Nevada, where the next vote is due to take place. But Mike Bloomberg is still waiting for his chance to seize the limelight. When Nevada and South Carolina have been done and dusted, Bloomberg will come riding in on his white horse to contest the 14 states on Super Tuesday March 3, to present Sanders with more of a challenge than any of the other rivals, including of course Joe Biden, now on the slippery slope, and Elizabeth Warren, fast becoming an also ran. After Super Tuesday the real race could be reduced to just three players: Sanders, Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg, with a long-shot gamble on Biden in case he makes a comeback. Drudge Report, not the most reliable political forecaster but always fun to read, has flagged up the possibility of Bloomberg choosing Hillary Clinton as his dream-ticket running mate. Oh dear, Bloomberg, if there is any truth in that gossipy piece, he should think long and hard about whether that is a vote-winning idea. I think not!

Trump wanted to get Osama bin Laden's son more than any others

Donald Trump is by no means the first American president to have a list of terrorists he wants to eliminate. Barack Obama had his own personal list which he updated regularly and in fact he ordered more armed drone strikes against America's designated enemies than any other previous president. Drone strikes shot up. According to NBC News, Trump has a similar list but supposedly didn't know any of the names on the list provided by the CIA except for Hamza bin Laden, son of Osama bin Laden. So he wanted him eliminated as soon as possible. Never mind the guy at the top of the CIA list, Ayman al-Zawahiri, successor to Osama bin Laden as leader of al-Qaeda who remains alive but probably not well in his various hideaways in the impenetrable Pakistan/Afghanistan border region. Trump wanted Hamza bin Laden dead above all others. Hamza bin Laden was unquestionably a rising figure in al-Qaeda. His name alone was enough to project him upwards in the hierarchy but all the intelligence experts said he was not yet ready to take over from Zawahiri, and Zawahiri would stay as leader for as long he evaded the US armed drones which are constantly on the look-out for him. But at some point in the future Hamza would have reached the top, and Trump wanted him dead before he had a chance to succeed his father. He was duly eliminated in an airstrike in 2019 or maybe as far back as 2017. His death was only confirmed by Trump in September. Zawahiri must know his turn will come, especially if the CIA keeps on reminding the president that this Egyptian-born individual is al-Qaeda's top man. The whole notion of extra-judicial killing of terrorists is a matter for debate. But there is a reasonable argument that those who carry out attacks on your citizens, or mastermind the attacks, or plot to do so or threaten to do so from some foreign country where they enjoy sanctuary are legitimate targets. The US, being a superpower, has the unrivalled capability to track terrorists and kill them. Trump will not be slow in coming forward to order extra-judicial killings when terrorist leaders are traced. Again, Obama, and George W Bush and Bill Clinton etc did the same. The rest of us are happy - if that is the right word - for the US to take on this responsibility. So the killings of Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader and founder of Isis, were greeted with general acclaim. The targeting of Major-General Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, shortly after he landed at Baghdad airport from Damascus, caused a little more cncern. First because of the potential consequences and second because, technically he wasn't an Osama bin Laden but was an officer of the state of Iran. But the US had designated the Quds Force as a terrorist organisation and its leader as a terrorist. The consequences were grave - more than 100 American soldiers received traumatic brain injuries when Iran fired 16 ballistic missiles at two US-occupied bases in Iraq - but the feared war between the US and Iran didn't happen. But history may show that the removal of Soleimani - an option considered but rejected by previous US administrations - may have been a turning point in the disastrous relations between Washington and Tehran. Whatever else it did it forced the ayatollahs to stop and think. They know for sure that Trump will do it again if necessary. Perhaps the death of Soleimani in such an outrageously bold fashion may persuade them to talk to the US. Eventually. As for Hamza bin Laden, he is a speck in the history of terrorism but he died because Trump recognised his name above all others.

Donald Trump in full reelection mode

Donald Trump is looking increasingly confident as he starts to campaign vigorously for reelection in November. As the slowly dwindling Democratic candidate rivals bicker at each other Trump has leapt on his impeachment acquittal to strengthen his hopes/expectation of winning another four-year term. He dismissed the impeachment process as a witchhunt and fake news but, secretly, I bet he was seriously worried about the possible impact it would have on his reelection campaign. His acquittal was never really in doubt but all the bad news the Senate trial stirred up could have damaged his first-term legacy. But judging by the way he has behaved and the way the Democrats have looked and sounded worried about whether the impeachment issue might undermine their own hopes of winning back the White House, it seems as if Trump has been given a new lease of life. The impeachment shadow has gone and he is raring to go. The moves he has been making in the White House have demonstrated his determination to surround himself with only confirmed loyalists. He swiftly got rid of Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman, Ukrainian expert in the National Security Council, plus his twin brother Yevgeni, also a lieutenant-general, and Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the EU, for daring to speak out against him in the impeachment process. And he is bringing back into the White House past loyalists, notably Hope Hicks, former model and super communications ally to the president before she departed the White House two years ago, and John McEntee, former personal assistant to Trump (known in Washington as his "body man") who will now run the White House personnel department. Wait for more changes. Anyone who even sniffs of disloyalty or leaking tendencies will be out. Now there's nothing unusual about a president wanting to be surrounded by a loyal staff. It makes sense. But with a man like Trump in charge at the top who functions according to gut instinct, there will be an increasing need for wise counsellors around him to point out the error of his ways when required. But Trump looks reinvigorated, a fist-pumping president looking to defeat all his enemies, especially those in the Democratic Party. Will Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg or Elizabeth Warren or Mike Bloomberg or Amy Klobuchar, stand a hope in hell of beating him? I doubt it.

A deal with the Taliban is imminent, apparently

Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo and Robert O'Brien, national security adviser, have now all said they are optimistic there will be a deal soon with the Taliban. By the end of this month, according to Trump. Unfortunately this doesn't mean the war is about to come to an end and Afghanistan will become a democracy-loving, corruption-free nation, dragging itself out of the Middle Ages and into a bright future for the first time for...ever. This is just the first phase in which, according to Pentagon officials, the US-led coalition and Taliban will dramatically reduce attacks against each other for an initial seven-day period to demonstrate commitment to the cause of peace. I can understand a total cessation of violence for a set period but I fail to see how it will be possible to agree on a reduced level of violence. How much reduced, and what happens if in the seven days a bomb goes off? It should be a total ceasefire or nothing. Anything else makes little sense. But the form of words will hopefully make that clearer when the "agreement" is announced. IF there is a preliminary deal in which violence comes down dramatically, the Taliban will have to sign up to discussions with their fellow Afghans about the way forward. Under the somewhat bizarre language, the Taliban will need to talk to senior people associated with the Kabul government but not representing the government. This is because the Taliban has so far refused to talk to the government of President Ashraf Ghani. The American negotiators involved in the talks in Doha, Qatar, hope that once the wider discussions begin in Afghanistan, eventually the Taliban will back down and start negotiating direct with the Kabul government, with the aim of having some of their top leaders helping to form a new government. This is a long way away. But, unless there is another about-turn by Trump - like he did in September when that plan to invite Taliban representatives to meet at Camp David for a signing ceremony was scrapped - we should be hearing a Big Announcement within the next two weeks. The Taliban appears ready to play ball although they will no doubt expect US troops to start immediately flying out of the country in a set withdrawal timetable. Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, has said that he has contingency plans to reduce the total American military presence from the current 13,000 to 8,600, whether there is a deal or not, claiming that that would be enough troops on the ground to continue performing the necessary missions. I find that hard to believe if there is no deal. Of the 13,000 US troops in Afganistan around 5,000 are engaged in counter-terrorist operations, and if the violence carries on at the present level, it would be foolish to send any of the soldiers home. Better to maintain full strength until the Taliban has shown its commitment to peace by throwing away their weapons and going home to tend their poppy crops. But Trump is desperate to bring them all home. After more than 18 years of war, that is not surprising. But the Taliban will just exploit any sign of weakness. They have been in this game for so long they are going to get what they want when they want. I'm afraid that is the reality. And if Trump orders 5,000 or so troops home before all the violence has stopped, the Taliban will feel and act victorious. It will also give them the upper hand when they start talking to their fellow countrymen about a long-lasting political settlement.

The power and sway of Dominic Cummings

Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson's guru, Svengali, Machievelli, consigliere, Boot Boy, right-hand worst-dressed man, powerhouse adviser, has got his way with removing the Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid. It's an extraordinary and dangerously worrying coup by an unelected "official". Cummings was played by Benedict Cumberbatch in the 2019 TV drama series, Brexit: The Uncivil War. But Cumberbatch, probably best known for his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is far too nice and cosy for the Cummings we all know and love/hate today. I don't know how Cummings functions inside Number 10 on a daily basis but it's quite clear he has access to the inner Boris sanctum whenever he sees fit, probaby strides around Downing Street in his boots like he owns the place and scares the living daylights out of everyone from Michael Gove to the head of MI6. Anyone visiting Number 10 to see the prime minister has to go through Cummings. He is the gatekeeper of all gatekeepers. And now he has the power to, effectively, sack the holder of one of the great offices of state. Javid was told by Boris he could only stay as Chancellor (treasury secretary or finance minister in any other country's language) if he got rid of his staff of special advisers. AND accept a new team of advisers all of whom had been selected and vetted by Number 10. That was pure Cummings. Javid had the balls to say no, no way. So off he goes into oblivion and presumably all his staff depart as well. They were not acceptable to Maestro Cummings, so they got their marching orders. Politics is a ruthless business, but to get rid of Javid just four weeks away from delivering his first budget to the House of Commons smacks of a new type of power brutality, especially after Boris had hinted very strongly some weeks ago that Javid would remain as chancellor. I feel sorry for Javid in the same way I feel sorry for poor Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman, now a very ex-member of the White House National Security Council. General John Kelly, former White House chief of staff, has come out to speak on his behalf, saying that Vindman was only doing what all military people do which is to do his duty the way he was taught at military academy: don't obey illegal orders from a superior officer. Vindman went to the White House legal counsel because of his concerns over the infamous phone call Trump made to the new Ukrainian president in July last year. Trump not only made sure Vindman was ousted from the White House but expects the Army to discipline him for being subordinate to the commander-in-chief. Can you imagne what would happen if someone working at Number 10 made a complaint about Boris that leaked out into the public domain. Commander Cummings would literally kick them out of Downing Sreet with his size ten boots.

Will al-Qaeda's continuing presence in Afghanistan scupper the Taliban peace deal?

FULLER VERSION OF MY TIMES PIECE TODAY: Dozens of Al-Qaeda fighters still pose a potential threat in Afghanistan despite 19 years of relentless US-led special operations missions since 9/11 because of continuing Taliban protection and donations from foreign backers, an American counter-terrorist official has told The Times. They are hunkered down in Afghanistan’s northeastern provinces of Kunar and Nuristan, close to the Pakistan border, the official said. They are being financed, it is suspected, by donations from individuals and “charities” located in Saudi Arabia and in Gulf states, he said. The presence of al-Qaeda in this hostile mountainous region and the safe haven they have been granted by the Taliban is one of the obstacles in the current peace-settlement negotiations between the Americans and insurgency leaders. Under the draft settlement negotiated in Doha, capital of Qatar, there are four priority components including a ceasefire, but Washington says the most important one is an assurance from the Taliban “that it will break with all terrorists and prevent the use of Afghan soil under its control against the US, its allies or any other country”. At present the “few dozen” al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan “are primarily focused on their own survival”, the US official said. They are linked directly to the main al-Qaeda (AQ) organisation headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri who is believed by US intelligence to be located in this same region. Zawahiri has declared his allegiance to the Taliban. In return for his backing of the insurgency against the US and coalition forces, the Taliban “provides safe haven to the few remaining al-Qaeda in Afghanistan”, the official said. However, since 2014 an al-Qaeda franchise, AQ in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) which has “several hundred fighters in its ranks”, has also posed a threat to US forces in Afghanistan and they, too , depend on links with the Taliban. AQIS is based in Pakistan but operates in Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. “AQIS has its own leadership cadre, receives strategic guidance from Zawahiri and has pledged allegiance to the Taliban”, the US counter-terrorist official said. “AQIS has publicly stated that the US is its main enemy and it prioritises targeting US interests in the region,” the official said. “Al-Qaeda and AQIS’s networks have been significantly degraded but the groups probably continue to rely on donations from individuals, businesses or charities based in Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, for their primary source of revenue,” the official said. In the last two years, US-led counter-terrorist operations have eliminated numerous AQIS leaders, including its founding “emir”, Asim Umar, who was killed in a joint US/Afghan raid in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan on September 23 last year. Though the terrorists remain a threat within Afghanistan, American-led operations against al-Qaeda since 2001, and against AQIS since 2014, have prevented either group “from being able to use Afghanistan to conduct external attacks against the US or other Western countries”. Of the 13,000 US troops in Afghanistan about 5,000 are engaged in counter-terrorist operations. The threat from AQ and AQIS in Afghanistan is significantly less than that from Isis-Khorasan (Isis-K) which has several thousand members located in eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, Isis -K is not protected by the Taliban and will remain a challenge both for the US and for the insurgents if a peace deal is agreed. But all ties with al-Qaeda would have to be severed before the US will sign any agreement.

Boris and his train set

The difference a big fat majority makes! Boris knows that whatever decisions he makes he has a majority of 80 in the House of Commons, more than enough to get his way. So he has made two big announcements so far: allowing the Chinese company Huawei to get involved in installing its 5G technology into Briitain's digital networks and now, today, approving the construction of the fast rail network up to the north, the HS2 project. With a tiny majority Boris would have had a helluva battle to get either decision through parliament. Now he can power ahead as rapidly as possible to get both decisions implemented. The rail network, from London to Birmingham and then on to Manchester, will be hugely expensive and destructive for whole chunks of pretty countryside but it has to be done if the Midlands and North are going to be boosted the way Boris promised during the election campaign. Obviously I might feel differently if I was living in one of the villages that will disappear but once it is all completed it will surely be beneficial for the part of the country that has been in the doldrums for decades. So well done Boris, you stuck to your guns, even though your Svengali Dominic Cummings was against it. As for the Huawei decision there really was no alternative. If the government had said no to Huawei, this country would have fallen behind technologically. Now the decision has been made it will be up to the UK and US to get together to develop the 6G technology to replace 5G in the years ahead. If we fail to produce our own 6G then Huawei will be knocking on the door again. That would be a grave failure on the part of both the UK and the US. We need to keep ahead of China, not fall behind in second place. As for HS2, when it's up and running, the trains better be on time! Unlike most of the train services we have in this country right now. And let's hope it doesn't cost the £106 billion that is being predicted at the moment. That's a job for Boris and his trains minister, to get the final cost below £100 billion.

Are we all just waiting for Mike Bloomberg?

It's just possible that all the drama and confusion at Iowa and the rise of Pete Buttigieg and the Democratic party fear of Bernie Sanders being nominated could lead to a once-thought-unlikely conclusion: the nomination of Mike Bloomberg. He is in a unique position because of his immense wealth. Well ok he was Mayor of New York City for three terms (from 2002 to 2013) which is longer than Buttigieg was mayor of South Bend, Indiana (2012-2020). But with at least $60 billion to his name, Bloomberg could buy the White House if it was for sale. He's effectively doing that by spending a fortune on advertising and promotion. It's almost like he's waiting his moment to let the Democratic Party know that he and only he can beat Trump in November. Never mind all the political horse-racing at Iowa, New Hampshire, and later this month, Nevada and South Carolina. Bloomberg is above all that. He hasn't been involved at all but has just kept on spending huge sums to plant his face and views across the nation. So Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders look like being neck and neck again in New Hampshire's primary tomorrow, and the story will be, once again, the demoralisation of Joe Biden. I believe the Bloomberg factor is going to become more and more important if the Sanders bandwagon continues to lead the field or jointly lead it with Buttigieg. Sanders is very popular especially with the young but I don't believe the hierarchy of the Democratic party would put money on him defeating Trump. And that is what it is all about. Sanders is an incredibly well-meaning and thoughtful and basically nice guy but Trump will just destroy him as a socialist nutcase. He will be easy meat for the Trumpites. Bloomberg on the other hand is richer than Trump by many billions and that is something which the president might fear more than anything else. Being rich won't make Bloomberg or anyone else with enormous wealth a good president. But Bloomberg knows what wealth can do, and he could be the man to make the sort of changes that are needed in the United States - the huge divide between rich and poor for a start. Right now there are still too many alternatives for the Democratic nomination but while the likes of Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar scrabble around trying to put their noses out in front, Bloomberg remains aloof watching from a distance, calculating when to step in and sweep everyone away. The Bloomberg factor must be intensely annoying for all the other candidates. But it could be the Bloomberg factor which finally decides who wins this race.

Trump asks: "Who the hell is Buttigieg?"

Sometimes Donald Trump gets it kinda right? All the newspapers are enthusing about the rise and rise of Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of a relatively small city in Indiana (South Bend, population 102,245) who came (just) first in the Iowa Democratic caucuses and looks headed for a decent showing in New Hampshire on Tuesday. But Trump? He made a speech and referred to the Democratic winner of the Iowa vote. "It turned out to be Pete Buttigieg whoever the hell that is. Mayor Pete, explain that one to me." His audience loved it and shouted "Four more years". Trump offered 12 or 16 more years! If Buttigieg does power on to win the Democratic nomination, Trump will have to get to know a bit more about his rival but I doubt it will lose him much sleep. All Trump has to say is: "Come on folks, do you really want someone as inexperienced as this ex-small-town-mayor trying to stand up to Kim Jong-un or the President of China or, for heaven's sake, Vladimir Putin?" In some ways, a fresh-faced, young president in the White House would be exciting, just as it was when Barack Obama arrived on the scene. But you do have to ask, Buttigieg versus Putin or Xi Zinping or "the Little Rocket Man" in Pyongyang? Would they give sufficient respect to him? We will probably never know the answer to that because between now and November, if Buttigieg stays the course, Trump is going to hammer away at the former mayor's lack of political weight and experience. It may become brutal. Trump knows how to be withering and brutal. It may be why eventually the Democrats will turn away from Buttigieg and play safe by nominating one of the old hands. Even Joe Biden, under those circumstances, might come back in favour and push the young man to one side.

Harry and Meghan who?

This is probably what Harry and Meghan want for the moment but surely not for the long term if they want to make big money in the future. I'm referring to their disappearance from the headlines. The Harry and Meghan saga has gone quiet, if not boring. Harry tripped over to Miami to give a speech about mental health but there was very little interest. It's like they are yesterday's people already. All the headlines have been grabbed by Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge who has been on her UK tour and appearing in smiley pictures wherever she goes. Is Meghan jealous or just pleased she is away from all the paparazzi photographers? But their plan, as has been endlessly reported, is to become a dazzling Hollywood-style couple who make a huge amount of money just by being who they are, or who they hope everyone thinks they are. I have a feeling that the Harry and Meghan show will last for only a short time. Being ex-members of the Royal Family is a brand that has limited appeal I should have thought. If they want big headlines then Meghan has the answer in her hands any time she decides to make a move. And that is to make up with her father and introduce her husband to him for the first time face to face and to have her Dad meet and cuddle with baby Archie. The Dad is a lost soul and nags away at his estranged daughter whenever he has the chance. How much better it would be if Harry and Meghan and Dad all got together and made friends, and posed for pictures.The headlines and photographs would be huge and it would give Harry and Meghan a boost for their future plans. Being nice to Dad after years of bitterness and unhappiness would truly make a difference because most people, except the real sceptics, would praise Meghan and there would be renewed interest in the couple. Right now, without that added ingredient, Harry and Meghan are going to disappear into obscurity. And as I have written before, that in the end is going to be tragic for Harry who is still a senior royal in name if not in actuality. He and William were great mates and were the brothers royal. I fear for Harry's happiness.

Trump begins to take revenge for impeachment

Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman did a very brave thing. He spoke the truth at the House impeachment inquiry and what he said as a member of the president's national security council did not paint his commander-in-chief in a good light. The skids were under his career from that moment onwards. But strangely it has taken until now for Vindman's future to be discussed in the White House. Vindman is OUT. He dared to be disloyal to the president, and now that Trump has been officially acquitted thanks to the votes of the majority Republican senators, every official who spoke their mind in public during the hearings is going t0 face a difficult future. Vindman was key because he turned up for the hearing in his full military uniform with medals attached and was given huge coverage in all the newspapers. He must have known then that by speaking out he would no longer be accepted as a member of the National Security Council. The Pentagon has been looking for a suitable job for him and his new posting is expected to be announced soon. Military attache to the US consulate in Ulan Bator perhaps!! I can't imagine Trump will agree to him having any role that deals with Ukraine, for which he is eminently qualified. Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, who has so far avoided saying or doing anything that might upset the president will no doubt find a job for Vindman that keeps him out of the public eye. Being a soldier, the Army chiefs will have the responsibility of placing Vindman in some role or other but I bet Esper gets involved too. Poor Vindman. He looked a proud man in his uniform but life must have been hell ever since he dared to contradict his president before the television cameras. The other man waiting for a vengeful Trump to strike him down as Mitt Romney, the only Republican senator to vote in favour of impeaching the president on the charge of abuse of power. He didn't warn Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader, before he cast his vote. McConnell admitted he had been taken by surprise. Romney voted with the Democrats because he felt he was duty bound to act according to his faith. He is a Mormon. Trump didn't like that. No, sir! What's impeachment got to do with faith, Trump effectively said. Well Romney has strong religious beliefs and realised he couldn't clear Trump of abuse of power if he wanted to remain loyal to his faith. Never mind being loyal to his president. Well good for him. But Romney is not going to have an easy life from no on. Not in Washington anyway. I can't imagine there will be any invitations to the White House. He will be cold-shouldered. Just like poor Colonel Vindman.

Trump puts impeachment behind him

There are several ways of summing up the end of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. The man himself says it was a victory not just for him but for the whole country. Ok, that's one end of the spectrum. The BBC this morning put it another way. Its news reader said the impeachment of Trump "had failed". That's a very BBC way of saying the president had not been impeached but without actually saying he had been acquitted. It's a bit like saying in a criminal court case when it comes to an end with an acquittal that the prosecution had failed to persuade the jury to return a guilty verdict. See the difference? It's subtle but there's an implied nuance in the words chosen, as if there is a certain disbelief that the alleged offender in the dock had not been sentenced to prison when everyone thought he was guilty as hell. Republicans say the president was acquitted full stop. In other words totally not guilty of the two alleged crimes the Democrats had thought up. But whatever the interpretation of the same result, the fact is the impeachment drama is over. Trump will claim it was a victory for the people all the way to November 3, election day, while the Democrats will presumably try to get it across to the voters that their president was actually guilty of abuse of power and high crimes and misdemeanours and only got off the two charges because he had scared Republican senators into aqcuitting him. It was after all a purely political trial in the end because the judge and jury were already signed up to side with the defence and ridicule the prosecution. It was a done deal even before Nancy Pelosi made her big decision to go for impeachment. Does she now regret it? I don't think so. Will the Democratic Party as a whole regret it, especially the leading candidates for the presidential nomination? We don't know yet but if Trumps bangs on relentlessly about his victory, then they might well regret the whole saga. But will the voters have a change of mind about Trump, Republicans or Democrats, when they come to decide who to elect in November? Will the stain of impeachment linger in their minds even though Trump was saved by Republican senators from an ignominious end to his presidency? I think it might do. Not the do-or-die Trumpers but the more moderate-minded Republicans. Could they possibly think, "Can we risk having this man as our president for another four years? Could there be another impeachment in his second term of office?" I believe it is just posssible. But if the Democratic alternative is Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, I suspect they will say to themselves, "Oh hell, let's risk another four years of Trump and hope for the best."

A new era of US Navy nukes begins

FULLER VERSION OF MY TIMES STORY TODAY: A US Navy ballistic-missile submarine armed with new controversial “low-yield”, mini-nuke warheads is now on patrol for the first time, a senior Pentagon official has confirmed. The USS Tennessee, an Ohio-class submarine, one of 12 in the US Navy, represents what the Trump administration describes as a new “tailored” form of deterrence, aimed at warning off every potential adversary, from Russia and China at one end of the spectrum to Iran, North Korea and nuclear terrorists at the other. The plan to put smaller warheads on some of the ballistic missiles in the “boomers”, as the submarines are called, was announced in the 2018 nuclear posture review. It led to criticism from arms-control experts and some Democrats in Congress that the US would be lowering the nuclear threshold by envisaging a warfighting role for these weapons. However, the Pentagon warned that with Russia and China expanding their nuclear forces, and would-be nuclear weapons states emerging, the president needed greater flexibility to counter the burgeoning threats. “There is no one-size-fits-all” for deterrence, the Pentagon said. In confirming the first submarine deployment of the smaller warhead, John Rood, under-secretary of defence for policy, denied that it lowered the nuclear threshold. He said in an interview with AP that the new weapon would increase the effectiveness of deterrence. The US already has low-yield tactical nuclear bombs which can be carried by aircraft, including the new F-35 joint strike fighter. Critics of the new submarine-carrying warhead say it’s unnecessary and adds to the notion of a “usable” nuclear weapon. However, Mr Rood said the submarine-launched low-yield warhead would be perceived by potential adversaries as a weapon “more capable of penetrating air defences than an aircraft-launched bomb”, thus strengthening deterrence and “raising the nuclear threshold”. The USS Tennessee normally carries 20 Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles each fitted with four-to-five 90-kiloton W76-1 warheads or 475-kiloton W-88 warheads. The submarine is part of the US triad of strategic nuclear weapons – the other two parts being land-based and air-launched - which pose the ultimate threat of annihilation. The Trident missile has a range of more than 7,500 miles. This means at least two of the 20 missiles on board will still have the same range but with less destructive power. All the Ohio-class submarines are now expected to deploy with the additional new smaller warhead, called W76-2 which has an estimated yield of five-to-seven kilotons. This is one third of the size of the nuclear bomb dropped by the US on Hiroshima on August 6 1945 which flattened the Japanese city and killed 70,000 instantly, although the death toll doubled. The first deployment of the limited-kiloton warhead is part of the Pentagon’s revised defence strategy focused on the competing capabilities of Russia and China. The W76-2, adapted from the much bigger W76 and W76-1, cost $19.6 million. Apart from developing new nuclear missiles, both Russia and China are investing in hypersonic glide vehicles that can carry nuclear or conventional warheads over immense ranges. Russia is also working on an intercontinental nuclear-armed undersea autonomous torpedo. While the US is trying to catch up with hypersonic weapons, the Pentagon, under orders from President Trump, has been moving ahead as rapidly as possible in updating America’s nuclear systems. Flexibility has been a key element of the US nuclear strategy for 60 years. But now it is seen in Washington as even more important because of the diversity of nuclear and non-nuclear strategic threats in an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world. The mini-nuke warheads fitted to the long-range missiles on board the boomers are the latest evidence of the updated strategy.

China struggles to cope with coronavirus

After just a few weeks the coronavirus crisis has become an all-embracing, extraordinary, economy-destroying, panic-driven drama on a scale not thought possible, let alone predicted. The most bizarre decision came out of the UK Foreign Office today. The FCO ordered, or I guess I should say advised, ALL Britons to leave China immediately. There are an estimated 30,000 Brits in China! THIRTY-THOUSAND! Where are they, who are they, why are they there in such large numbers? And, more importantly, how the hell can they just upsticks and come back to the UK? What if they had been there for, say, 15 years and like living there? Are they supposed to abandon everything and take the first flight out? And by the way, flights out are few and far between. And if they did all leave at the same time, what happens when they arrive at Heathrow? Do they put 30,000 people into a million coaches and cart them off to some wilderness facility for a fortnght so they can't endanger the rest of us? And if they don't and they arrive at Heathrow and get the first taxis out and return to see their beloved great aunts in Wiltshire or Southend, is there even the slightest risk that among the 30,000 there will be half a dozen carriers of coronavirus and thus the spreading will begin. I find it extraodinarily inept of the government to just tell every Brit to leave. It sounds like a-not-thinking-it-through panic measure. Most of the 30,000 will probably stay put, take precautions and lie low for a few weeks. But from the latest reports coming out of Beijing, I doubt they will have much confidence in the Chinese government who appear to have done their best to play down the crisis, in the hope that it will go away. Too late, President Xi Zinping. The good old Communist party central committee has failed again. Those infected have gone from a few hundred to more than 20,000 in the flick of a finger, with more than 400 dead. It doesn't sound of epidemic proportions as yet, but if all foreign nationals are told to leave the country this deadly virus might get its tentacles into every nation in the world. That would truly be a pandemic. And even if it doesn't happen, the Chinese people are going to face a nightmare time until an antidote is found. The building of a 1,000-bed hospital in less than two weeks is nothing short of miraculous but at this rate they are going to have to build these instant hospitals in every region in the country. Neither the Beijing government nor the World Health Organisation seem capable of handling this global scare.

John Kerry is not going to stand for president, ok?

So intense and competitive is the Democratic presidential race that when an NBC "analyst" overheard what he thought was Kohn Kerry, former secretary of state and 2004 failed presidential candidate, musing over the phone about what he would need to do if he belatedly put his name into the ring, the US broadcaster made a big story about it in the morning news. An overhead private telephone conversation? A bit naughty that. Kerry, vey tall and with tons of grey thatched hair, was supposedly chatting about the concern over the rise of Bernie Sanders and how he seemed to be in poll position to win Iowa. When Kerry saw the news breaking he went ballistic. He said the whole thing was rubbish, he had no intention of bouncing into the campaign, apart from continuing to support and campaign for Joe Biden, his friend. In one news report he was said to have claimed it was "f..... false" and in another that it was "categorically false". Either way we get the picture. Kerry then added that the report was wrong and misinterpreted because the NBC analyst had not heard what was being said the other end of the phone. Well, the guy heard what he heard, although I don't think it was very professional of NBC just to air the alleged contents of one half of the phone conversation. But whatever the truth of the Kerry chat, the story did underline the growing worry among the Democratic Party estabishment about the popularity of Bernie Sanders who is far too lefty with his socialism for the grandees of the party. It was the same when Sanders was standing for the nnomination against Hillary Clinton in 2016. And of course as everyone knows there was a fair bit of underhand skulduggery deployed to blow his campaign out of the water. Sanders lost the nomination and felt he had been plotted against by his own party. He was! The latest polls show that he is going to beat Biden in the Iowa caucuses. My hope for Amy Klobuchar to do well looks a bit optimistic if the polls are to be believed. But if Biden comes a close second and Klobuchar moves up the list with a good showing, then it could be argued that a Biden/Klobuchar ticket might be the one to watch. It's already being rumoured down in Iowa, but it's still early days for talking about potential vice presidential candidates. A big vote for Bernie Sanders would definitely be a slap in the face for the establishment Democrats, and that alleged conversation between John Kerry and his mate down the line might suddenly reemerge as a turning point for the party. Not because Kerry will throw his hat in the ring because that would screw up Biden's momentum. But because it will force the party big cheeses to consider the options for stopping Sanders from winning the nomination. Perhaps they should consult Hillary!

Could the Iowa caucuses produce a surprise winner?

The Iowa caucuses, the bizarre procedure the state uses for picking its favourite candidate for the White House, whether Republican or Democrat, have historically chosen the man or woman who goes on to win the relevant party's nomination. So the key votes tomorrow night will give a pretty good idea who is going to be picked to stand against Trump in the November election. It's not a sure thing. For example the billionaire Mike Bloomberg is not even standing in Iowa. But the other key candidates are and the question is: will the caucus representatives across the state go for the obvious candidate because it's the easiest and safest path to take or will they go wild and choose an outsider to stir everything up and raise the excitement level? If they do the former, they will choose Joe Biden, former vice president and frontrunner-candidate, if they go for the latter, could they select a woman, but not Elizabeth Warren? The hot long-odds favourite is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. I think it would be extraordinary if she wins Iowa, but not absolutely out of the question if the Iowa citizens want to stamp their mark on this 2020 election. The only question that Democrats have to struggle with is not who is best to represent the Democratic Party but who has the best chance of ousting Donald Trump. I have said from the beginning that although Joe Biden has a lot of good qualities, and has the experience of government, I really don't see him knocking Trump off his perch. Bernie Sanders is doing really really well and has impressive funding behind him but is the United States after three years of Trump ready for someone who would be an exact opposite? I don't think the American people are yearning for a Sanders-style socialist administration. I picked Senator Kamala Harris as my favourite to win the Democratic nomination but, sadly, she bowed out. If it's to be a woman, which I would welcome, that narrows the choice between Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, and I think I prefer the latter. Warren has waged a tough and effective campaign but there has been little evidence of star quality. She is a good also-ran in my view. Amy Klobuchar would introduce into the nomination fight a genuine sense of surprise and intrigue and mystery. None of these attributes can be ascribed to Biden, Sanders or Warren. Iowa will probably be too conservative with a small 'c' to go for Klobuchar but surely there must be a temptation not to select the obvious, one might argue boring, candidate? I strongly believe that having a woman taking on Trump will provoke more of a competition and raise at least the possibility that the country will decide, "We've had four years of Trump, President Klobuchar sounds cool". If she wins the nomination, and Iowa choose her tomorrow night, the state will be more than satisfied that once again it has picked the right candidate. On the other hand, what's more likely is that Biden will win, he will get the nomination eventually and will be defeated soundly by Trump in November.

In the end the Huawei crisis just withered away

The Huawei 5G decision for the UK government was being hailed as a mighty tussle between London and Washington. There were all kinds of dire predictions and warnings from Trump downwards that if Boris and his cabinet allowed the Chinese communications giant to get embedded into Britain's next-generation mobile phone and other digital networks, all hell would let loose. Super secret intellgence-sharing would be cut back, there would be no nice trade deal with the US, trust would be for ever damaged and Boris and Trump would no longer be "friends". I can't count the number of terribly senior US officials who popped over to London to add their voice of doom if Huawei 5G was allowed anywhere near the UK. The pressure on Boris was immense. Boris did not give in and decided what he was always going to decide which was to give Huawei limited access, and not to sensitive areas such as the intelligence services, military installations and nuclear power stations. Incidentally the last time I looked China was investing massively in the UK's next lot of nuclear power stations. A bit of a contradiction there perhaps? Anyway, Mike Pompeo came over to see Dominic Raab, Foreign Secretary, and Boris to provide the last heavyweight pressure on the UK government to row back on its Huawei decision and review it all over again. Boris said no way. So Pompeo stopped making warning noises and announced that the US and UK would cooperate to make sure nasty Chinese spies didn't plant sneaky stuff into the 5G networks. And, as an afterthought he said the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing club of the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand would be unaffected. Ha!! So what was all the fuss about? It looks like Sir Andrew Parker, director-general of MI5, knew what he was talking about when he said he believed the intelligence-sharing would go on as before with or without Huawei. So why did Pompeo go on and on about it? I suspect the US is desperate to find a system that is as good if not better than Huawei's and wanted the UK to be involved. But he lost the argument. I had my own misgivings about allowing a Chinese company with obligatory ties to the Chinese government to install 5G into our networks. But if the UK intelligence services agree that steps can be taken to keep all really sensitive stuff a million miles from Huawei's prying ears and eyes, then I guess it will all work out fine. The Huawei crisis is over. Next is trade. It's perhaps worth reminding everyone that the UK already trades with the US. Some of our companies, like BAe, have huge stakes in the US defence industry. However, what Boris has in mind is to have a special trade agreement with the US which will allow tariff-free sales. Well, justl ike the Huawei thing was resolved, so will the trade deal. There WILL be a trade deal but I don't suppose Trump will make it easy. America First is his catchphrase and that's the way he will play it. But the Boris government showed they wouldn't buckle under the intense pressure from Washington over Huawei and now they have to be tough and strong and unrelentingly Britain First when the negotiations begin. You don't play weak with a guy like Trump. You play hard ball. It's what he will expect and now he knows, from the Huawei confrontation, that his friend Boris will not just roll over. All of which makes me feel quite optimistic post-Brexit.