So many coronavirus doom merchants around

Even as most of us are emerging from our lockdowns and looking forward to a more normal way of life, the doom and gloom and disaster merchants are still hard at it, trying to warn us that we've seen nothing yet. The gloomiest of this bunch is the head of the World Health Organisation. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general, said the other day that the worst is yet to come. Now how about that for a slap in our respective faces. How can we look forward to and plan for a better future if according to this highly paid gentleman it's all going to come tumbling down upon us again soon and many many people will die. We need our spirits lifted not thrown down into a deep pit. The WHO boss needs to get a life. Unfortunately, some countries, notably the United States, have handled the virus so badly that instead of seeing a sharp decline in the infections and deaths there are huge spikes going on in up to 16 states. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the US, has warned there could be soon be 100,000 more virus cases every day in America. Truly shocking! But in so many other countries the signs are much more encouraging. Even here in the UK, despite an alarming rise in cases in the city of Leicester, the trend is definitely downwards, and on Saturday pubs and restaurants are going to be opening for the first time since the end of March. But never mind these hopeful signs, the WHO chief wants us all to know that if we thought we had had it badly so far, just wait until the next wave arrives. I'm sure he is very clever and must have been chosen to be director-general for the right reasons. But do we need ghastly predictions of future death and disaster? No we don't.

Why was Trump not told about the GRU/Taliban piece of intelligence?

The story is huge: the Russian GRU military intelligence service, filled with spooks, assassins, poisoners and basically the most aggressive intel service in the world today is supposed to have been offering bounties to the Taliban and/or its associates to kill American, British and other coalition troops in Afghanistan. The awful thing is it doesn't really surprise me. We know from the history of the GRU that they are capable of anything. Smearing totally deadly novichok on the front door handle of a former colleague who turned double agent to work for MI6 and got swapped in a Russian/UK deal and lived happily in Salisbury until the GRU came smearing. The Sergei Skripal case tells us everything about how the GRU carries out its business. The GRU is also heavily into cyber skulduggery. But paying money to the Taliban to kill American and British soldiers? That's a new venture. Surely if there was evidence about such bounties ie stashes of money found in raids on Taliban hideaways or signals intelligence linking the Russian agency with the Taliban or whatever, shouldn't Trmup have been told. If this was going on when the US was trying to fix a peace deal with the Taliban last year, the president and commander-in-chief should have been briefed. But Trump says he wasn't briefed. The director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, said the president wasn't told. Gina Haspel, CIA director, says he wasn't told and Robert O'Brien, national security adviser, says he wasn't told. Now Trump claims that he wasn't told because the intelligence community didn't think it was credible that the GRU was handing over cash to the Taliban. Really? I mean, really? They all knew about it. They all had discussions about what to do about it. But they didn't tell the president or the vice president because it wasn't worth passing on? I simply don't believe this explanation. It is true that the president of the United States isn't told everything about what is going on in the intelligence world. Presidents are not normally given all the operational details of some deeply secret intelligence mission. There is a need to know even for presidents. So in this case it wouldn't be necessary for the CIA, let's say, to tell the president all the ins and outs of a GRU plot in Afghanistan, but the basic stuff would and should have been included in the presidential intelligence brief that Trump gets every day. With American troops' lives at stake, the commander-in-chief needs to know. Something has gone wrong somewhere. But Trump's dismissal of the intelligence as not credible is the president's way of putting a lockdown on the whole issue. But there is a lot more mileage in this story. Nancy Pelosi wants a full briefing on why Trump wasn't briefed. I doubt the whole truth will come out but there are a helluva lot of questions that need answering.

Trump suddenly realises he might lose in November

Donald Trump has for once begun to believe all the "fake news" in opinion polls and newspaper reports which indicate he is so far behind Joe Biden he will lose in November and for ever be known as a one-term president. Thanks to Politico which has been canvassing multiple people close to the president, Trump himself is now acknowledging things are looking bad for him. This must be a stark moment of truth for Trump. He is a man who is convinced of hs own political immortality. He doesn't understand defeat or to put it another way he can't accept defeat because he is a winner. That has been his message ever since he took power in January 2017. America First, Trump First, the man with the omniscient brain who knows more than anyone else. It's kind of catching. But not any more. The polls are dreadful. The pandemic is a nightmare still in so many states and there appears to be nothing Trump can do to stop it spreading further once again. It's not necessarily a second wave but it's a punishment for jumping too early. All those crowds of people dashing out from lockdown. It was fatally premature and Trump effectively encouraged it. So for the Apprentice president it's gloom and doom all the way to November unless he can bring about a miracle. But judging by his closest officials and advisers, the great Trump momentum has come to a halt. There is just too much bad news around to revive his chances. Biden will emerge from his basement and take the trophy.

How dangerous would another four-year term Trump be for the US?

That old warhorse John Bolton has been giving interviews all over the place to promote his memoir and to put his former boss in the worst possible light. The former national security adviser is doing his best to scupper Trump's chances of being reelected in November by telling everyone that another four years of this man would be seriously dangerous for the United States and, presumably, for the world. Basically he seems to be sayng: "You've seen what he's like in his first four years, but you ain't seen nothing yet if you give him another four years." Well I knnw this is a common theme among Trump critics who believe that he could damage the republic for ever. But the beauty of a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship like in China, Russia and Venezuela, is that a president who goes out to damage the country for whatever reason can be stopped. America is a fine democracy and Congress is not like the Russian Duma or the Chinese Communist Party, rubber-stamping whatever the president wants. Bad US presidents, wicked US presidents, are brought down. Richard Nixon broke the law and was forced to resign. If Trump wins the November election, he will spend much of his four years trying to build a legacy for himself. He will want to be heralded as the greatest president in the history of the United States. And for that reason, and that reason alone, I don't think a second-term Trump would be the dangerman that Bolton warns about. Trump will be desperate for praise, so for a start he won't want to go to war - he has avoided that so far in his first term. He will want the economy to be booming and he will want THAT wall finished. That will be enough for him. With those three things under his belt he will feel sure the American people will praise him and thank him. So I think Bolton is just stirring it up. The legacy thing will be so imortant to Trump that he will hardly dare do anything outrageous. Fingers crossed anyway if Biden does fail to beat Trump in November.

Everyone in the Trump camp is now worried

Trump is not making many friends. In the early stages of his presidency his daily tweets and media briefing shouting matches were all part of the new era and the new political game if you like. It was fun, different, rumbustuous Aprentice-style leadership not seen before. It was a little scary but my God for White House reporters every day was wild. There was never a shortage of extraordinary copy for the front pages. But now it's a different story. Just over four months away from trying to get reelected for another four years and the Trumpite way of doing business is neither sensible nor attractive nor fun. A lot of people in the Republican party and I'm sure in the Trump reelection campaign team are getting worried that the Trump rhetoric, the constant abuse flying around and, above all, the lack of any attempt to get rid of divisions but rather to accentuate the divisions is all having a seriously bad affect on poll figures. Trump is miles behnd Joe Biden in public opinion surveys. At this rate Trump is going to lose the November election and a lot of Republicans are going to get mashed as well. So watch out for the next few weeks. Something is going to have to change in the way Trump addresses the nation or he is going to be defeated and I mean defeated. But is too late to change a man like Trump? Yes it is!!!

Is there such a concept as a Joe Biden dream team?

If, and it's still a big IF, Joe Biden wins the election and becomes president in January 2021, is there already a dream-team cabinet waiting in the wings? Will a President Biden go for lots of older folks from past Democratic administrations or choose new young fresh blood - new ideas but no vast experience? In January 2021 Biden will be 78, two years away from becoming an octogenarian. For that reason alone I suspect he will look for hefty experience before youth but if he was sensible he would get a balance of both. Experience will be crucial of course but how will the American voters and the rest of the world react if a Biden cabinet is filled with oh-so-familiar faces from the past? Several names have already been put forward as likely candidates: John Kerry returning to his old job as secretary of state and Susan Rice as national security adviser or secretary of state, even Condoleezza Rice back in again in some form. Two Rices. I have a lot of time for all three. John Kerry was a tireless and dignified secretary of state, succeeding Hillary Clinton, under Barack Obama. Condoleezza Rice is super-smart and a brilliant pianist, and Susan Rice (no relation) was a pretty dynamic national security adviser and is one of the very few elite Rhodes scholars of cabinet or presidential rank but suffered a bit career-wise when she was caught up in the mixed messages about the appalling murders of the US ambassador to Libya and three other US embassy officials in the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi by militia forces in 2012. But a Biden cabinet with any or all of these experienced players would probably be a good move. I've not seen any name being put forward for Biden's defence (defense) secretary but I'm going to go wild here: David Petraeus? It would cause huge resentment no doubt and concern among stereotype oldies who would point out that the former super-general of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and ex-director of the CIA blotted his copybook for good when he foolishly gave his mistress/biographer Paula Broadwell a lot of classified documents to help her in her research. But Petraeus is an exceptional individual. He made a huge mistake but he paid for it by being ousted as CIA director. He is an intellectual, forward-thinking man, the right kind of person to take over the Pentagon and ensure that it returns to being one of the absolutely crucial departments, not, as at present, often shoved to one side by the incumbent commander-in-chief. Kamala Harris, a presidential hopeful until she stepped aside in December, must play a key role, either as vice president or as attorney general. Other names from the presidential candidate list, such as Pete Buttigieg, would also make good cabinet members and bring down the average age of a Biden administration. Mike Bloomberg has been mentioned for a big job. Surely not! Bernie Sanders perhaps? No I don't think so.

Are we ready to leap into a post-coronavirus world?

The most troubling component in the whole coronavirus/Covid-19 disaster story is the level of ignorance about the true lethality of this pandemic. Boris Johnson announced yesterday that England can now emerge from its hibernation - Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland go their own way - and move to a new more normal life. Yet the signs from so many different parts of the world are anything but optimistic. There are fresh virus surges going on all over the place, notably across South America and in at least half of the states in the US. Are we all so desperate to get back to our former life that we no longer want to listen to the scientific and medical experts? The most alarming statistics are emerging in the US with significant spikes in virus infections and hospitals once again becoming overwhelmed with new cases. So is Boris right, can we really start enjoying dinners out in restaurants, attending cinemas and pubs and hugging members of the family not living in the same household? And can we plan holidays in Europe later in the summer? Everything we do for the rest of this year is going to have risks attached. For the sake of the country's economy and all our livelihoods, perhaps that is the only way to look at the future. Life out there IS going to be more risky but that is better than hiding away in our flats and houses frightened to go out. What is worrying is that all governments have been saying that they ordered lockdown on the basis of scientific advice. But now no government wants to listen to the scientists any more because they never seem to have good news. All they say is that each step forward has to be matched with caution. But once restaurants and pubs open, people are not going to hold back. The latest recurring message from the scientific community is that we all have to prepare for a second wave of coronavirus in the autumn. But how can we prepare for such an event if the government is telling us that we can come out of hibernation and resume our lives. You can't shrug off lockdown AND prepare for a possible lockdown in the autumn. The only hope is that before the second wave arrives, if that is what is going to happen, a miracle vaccine will be on the market and we can all go and have our jabs. October is the month when most experts are now predicting there COULD be a vaccine. Then and only then can we all begin to enjoy a post-lockdown world without living in constant daily fear of being snatched away by a new surge in virus infections.

Trump ready to meet Maduro shock horror!

It didn't take the White House long to shove out an instant clarification when Donald Trump appeared to say in a TV interview that he would be prepared to meet Nicolas Maduro, the thuggish alleged leader of Venezeula. Trump didn't say he was thuggish although pretty well everyone else in the universe does. Except For Vladimir Putin of course. Putin supports Maduro and his regime but surely even the Russian leader must realise that the Caracas dictator has single-handedy destroyed the Venezuelan economy and driven his population, bar the military and police and his family, into poverty and desperation. Anyway Trump thought it might be a good idea to have a chat with Maduro, forgetting perhaps that the US Justice Department recently charged the Venezuelan former bus driver turned Hopeless/Dangerous Politician with narcotic trafficking. It's Trump style to suggest meeting with all kinds of people on the basis that it is better to talk than to ignore and threaten which is a perfectly legitimate and sensible way of doing business with foreign leaders. So Trump set out to contact and make friends with, among others, Kim Jong-un who has turned out to be the most unreliable "friend", Xi Zinping who regards friendship with Trump as just a piece on his chess board manoeuvring, and Putin who I think believes very strongly that he is better and stronger than Trump and can therefore play him along to his advantage. You would have thought that his experiences with these three gentlemen might have put Trump off the idea of being nice to foreign chaps. But suddenly he put Maduro on his list of potential Zoommates, implying that he didn't think much of the other chap in Caracas, Juan Guaido who theoretically is regarded as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. Anyway the name Maduro had hardly passed Trump's lips when the White House and the whole of Florida, filled with Venezuelan immigrants who had fled their country, made it abundantly clear what they thought the president had actually said or had actually meant to say which was that the only possibe reason for the two men to meet was for Trump to grab Maduro by his shirt collar and get his Secret Service detail to hurl him out of the country. Or words to that effect. But a friendly face-to-face chat between Trump and Maduro in which the weather and democracy would be discussed ? No, sir, that was out of the question. Florida of course is an absolutely key state for Trump to win for his reelection, so even a hint of a session with Maduro would lose the president hundreds of thousands of votes. No wonder the White House was so lightning-fast to issue its clarification statement. Leave the chatting with Maduro to the FBI if they ever get their hands on him.

Will Donald Trump be a one-term president?

John Bolton has stuck his neck out and told everyone in a TV interview that he hopes Donald Trump will be a one-term president. A lot of people hope that, too. But for his former national security adviser to be so adamant that he thinks a second term would be dangerous for the United States, it does make you wonder why Bolton accepted a post in the Trump administration in the first place. Surely he knew when he accepted the job of national security adviser what sort of president Trump was. He must have known that it wasn't going to be an easy ride for him. In fact many people thought he was the perfect fit for Trump but now of course Bolton is a bitter man and he really has laid into his former boss. The trouble is Bolton doesn't think Joe Biden will make a good president either. And perhaps that's the real problem facing American voters in November. There will be a lot of people, not just Democrats, who will be fearful of giving Trump another four years but when faced with voting for the alternative - Biden and whoever his running mate is going to be - won't want to vote for him either. Will that mean an historically low turn-out? Bolton appears to be in a bind about who to vote for in November. He clearly can't vote for Trump having spoken out against him and wrtten so much bile aboout him in his memoir Does he think some Republican saviour on a white charger is going to appear to knock Trump off his pedestal and instal himself or herself as a late Trump challenger? It's all too late for that, isn't? This is the Republican party's problem as a whole. There have to be many Republicans worried about having Trump around until 2024. But what is the alternative? No Republican is going to bat for Biden. So, sorry, Bolton, it's Trump or Biden or no one. Bolton has done his best to screw Trump's reelection campaign. If nothig else, Biden will be grateful to Bolton for that. But will he get Bolton's vote in November? Actually by now I don't think anyone really cares what Bolton will do in November. One thing for sure, if Biden wins, Bolton will not be getting a job in HIS administration.

President Trump faces empty seats. Ooops!

Now I think even Donald Trump must be getting worried. It's one thing to see the polls saying his rival Joe Biden is well ahead of him. But here he is standing before his adoring crowds of supporters at his first rally since coronavirus arrived on the scene and there are swathes of empty seats. What a shock for him that must have been as he surveyed his supporters at the tiered arena in Tulsa, Oklahoma last night. The publicity for the event had given the impression that despite the fears of coronavirus being spread around, the demand for seats was so huge that hungry Trumpites were literally banging on the doors to be let in. Trump claimed a million people wanted to attend. But the pictures inside the Bank of Oklahoma centre told a different story. A capacity crowd would have seen 19,000 people cheering the president on. But between half and two-thirds of the seats were filled. Now it could be argued that Trump had just jumped too early. Worries about the virus put people off and they didn't want to take the risk. That would be understandable. But supporters of Trump presumably believe the Trump line which is that he has beaten the virus and life is now returning to normal. If he said it was ok to attend the rally then surely they would have turned up. Virus or not, the rally might just be the first real sign that Trump no longer has that magnetic pull for his supporters. Sure, he got plenty of cheers and applause when he tried to rouse them with his "We are the party of Abrahama Lincoln and the party of law and order". But the empty seats everywhere could not really be explained away. Where were the million Trumpites desperate for tickets? Someone will get blamed for this, Trump will want heads to roll. His campaign team must have messed up. For a start, the empty seats will give his opponents the image they can highlight every time they get up to speak. Joe Biden will need to time his first rally even more carefully. If he gets a full house, then Trump really will be in trouble. Of course Trump is obsessed with numbers. He insisted on Inauguration Day way back that he had more people cramming around Capitol Hill than Barack Obama did on his first day as president. But, again, the pictures didn't stand that up. It's only one rally and things may change for Trump over the nex few months. But addressing a parade of empty seats at last night's event must have hurt.

Is a new Star Wars era about to begin?

MY STORY NOT USED TODAY IN THE TIMES: A new era of space-based “Star Wars” weapons to counter increasing threats from Russia and China has been heralded by the Pentagon. The US currently has no space weapons. But in a document outlining a new strategy for the next ten years, the Pentagon warns that the US must be “capable of winning wars that extend into space”. Although the Pentagon document, just released, provides no detail of what offensive weapons might be deployed in space, both laser and particle beam systems are currently being researched. One programme already funded is to test a weapon in orbit in 2023 that can fire neutral particle beams, similar to heat rays in science fiction, that would be capable of burning through the outer casing of a ballistic missile and destroying the guidance system. A particle beam weapon was first tested in space in 1989 as part of President Reagan’s strategic defence initiative “Stars Wars” project to build a defensive shield in space to protect the US from a Soviet ballistic missile attack. The test was successful but the Star Wars programme was largely abandoned as being unaffordable. The new strategy document is the first time the Pentagon has specifically referred to the need to plan for a war in space. “DoD [department of defence] has to confront the new reality that adversaries have more advanced weapons designed to target US military satellites and deny the United States a key military advantage,” the Pentagon document says. The US relies on its network of military and intelligence satellites for warfighting far more than either Russia or China. Two of the priorities over the next decade will be “to deter and defeat adversary hostile use of space”, and to deliver advanced capabilities for “operations” in space. “Outer space has emerged as a key arena of potential conflict in an era of great power competition,” Stephen Kitay, deputy assistant secretary of defence for space policy, said at a Pentagon media briefing. “China and Russia have weaponised space and turned it into a warfighting domain,” he said. The document says China and Russia pose the “greatest strategic threat” by developing and testing “counter-space” capabilities such as anti-satellite weapons. The new Pentagon strategy follows the establishment last year of a US space command and a space force. General John “Jay” Raymond was appointed the first chief of space operations and commander of US Space Command.

Britain is a what? A nuclear power you say?

According to John Bolton, former disgruntled, revenge-taking national security adviser, Donald Trump had no idea that Britain possessed nuclear weapons. Total surprise to him when he was told. Please all my American friends don't take this personally, but this doesn't surprise me. I bet if you carried out a nationwide survey in America and asked: "Is Britain a nuclear power? " and a second question: "Has the US sold nuclear missiles to Britain?" the majority of respondents would reply No and No. I always recall a long time ago I was invited to spend two weeks in the US as part of the State Department's international visitors programme. One of the components of the programme was to spend time with American families to get accustomed to the American way of life or something ike that. One of the families I stayed with and was royally looked after was a young couple in Seattle. Over dinner one night we started chatting about the US and UK defence policies - yes, very highbrow - and I mentioned that we, the Brits, had Polaris submarine-launched nuclear missiles which had been supplied by the US government The couple nearly fell off their chairs. "What?" they spluttered. "You have Polaris? How come?" Well, of course the so-called Polaris sales agreement was agreed between the UK and US in April 1963 when President John F Kennedy was in the White House and Harold Macmillan was UK prime minister. It was one of the unique elements of the special relationship between the two countries. The sale of nuclear technology to the UK - the actual warhead was designed by the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment - led to the Royal Navy's four Polaris missile submarines carrying out round-the-clock deterrent patrols throughout the Cold War, and today the four Trident missile submarines - missiles again supplied by the US and the warhead designed by the UK - perform the same patrol duties. So, yes, thanks to the US, Britain has had nuclear weapons for 60 years. Britain is a permanent member of the UN Security Council BECAUSE it has nuclear weapons. The fact that Trump, according to Bolton, didn't know that is extraordinary. In fact so extraordinary I'm not sure I believe it, although the president has of course demonstrated before that he has some gaps in his knowledge. Bolton claims Trump thought Finland was in Russia. Oops, Mr President, I doubt plucky old Finland will ever forgive you for that lapse.

Twenty Indian soldiers killed but not a shot fired!

The savagery of the clash between Indian and Chinese soldiers in the mountainous Himalayan border region is almost too gruesome to describe. The most extraordinary statement arising from the battle that erupted on Monday, reportedly between 55 Indian border guards and 300 Chinese troops, was this: not a single shot was fired. This was hand-to-hand combat so brutal and ferocious that it was like the most violent Kung Fu-type film. Twenty Indian soldiers were killed by literally being beaten to death with clubs fitted with barbed wire and bamboo sticks studded with nails. No one knows how many Chinese soldiers were killed or injured because Beijing is saying nothing. Nor do we know for sure who started it. But in border rivalry situations, it's never clear-cut. What has made this border clash so horrific is that the Chinese had overwhelming force on their side and they came armed with weapons of the savage. In this high-tech world, where the great powers are developing hypersonic missiles that can travel at multiple times the speed of sound, this form of physical brutality is truly shocking. No shots were fired because of a bilateral agreement between India and China in 1996, banning the firing of weapons within two kilometres of the so-called line of actual control between the Indian-controlled Kashmir and the Chinese-administered Aksai Chin region which India claims is Indian territory. The ferocity of the battle reminded me of the notorious incident in 1976 when North Korean border soldiers ran across the Bridge of No Return in the Demilitarised Zone between North and South Korea and axed to death two American soldiers. Without knowing all the facts about the murderous battle between the Indian and Chinese border guards, it is safe to say that this is another example of Beijing saying to the rest of the world that it will protect its interests in every way possible, even if it means sending 300 soldiers with barbed-wire clubs to kill its opponents.

Trump should be more worried about his niece than John Bolton

Every US president has faced the same problem: disenchanted former advisers and officials and cabinet members go off in a huff and then write reveal-all memoirs to try and set the record straight as they see it. The latest one of course is John Bolton's memoir. It should have been published in March but the White House got angsty and now it's due to be published next week, but still the White House, and notably Donald Trump, are doing their best to stop it. Judging by the publicists for the publisher, the former nationalsecurity adviser is going to reveal that Trump made no decision without first worrying whether it would help him get reelected or not. Well, if that is the most exciting snippet in his memoir then I don't know what Trump is worried about. All predecessors in the Oval Office have worried about being reelected and to that extent most decisions ARE probably taken with a view to the next four-year term. That's politics, right? I don't think Trump is any different from other presidents on that score. As for the rest of the Bolton book we pretty well know what he's going to say. At least one chapter on the toing and froing over troop numbers in Afghanistan, for example. Hardly riveting stuff. I'm sure there will be little bits here and there which will raise eyebrows but anything sensational? I seriously doubt it. Yet Trump is out to stop publication, saying that it's full of highly classified material and that if the memoir is published Bolton could lay himself open to criminal charges. That's pure blather. The book has been with the manuscript expert in the White House for months and every line has been carefully gone over to make sure nothing secret is disclosed. This is why memoirs end up being so boring because there is nothing in them that surprises anyone. I've just finished reading Bob Gates's book Duty: memoir of a secretary for war. I found it fascinating because much of it was about when he was defence secretary under Obama which was when I was Pentagon Correspondent for The Times in Washington. But there wasn't a single paragraph in the huge boook that made me say out loud, "Oh my God, so that's what really happened." No secrets were revealed and the stuff I really wanted to read, such as the massive row that broke when General David Petraeus was forced to resign as director of the CIA over his relationship with his biographer and the passing of classified material to her to help her along the way, plus the real reasons why General James "Hoss" Cartwright, Obama's favourite general, was not chosen to be chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, there was zero reference. Not a dicky bird. Not even a hint of gossip. Very disappointing. So unless Bolton has come up with some very juicy stuff which has never been revealed before, I doubt his memoir will stir the pot that much. Trump should relax. He has more reason to worry about the upcoming memoir by his niece Mary Trump which supposedly paints her uncle as not the most wonderful chap!! Get your lawyers to try and stop that one, Mr President.

Pentagon pick for top job accused Barack Obama of being a terrorist

The Pentagon is waiting for a whole host of key jobs to be confirmed by the Senate. In fact it looks pretty unlikely that they will all be confirmed before the November election. This has always been a problem at the Pentagon. In fact other departments suffer the same delay too. But somehow with the Pentagon, individual senators get all huffy about particular individual nominations and nothing happens. This is currently what is going on with Anthony Tata, a retired army brigadier-general and a totally loyal defender of Trump in his current capacity as commentator on Fox News. Trump has nominated Tata to be the next undersecretary for policy, one of the top three or four jobs at the Pentagon. But oh dear a tweet was uncovered in which some years back Tata accused Barack Obama of being a terrorist leader. Hardly surprising therefore that the most senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, has said he will block Tata's appointment. The vacancy for undersecretary for policy came up after the previous holder of the appointment, John Rood, was booted out for not being sufficiently loyal to the president. The job has been filled by a standby official for the last four months. It sounds like Tata hasn't got a hope in hell of getting the job. So it will remain vacant till the election unless Reed can be persuaded to forget that alarming tweet. Anyone who felt it necessary to tweet that Obama was a terrorist leader should never be appointed undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon in my opinion. But with the absence of so many top officials at the Pentagon it's not surprising that Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, seems unsure where he is going some of the time. The other top jobs still to be confirmed by the Senate include Shon Manasco, nominated to be air force undersecretary, Louis Bremer, assistant secretary for special operations, Lucas Polakowski, assistant secretary for nuclear, chemical and biological defence, and Bradley Hansell, deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence. Nearly a third of the 60 Pentagon nominations that went to the Senate for confirmation are still unresolved. Bureaucracy gone mad!

After nearly four years Trump hasn't started a new war

Bob Gates is back in the news to promote his latest book. The former US Defence Secretary HAS been busy since his retirement in July 2011. As part of his promotional tour he has inevitably appeared on TV and when asked about his view of Donald Trump, he came up with this: Unlike his predecessors, at least he hasn't started a new war. I guess that's true and it could be a talking point for the presidential election. Trump blasts out to his supporters: "You vote for me and you get peace. No wars." Well, in his near four years, Trump HAS threatened wars, notably against North Korea and Iran. He pretty well said the US could obliterate both countries. But it was all rhetoric. And in the meantime he has done his best to get all troops out of Syria and Afghanistan and has his eye on removing them from Iraq too. At West Point military academy a few days ago he told the army graduates that the US was no longer the world's policeman. Trump has aways had this contradiction. He wants to be seen as the toughest president in history but he doesn't want the world's greatest military power to be involved in fighting wars thousands of miles away. Not any more. George W Bush of course launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the region is still suffering as a consequence. Obama sent 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan for a war that could never be won, and launched airstrikes on Isis in Syria and Iraq, although he held back from carrying out the war he had promised, to bomb the Syrian regime if they used chemical weaons against the Syrian people. Bashar Assad DID use chemical weapons but Obama didn't bomb. Bill Clinton sent Tomahawaks flying all over the place. But, as Gates pointed out, Trump is a no-war president so far. Who knows, if he is reelected, whether he will keep that record. By May next year, all US troops should be out of Afghanistan but probably won't be because the Taliban can't be trusted to hold to their side of the peace deal, and no doubt the 500 or so US troops still in Syria will be pulled out at some point next year - if Trump wins. He certainly doesn't want a war with North Korea or Iran, although there are bound to be some brinkmanship moments with both Pyongyang and Tehran next year. And China? Well the US wouldn't win a naval war with China if it were to take place in the Asia-Pacific over Taiwan or the islands in the South China Sea, and a war with Russia, say in Ukraine, is out of the question. So, unless some unexpected crisis occurs out of the blue in some unlikely spot that requires a US invasion - such as Venezuela!! - a reelected Trump could struggle thruogh the next four years without a war. That would actually be quite an achievement.

Trump says he will go quietly if defeated

Well that little drama is over. Trump has said on Fox News that he will definitely go quietly if Joe Biden beats him in November. Biden had rather mischievously suggested that Trump would not accept defeat and would have to be dragged out of the White House by America's top military chiefs. Constitutionally, I don't think it would be the job of the military to intervene in the event of a refusal by the president to leave office, that would surely be a matter for Congress. And can you imagine, after his recent experience being mixed up in politics, General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and his fellow chiefs, marching up the path to the White House to frogmarch Trump out of the building? General Milley would run a mile before agreeing to do any such thing. But now Trump has calmed the waters. He would accept defeat if he loses in November. But he added a sting to the tail. It would be very bad for America if he is defeated, he said. And that, I am sure, is going to be his election campaign buzz phrase. Vote for me or you will get Biden, and disaster for the nation. It reminds me of the classic headline in The Sun newspaper in the UK when the Labour Party's Neil Kinnock, looked liked he was going to win the election in 1992. He was ahead in the polls and on voting day The Sun's headline was: "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights." Kinnock was defeated by Conservative John Major. Trump could well try his luck with similar headlines in his favoured newspapers. Right now Biden is looking good in the polls. But as Kinnock found 28 years ago, that is no guarantee of success. This is what Trump is counting on. But if he IS defeated, it's good to hear that he is not planning to barricadde himself in the White House.

General Mark Milley considers his position over THAT walk with the president

It has been a tough time for General Mark Milley. The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff has reportedly been considering whether to resign over his highly unfortunate walk in combat fatigues with President Trump in the midst of the mass demonstrations outside the White House. He knows he has upset a lot of his military chums by looking as if he was party to a blatantly political PR stunt by the president. Which he was, albeit unwittingly. So should he resign? The very fact that he is considering it tells you a lot about the guy. He's an honourable man who is personally anguished over THAT walk and the whole issue of the military staying out of politics. I guess he should have realised what was about to happen before he joined the Trump crowd but, somewhat naively, it appears he didn't. Nor did Mark Esper, his political boss at the Pentagon. So it was a huge mistake but not a deliberate one. I now feel sorry for the guy and don't think he should resign. Dealing with Trump as your commander-in-chief must be one of the trickiest assignments of his military career and he has learned a big lesson which I'm sure he will take on board the next time it happens. Which I'm sure it will. For a start don't wear combat fatigues on the streets of Washington ever again, General. There are five months left before the November election, so it's best to hunker down and not be seen in public, but resignation is not the answer. He only took over as chairman of the Joint Chiefs in September last year, so he has another two or three years to go before retirement. His predecessor General Joe Dunford, a Marine, didn't really put a foot wrong, either with Barack Obama, initially, or with Trump. Milley's future is looking slightly less than rosy but if he's lucky nothing else will go wrong and he'll survive. But if Trump wins the November election for a second four-year term, the president might start looking for a replacement for Milley. That's based on nothing but instinct and Trump's record for sacking people he is no longer comfortable with. When asked about Milley's public apology for getting caught up in THAT walk, Trump just replied that he wasn't bothered. Now that I don't believe!

It's too late to turn the clock back if there's a second virus surge

You can tell just by the way people are walking around now that the two-metre rule and social distancing as a whole are being dumped wholesale. After the mass demonstrations over George Floyd and also, in the US, over the Memorial weekend, people gathered in close proximity by the tens of thousands and didn't seem to care a hoot about spreading the virus. There are already infection spikes going on across half a dozen US states, and I'm sure the same will be the case here in the UK. But it's too late for governments to reimpose social distancing and stay-at-home measures. The momentum for returning to normal life is too great to turn the clock back. From Saturday the UK government under Boris has announced a string of new restriction-lifting measures which are so complex absolutely no one will take notice even if they understand what the hell they mean. Single grandparents living on their own will be able to visit grandchildren in another household and give them all a hug, but grannies and grandpas who are still alive and living under the same roof can't see their grandchildren, let alone hug them. It's all about social bubbles. If you're not in the right bubble then stay at home and rewatch the same boxsets. Oh and if you're a parent with schoolage kids,they can hoof off up to the park and kick a ball around with all their friends or play cricket but they can't go back to school because of the huge dangers of catching the virus or giving it to parents or the school caretaker. There are kids in large numbers having fun all over the place but they're not learning at school because schools are too DANGEROUS. Listening to the UK education secretary Gavin Williamson announcing the U-turn over primary school kids going back to their classrooms was like hearing a mouse squeek about the threat from too many cats in the neighbourhood. In the US Trump has set his face against the virus and has made it clear that a seven-letter word is now the only one that people need to concentrate on: ECONOMY. The virus is so yesterday. Never mind the spikes in Houston, Phoenix, South Caroline and Missouri. Get back to work, people. Lockdowns are for wusses. And so it came to pass that as the virus leapt across the land, the mighty ones in charge want to hear no more about deaths and bankrupticies and unemployment. Let there only be good news.

Expunging the past to fit today's views

Tearing down statues, banning the streaming of television series, prohibiting the showing of latter-day films, all in the name of honouring the death of George Lloyd. I'm sorry, I don't get it. Well, I do get it but isn't it a bit over the top to start knocking down statues that have sat on plinths for decades/centuries because they are identified with slavery or stopping people watching films such as Gone with the Wind because they apparently glorify the role of slaves? In these enlightened times, the very concept of slavery seems depraved and among the worst of humankind's evil deeds. But history is history. It is part of our growing up as human beings to understand and put into historical context appalling mistakes of the past. In my view it is not a reason to obliterate such things from the history books, nor is it a reason to ban films or TV series that dare to mention such matters as slavery or make fun of the white/black divide that patently exists to this day in so many countries. Statues that appear to glorify the slave-trade, such as the one of slave-trader Edward Colston in Bristol that was torn down and thrown into the River Avon a few days ago, should be put into dark backrooms of museums and occasionally brought out so that visitors can gape and learn and understand and, yes, condemn. But to let a bunch of prostesters pull it down and carry it physically to the river and cast it into the waters seems to me to be an act of gross vandalism. And into a river for heaven's sake! Rivers get polluted enough without having some ancient statue hurled into the water. The police chief in Bristol told his officers not to intervene for fear of upsetting them and causing more riots. Oh dear, Mr Chief Constable, talk abut dereliction of duty. What sort of message does that send to potential violent protesters in the future. He should unquestionably resign or be resigned. As for banning repeat showings of the 2003-2008 British TV series Little Britain which, among other things, depicted characters from ethnic minorities, aren't we capable of making up our own minds about the quality of comedy programmes. OK, many of the sketches were in poor taste, even offensive, but comedy has a licence to offend provided it doesn't stir up racial hatred. I don't want to watch it, so I don't. That's my right, that's everyone's right. But once political correctness becomes the only judge of taste, we are all doomed to a George Orwell 1984 Big Brother world.

Trump is probaby secretly relieved he didn't bring those troops into Washington DC

All the active-duty soldiers - 1,600 of them - who were on high alert for Washington DC riots have gone back to their home garrisons, having neither stepped foot on the capital's streets nor fired a shot. After the uproar over the prospect of having combat infantry troops patrolling Washington and the personal battle between the White House and the Pentagon over the appalling PR generated by the whole constitutional issue, I suspect that Trump is secretly relieved that, after all, he didn't have to bring in the troops. Politico has very cleverly dug up a bit of history. The last time apparently a US president summoned troops into the capital was in 1932 when President Herbert Hoover called on the Pentagon to stamp out the protests by a bunch of World War 1 veterans who had camped out in Washington to demand service bonuses. Bayonet-waving troops were photographed assaulting the camps and burning them to the ground. Hoover was not reelected as a result. Trump is five months away from knowing whether he will be granted a second term in office, and if he hasn't read the article in Politico today, some wise aide will no doubt have mentioned the Hoover experience, just in case the president gets itchy once again about suppressing protests in the capital. Can you imagine the images that would have gone viral if soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division's immediate rapid response had started battling with the George Floyd protesters? It was bad enough having the National Guard and that mysterious assortment of heavily-gunned "agency" para-military types protecting the president and the White House and clearing streets. Those images will no doubt be brought up again as election day approaches. Somehow you can't imagine a President Joe Biden contemplating bringing in troops to drive out protesters in Washington. Trump will see that as a sign of weakness of course, but I can't see how the death of George Floyd and the mass demonstrations that followed are going to be a boost for Trump's political standing. Biden could exploit the Floyd tragedy to his advantage but I somehow doubt he will for fear of being accused of flagrant political exploitation. So will the Hoover precedent be a decisive factor in whether Trump is releected or not? As I have written many times before, the only things that will really count in November will be the state of the US economy and jobs, with Trump the man as another key ingredient (love him or loathe him). All other issues will move to the periphery.

Will all the George Floyd demos lead to a rise in Covid-19 cases? See:

The two most shocking statistics in this pandemic era are these: 40,000 deaths from Covid-19 in the United Kingdom and 110,000 deaths from the virus in the United States of America. Despite all the policy decisions that proved to be either too slow or plain wrong, there is no real explanation for why the UK and US stand out in the world as the two worst-hit nations. But I can tell you the governments of the UK and US better get the pandemic-recovery proposals right or those death tolls are going to shoot up in the next few months. Neither the Boris lot nor the Trump lot should feel proud about the way things have gone. More than 150,000 deaths between us, despite having the finest hospitals on the planet. It makes no sense. But one thing that cannot be disputed is that lockdown has worked. One American study today is claiming that without lockdown in the US there would have been 60 million more virus infection cases. That's huge. So preventive measures were the right way to go. And yet still the UK and US suffered the worst death toll in the world. The big fear now is that in the haste to get economies back in working order, risks are going to be taken, complacency will embed itself in our psyche and those of us who have not been affected personally by ill-health will increasingly think, "Well it's been going on for months and I haven't had it, so it won't happen to me now". I don't want to be pessimistic, I sincerely hope that the virus will get fed up living on this planet and will just vanish eventually, even making it pointless to have a vaccine. But as the streets of so many cities filled over the weekend with tens of thousands of closely-packed crowds demonstrating in the name of George Floyd, the African-American who stopped breathing after having a white police officer's knee buried in the back of his neck while he lay facedown on the ground, you have to wonder how many new coronavirus cases will emerge from those protests. It would be a miracle if some, if not many, of those demonstrators don't end up feeling sick and out of breath. That would be a sad and ironic tragedy. Those interviewed by reporters said it was more important to protest for George Floyd than to worry about getting coronavirus. That's all well and good and noble, but those who do get the virus from demonstrating in such non-social distancing conditions will go on to infect others, and the cases could proliferate. Then what will happen to the lockdown-lifting measures we have all been so looking forward to? Meanwhile, another statistic worth pondering on. The latest poll carried out by CNN in the US states that Joe Biden is 14 points ahead of Trump for the presidency and is looking good in the key swing states. Of course this could all change by November, and under the US voting system it's the number of electoral college votes that counts, not the popular vote. But Trump is a great statistics man, he loves throwing them around in his favour, whether they be true or not. I bet he's far more worried about the 14 figure than the 110,000 figure.

Big names are coming out against voting for Trump in November

Men who have served their country and have the respect of the whole American nation are now coming out and publicly saying they cannot vote for Donald Trump. The latest voice to be added to the growing list of significant individuals is retired General Colin Powell, former secretary of state and ex-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He was frequently referred to as a potential candidate for the White House but his wife and family wisely advised him against running. He is a big name and today he has made it clear he cannot vote for Trump, and supports past colleagues, such as Jim Mattis, for criticising the president. I don't know whether Colin Powell is viewed by all voters as a distinguished servant of the nation but I think most Americans would regard him with respect, admiration and even affection. If he says Trump should not be reelected in November, will that make a difference? I suspect it might do if the election was next week but by November there will be louder voices making all the noise, and Powell's restrained but eloquent reasons for opposing Trump may well be forgotten. But now we have, among others, Powell, Mattis and Admiral William McRaven, former commander of Joint Special Operations Command and in charge of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. All of them have voiced their dismay over Trump's style of leadership and in particular his handling of the protests following the death in police custody of George Floyd. The sad thing is that Trump has reacted to their criticism with insults and demeaning comments. He derided Mattis as an overrated general and referred to Colin Powell as "a real stiff" - whatever that means - and said he was "very responsible" for getting the US into the "disastrous" war in Iraq. It is true of course that Powell, as secretary of state under President George W Bush, told the United Nations in February 2003 that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction and he referred to an intelligence report (a British one ) that the Iraqi dictator had acquired yellow cake, a lightly refined uranium ore for enriching into weapons-grade nuclear fuel. BUt Powell was not alone in believing Saddam was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Pretty well everyone in the universe did, including UN weapons inspectors. But, for Trump, it was an easy jibe to hurl at Powell. But Powell is still an icon from the era that embraced three presidents, George HW Bush and George W Bush and Bill Clinton. He cannot be dismissed because he and everyone else made a terrible mistake about weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. If he and Mattis and co are convinced Trump is a bad president then there may will be a growing number of Republicans who will think the same. We know of two already, Senator Mitt Romney and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who revealed that she is struggling over whether to vote for Trump. I still think, despite these big-name opponents, and despite the bewildering array of contradictory measures to control the pandemic and the volatile rhetoric from the president over the George Floyd issue, Trump's Democratic rival Joe Biden will have to raise his game spectacularly if he wants to beat Trump in November.

It's all about jobs now in the US but Boris remains worried

The US it seems has set the example. In May 2.5 million jobs were added to the economy and unemployment dropped to 13.3 per cent. It has taken all the money experts by surprise. Some have even declared that the recession in the US is over and the big recovery is on its way. There are still millions of Americans out of work but these first signs of recovery will give Trump and his reelection hopes a boost. One expert has said it's important to encourage people to go back to work, not give them the incentive to stay at home by continuing to shell out billions of dollars in state aid. Well, provided it's safe to do so, that's not a bad argument. But is every employer ready to introduce sufficient health measures in order to bring their employees back safely? Many people with jobs waiting for them will be worried for their safety. But judging by the extraordinary figure of 2.5 million jobs added in May, I guess it could be true that the US is bouncing back rapidly. I don't see that happening here in UK, partly because the rules and guidelines seem so confusing. Unless workers go back to work, the economy will stay in recession for months if not years. But so far it has been a slow move in the right direction. So much borrowed money has been handed out that we must be near the point where this country's ecoonomy will be damaged for a generation. We here in the UK need to see a massive boost to earnings to generate revenue and tax income but unlike Trump who believes that he has personally beaten the virus, Boris Johnson is focusing much of his attention on avoiding a second surge in infections. There are already worrying signs of rising infections in the northwest and southwest, and lockdown measures will probably have to be reimposed. That will be a disaster for the economy. Boris is getting a lot of flack at the moment. He and his government are being blamed for making a lot of mistakes in dealing with the pandemic and refusing to acknowledge the errors. Instead Boris boasted in parliament that he is proud of what his government has achieved. He still doesn't look well and I suspect his life-threatening virus experience hangs heavily on him. it's clearly a long recovery process and he does not want to be remembered as the prime minister who jumped too early to restore the country to normality. Trump doesn't have such doubts. He thinks he has won and wants everyone to return to normal. The appalling fact that more than 100,000 Americans have died from the virus doesn't seem to affect his determinaton to stir the country back to success. This is the way it's going to be. We in the UK will stumble on with our fingers crossed and with dread in our hearts, but in the US the economy is first and foremost the priority. Who is gooing to get it right? Sweden thought it had done well to be the only country not to impose a nationwide lookdown but now admits it got it wrong. Too many people died in Sweden. Well done Sweden for admitting it. At present neither Trump nor Boris are admitting any mistakes.

Maybe the silence of Justin Trudeau is a lesson for all

With all the appalling events that have occurred in the last eleven days - starting with the unbelievably horrific murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis - the quietest moment recorded in public should not be forgotten. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau was asked for his reaction to President Trump's demand for troops to put down insurrection in the streets in US cities, and he took a full 20 seconds to come up with an answer. It was riveting television, silence without interruption for TWENTY seconds. You could just see Trudeau's brain whirling around trying to think of the right words.I have huge respect for the Canadian leader. He could so easily have rushed in with an instant condemnation. "What the hell is this man Trump up to? He's like that vile man Duterte in the Philippines who wants to kill all drug dealers." Or he could have said: "Trump may be an ally but he ain't no friend of mine." Or: "Trump's a moron." But no, he thought and thought and thought and came up with an intelligent, carefully devised comment about how Canada too had its racial problems and how important it was to honour and respect all citizens." OK he didn't answer the question as such. But his silence beforehand was like a million words of condemnation. Well done Prime Minister Trudeau. The amazing thing is that the Canadian press just waited patiently for his reply. They didn't jump in to hurry him along. The television cameras focused on him and we all waited. It was sensational theatre. So is silence the answer? Is silence more potent than spouting instant criticism? So far Trudeau is the only person to react with silence, and bravely so in my view. In the US important people have not kept quiet and I just wonder whether silence might have been a better alternative. Take Jim Mattis. The retired four-star Marine Corps general and former US defence secretary rushed into print accusing Trump of dividing the nation like a Nazi autocrat. I think Trump was wrong to want troops to line the streets of Washington, but does it help the incredibly tense situation in Washington and other cities for the revered General Mattis to condemn his former commander-in-chief with such inflammatory language? It gave ideas to other generals, and today General Martin Dempsey, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under Obama, pronounced his disapproval of Trump's "dangerous" leadership. It all makes good copy for journalists but at a time when the US desperately needs to calm down and confront racism in an adult and responsible way, I don't thnk it's wise for retired generals to start firing all cylinders at the president. If for no other reason than it will stir up Trump to act even more like an autocrat. Everyone needs to stop shouting. Take a leaf out of Trudeau's book, and think before adding to the wild and angry rhetoric destroying America right now.

Mad Dog Mattis and Donald Trump are now sworn enemies

Jim Mattis never did like being called Mad Dog. The four-star Marine Corps general and Trump's first defence secretary put up with it whenever the president referred to him by his nickname because it meant he was well in favour with his commander-in-chief. But when things started to go wrong and Mattis began to disagree with Trump's policies, especially on Afghanistan and Syria, the president became very unhappy with his chosen defence secretary and referred in private to him as Moderate Dog. From then on Mattis's days were numbered and he was forced out. Since then, Mattis has made a few disparaging remarks about Trump but now he has hurled some pretty heavy stuff at the president over his proposal to send in the troops to sort out protesters in Washington. Mattis is shocked and outraged by Trump's divisive rhetoric. It doesn't seem to bother Trump one bit. He has responded the same way he reacted the last time Mattis dared to venture an opinion in public about the president. Trump who once praised Mattis to the skies, saying what a brilliant defence secretary he was, dismissed him out of hand, claiming he always thought he was overrated. It's such a cynical world. Mattis opened himself up for abuse by making public his views but it's sad to see him being denigrated in this way. Mattis had an impressive career as a military commander and was welcomed by the Pentagon as the right man for the job of defence secretary. Now Mattis only has to raise his head above the parapet and he gets shot down by the president. and now we have Mark Esper, the current defence secretary, daring to voice his disagreement with Trump over the question of sending the military to quell rioters. I reckon Trump will already be looking around for a new defence secretary. Trump wants absolute loyalty from his cabinet members. So I'd be surprised if Esper survives much longer. One person Trump will not be turning to to fill a vacancy at the Pentagon is Jim Mattis.

General Mark Milley in combat fatigues walking the streets of Washington

General Mark Milley who is a very serious sort of bloke and a tough cookie as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff has made a big mistake. He was photographed wandering around the streets of Washington yesterday dressed in combat fatigues. Well he is a general, so why not? The answer is obvious: everything right now is so political in Washington you can smell it in the air, and to see the top military man in combat fatigues out in public for all to see sends only one message and that is - the president's general is in combat mode, like his boss, and wearing his combat gear underlines the point that the capital of the United States is currently under siege and the military is the answer to everything. Thus, a unit from the 82nd Airborne Division's immediate responsive force is sent to the outskirts of Washington ready to be rushed into the capital. That was confirmed by the Pentagon yesterday evening The walkabout by General Milley thus looked like a recce from the top man. I suspect he will live to regret that. And of course it was made even worse when both General Milley and Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, were caught up in the Trump special manoeuvre on Tuesday evening, clearing the front of the White House of protestors with armed National Guard troops and unbelievably armed Secret Servicemen with giant sniper rifles so that the president could carry out a Bible-holding photo opportunity outside nearby St John's Episcopal church which had been damaged in the violent protests. Milley and Esper were there as it happened. Disastrous public relations for the Pentagon, the military and in particular the army. Milley made it clear he didn't know what was happening when it was happening, implying he would have avoided it like the plague if he had known in advance what Trump was planning to do. Esper, rather pathetically, said in an NBC TV interview that no one told him where they were all going in the company of the president. He had thought he was going to see troops and the damage caused by protesters. "I didn't know where I was going," Esper said. Oh dear, that didn't sound good. Trump's insistence on calling in active-duty troops to be ready for service in the capital was wholly political and as a result both Esper and Milley have been swallowed up in the political furore that has followed the president's decision. The desperate backtracking by Esper and Milley hasn't really helped and certainly won't have pleased Trump. Only the day before Esper had been calling on governors to "dominate the battlespace" in America's cities, and I can't believe that went down well inside the Pentagon. The Pentagon is supposed to be an apolitical department, and the military chiefs are supposed to keep well clear of political issues. Something went seriously wrong this week.

Trump goes into warfighting mode

Every US president has faced the same temptation to turn to the military to sort out a problem, be it at home or overseas. Donald Trump has now gone into full military warfighting mode with his call for the regular infantry to be brought into Washington and elsewhere to stem the rioters and cower the protesters into submission. As president he has legal powers to do that if all else has failed. But obviously it's a highly controversial, risky and potentially dangerous move to make. The Pentagon and its chiefs believe in freedom of expression as much as anyone, perhaps more so right now after their commander-in-chief suddenly became so bellicose. The last thing General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, wants is for troops to go heavy-handed on to the streets of the capital and start shooting armed protesters. Joe Biden, Democratic hopeful for the White House in the November election, has today accused Trump of fanning the flames by calling in the military. It's such a difficult balancing act, needing to stop the violence and looting but not wanting to add to it by responding to it too harshly. Trump wants to go all the way and let active-duty soldiers line the streets. As it is, there are already seem military helicopters flying low over Washington, kicking up dirt and dust where they go. For peaceful protesters that must be frightening. General Milley is the president's main military adviser and he, surely, must be anxious about doing as his commander-in-chief is bidding. But active-duty military units HAVE been put on short-notice and if the rioting in Washington gets worse I have no doubt these units will be rushed into the capital. US troops on the streets of the capital! What a field day China will have if that happens, telling the world of the depths to which the US has sunk. But after the Tiananman Square horror story of 1989 when Chinese army tanks crushed protesters, I don't think most Americans will care what China thinks. But for Trump who has declared himself to be a president of law and order, the decision whether to bring in the troops tonight or tomorrow or at any time will probably be the most politically risky moment of his presidency. Perhaps the presence of troops lining the streets and guarding key buildings will do the trick, and the looters and violent protesters will take note and go home. Trump would then have made his point and the troops will disperse and leave town. But the image of armed regular infantry soldiers in Washington will go around the world. And that image will survive all the way to the November presidential election.

Joe Biden needs a brilliant running-mate to stand any chance of beating Trump

On his own I doubt Joe Biden has any chance of beating Donald Trump in November. He just doesn't come across as tough enough to take on the world's problems, not that Trump has had much, if any, success in confronting the biggest foreign policy challenges around right now - China, Iran, North Korea, Russia , Syria, Hong Kong etc. But Biden as the leader of the free world? I don't see it. I'm reading Robert Gates's book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War and it seems that Biden, then vice-president when Gates was defence secretary under Obama, was a nightmare to deal with, constantly teaming up with the White House national security staff (NSS) to undermine both Gates at the Pentagon and Hillary Clinton at the State Department, especially over policy on Afghanistan. Biden and his mates at the White House including Tom Donilon, deputy national security adviser, believed the military were trying to gang-bang Obama into making decisions to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan and they did everything they could to thwart the defence department. Gates was pretty rude about Biden's competence in his memoir, and it set me thinking that if the former vice president became president, could he once again be a nightmare to deal with? Barack Obama was bad enough in coming to decisions but after endless toing and froing he generally sided with the Pentagon and the military when Gates wanted the commander-in-chief to go one way when Biden and co wanted to go the other way. I suspect that Biden, as president, would also demand endless Situation Room meetings before coming to any security policy decisions. It is obviously sensible for the president to mull over all the options before making a decision, but if, as was the case in the Obama administration, there are rival camps fighting each other for the president's ear, then decisive, authoritative government tends to get undermined. Trump is the opposite. He wakes up in the morning and says what he wants to do: warn Iran he's going to bomb them out of the water if they attack US ships in the Gulf, reduce North Korea to rubble if they threaten America, increase the trade war with China etc etc. That style of government has its problems too, of course. But somehow, dithering over decisions doesn't boost confidence, and I think Biden would be a ditherer. That may be unfair but I'm looking at his past record. So, if he is going to have any chance of beating Trump in November he has got to find himself a whizz bang presidential running mate who would be a sensational vice president. Someone tough and decisive and persuasive. I don't know the VP candidates well enough to know which of the many on the long list of candidates would have those qualities once esconced in the VP's office next to the West Wing. Some say it must be Elizabeth Warren but she and Biden don't look as if they are great mates. It has to be somebody whom he trusts and likes and someone who is tough as hell but charismatic with it. That's a lot to ask. It could be Senator Kamala Harris - my choice - or Senator Amy Klobuchar or Representative Val Demings of Florida. Biden doesn't have to decide until July but it will be the most important decision he has to make. Right now, on his own, he doesn't look like he is up to being the next president of the United States.