Kushner Kiboshed

There was never much doubt about who would win - General John Kelly, former four-star Marine Corps commander and someone used to getting his own way, and Jared Kushner whose biggest claim to fame is that he is the son-in-law of Donald Trump. Why it was thought appropriate to give him temporary top security clearance when the FBI was struggling to check him out, I don't know. But after enjoying access to the most secret stuff landing on his father-in-law's desk, he has now been humiliated after being told his clearance has been downgraded to not-very-interesting-stuff. He remains, I think, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, so at some point he is going to have to see intelligence higher up the clearance chain, but General Kelly will no doubt decide that on a case by case basis. It's all about need-to-know. If Jared doesn't need to know, he won't be told, but of course he won't know what he doesn't need to know which will be pretty frustrating for him. Trump now has another reason for not liking Kelly. But the besieged chief of staff must have told the president that there was no way his son-in-law could be treated as an equal to his father-in-law when it came to America's most closely guarded secrets. But I wonder how much Trump himself is actually told. He gets his daily presidential intelligence brief compiled by the CIA and others, but although that sounds like a daily dose of the Crown Jewels, the presidential briefing is sanitised by the intelligence agencies. Trump who has shown he is not interested in poring over intelligence, is in some ways like his son-in-law. He knows what he is told but he doesn't know what he is not told unless he is particularly astute and asks a pertinent question that forces the CIA to tell him what he hadn't been told before in his briefing. For example, is Trump aware of all the black ops being carried out by US special forces and the CIA's special activities division? I doubt it. He will be informed if some vital intelligence gleaned from black ops requires a presidential decision or if something goes seriously wrong. But even the president and commander-in-chief doesn't need to know everything. If he was shown raw intelligence every day - that's unprocessed, non-analysed intel - Trump would have to spend every hour of every day reading it all, and the president is not a great reader of anything we have been told. But if he really wants to know what's going on in some part of the world that's top top secret, he, as commander-in-chief, is entitled to be told. Jared Kushner won't get anywhere near this sort of stuff. Very humiliating for a man who until now enjoyed special access.

Brexit is good for you. No it's not.

Brexit is now like everything else in life. Butter is good for you, say experts. No it's not, say experts. Red wine is good for you, say experts. No it's not, say experts. Climate change is nonsense, say experts. Climate change is the most dangerous threat facing the world, say experts. Jogging will extend your life by ten years, say experts. No it won't, say experts. Peanut butter is the elixir of life, say experts. No it isn't, say experts. Excessive exercise ten minutes a day will prevent a heart attack, say experts. No it won't and doesn't, say experts. There's an endless supply of examples of things which experts say will do you good that are then denied by other types of experts. Brexit is like a glorified advertising campaign by both sides of the debate. No one can work out which side is telling the truth or which side actually knows what the hell it is talking about. Today is a classic case. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the fast-left-moving Labour Party and would-be prime minister, has come out with a spectacularly brilliant political idea. Let's stay in the EU Customs Union, he says, then we will be guaranteed our fair share of the lovely trade deals that go on every day of the week. Well, that concept has been around ever since Brexit was first invented. But never mind, Corbyn has suddenly come to this conclusion because he realises that if he can persuade Tory rebel Remainers to join him, he could oust Theresa May and her divided cabinet. I don't suppose Corbyn and his merry Lefties have thought through the implications of this new policy but it's a clever political move to put more pressure on May. The timing is good, too, because the Government is currently in the middle of a period of Big Speeches by the Big Players. Today it's the turn of Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, who is going to tell us - because he has leaked his speech to be made tonight - that it would be daft to stay in the EU Customs Union because then we won't be able to grab amazingly wonderful trade deals with countries outside the EU. Better to break free and launch Glorious Britain into a whirlpool of trade partnerships with everyone from the United States to Nicaragua. But before poor Liam has stepped up to the microphone to reveal his brilliant understanding of Brexit, out of the woodwork comes a fellow called Sir Martin Donnelly who tells us that the Fox argument is fantasy. The phrase he uses is "fairy godmother" stuff. Sir Martin was a top civil servant, serving as permanent secretary at....Fox's department until he resigned last year. He referred on radio to a speech HE is going to make which will argue that what we lose by leaving the Customs Union will never be replaced or bettered by acting alone and struggling to reach new trade deals with the EU or with countries outside. In other words, he can guarantee that Britain will be worse off outside the Customs Union and anyone who thinks differently must believe in fairies. Ergo, Liam Fox believes in fairies. Ooops Sir Martin, a former top civil servant speaks his mind. No wonder he resigned. The point of all this is we lesser mortals haven't a clue whether Fox's dream of a new era of multiple trade deals for Britain is based on sound intellect and judgment or is just another flimsy-flamsy hope-for-the-best piece of political hype. Nor do we know whether smartypants Donnelly knows what he is talking about. He once worked in Brussels, so he is a Brussels bureaucrat at heart who beieves the EU is the best place for us. Well, that's what I believe, too, but everything is now so political that it's impossible to feel convinced by arguments from either side. The British voters opted in the referendum for a full pull-out, including from the Single Market and Customs Union. At least, I think they thought they did. Since then we've had Soft Brexit and Hard Brexit and No-deal Brexit. So the waters have been muddied to such an extent that it no longer matters what the so-called Big Players, such as Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox, oh and Theresa May, say about the implications of staying, leaving or running away, there isn't a reputable financial crystal-ball-gazer in the universe who, hand on heart, can say where exactly Britain will be in, say, ten years' time. Today, Fox has been outfoxed by Donnelly but it really hasn't helped one bit!

President for life

I think the United States better be very careful. President Trump must be looking with envy at his counterpart in Beijing. President Xi Zinping has been enjoying power so much that he now wants to be president for life, and because it's China all he has to do is arrange for legislation to be rewritten to allow him to stay "on the throne" until his last words are uttered on this Earth. President Putin has pretty much done the same. He extended the previously limited term for an individual Russian president and no one wll be surprised if he doesn't stick out around in the Kremlin for another 20 years or so. Trump, poor chap, has a maximum of eight years in the White House under the constitution. But perhaps he will get his legal boys to come up with a brilliant idea so that he can do many more four-year terms to rival crafty Xi and KGB-cunning Putin. That's if Trump is not impeached or forced to resign or just loses the 2020 election. But there are ways round that too maybe. Of course, Trump might decide after four or eight years that he wants to hang up his red baseball cap and spend the rest of his days playing golf in Florida. But somehow I don't see that scenario. Even now he will be thinking to himelf, "For the sake of America First I must be allowed to stay on as president for ever." Xi and Putin are going to be the big big players for the next 10-20 years. As the law stands now, Trump will be gone one way or the other. He will be SO frustrated and angry that his two great rivals will be laughing their heads off as he departs from the White House and hands over to.....well, who knows but probably some Democratic Party upstart with a vision. By then, Theresa May will be gone (politically), Merkel too, probably Macron, that chap in Delhi, hopefully Kim Jong-un. Xi and Putin together as presidents for life. I can hear Trump shouting at someone, anyone, in the Oval Office right now. Probably at General John Kelly or Lieutenant-General HR McMaster. "I WILL BE PRESIDENT FOR LIFE!!!"

Trump leaps in

Donald Trump just cannot resist thrusting into every news item to stamp his mark. It didn't take him long to describe Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed security officer at Parkland school, as a coward. He heard what we all heard and read what we all read and then decided to make an instant judgment. Whether he is proven to be accurate or not, I don't think it's the job of the president of the United States to pass judgment on a story like this. Had he been a president with any human feeling he would have said something like this: "It's not for me to make any judgment on why Deputy Peterson did not enter the school to confront the gunman. That's a matter for the sheriff. I wish to make no comment other than to say how desperately sad I am about this terrible incident. Let the police carry out their investigation as the law requires." That would have been fine. But Trump is not that sort of president. Instead, he branded Peterson a coward who had failed to do his job, and as a consequence created big headlines for himself. I don't think such comments help anyone and undoubtedly added immeasurably to the general castigation of Scot Peterson. Another sorry presidential episode.

Parkland security man's hesitation

The Parkland security man Deputy Scot Peterson is being villified for his failure to leap with his gun in his hand into the slaughterhouse to confront and kill the accused shooter Nikolas Cruz. The media is going crazy after the local sheriff declared at a press conference that Deputy Peterson had waited outside for four minutes as gunfire raged inside the school. Seventeen people were killed and others injured in a six-minute hail of bullets. But wait just a minute before this poor man is crucified. He had a responsibiity to protect the students. That was his job. That was why he was armed. But not every police officer, security officer and soldier is naturally equipped mentally to rush into a war zone-type situation, separate the gunman from the students at risk and calmly shoot him dead. It would have taken instinctive courage, unbelievable determination, immaculate training and incredible skill. Citations for a top bravery award given to a soldier in combat always say that the awardee took action "without thought for his own safety". Perhaps Deputy Peterson did not have that kind of courage. Probably he had never been trained for dealing with such a horrendous life-risking situation. Perhaps he really didn't know what to do. Should he have gone in immediately the first shot was fired and run straight at the gunman? Would he have killed him or would he have fired out of fear and killed one of the students or teachers? Then what would have been said? It was one security officer armed with a pistol against a crazy gunman armed with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle that can spray deadly rounds almost without stopping. Sheriff Scott Israel at the press conference was merciless: "I am devastated, sick to my stomach, he never went in." He should have "went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer." Would the sheriff have done that had he been the lone security officer facing a man with an assault rifle? All I'm saying is, Deputy Peterson should have rushed in and should have been prepared to sacrifice his life, but the sheer terror of doing precisely that, knowing that he could be dead in a matter of seconds, made him hesitate. No one who has not faced this sort of life and death decision should criticise him. Normally when there is a dangerous hostage situation or a bank robbery or whatever, a lone police officer at the scene would be told to wait for back-up. I have no idea but maybe Deputy Peterson judged it would be suicidal to go in on his own and he was waiting for more armed police to arrive. In the end no one can know whether his intervention would have saved lives or just added one more to the death toll - the death of Deputy Peterson.

Ivanka and the North Korean general

The Winter Olympic Games was supposed to be about snow, ice and also warm and cuddly stuff, the latter being about improving relations between North and South Korea. North and South Korean ice hockey players and other Games participants from both sides of the border got on pretty well, and the general atmosphere was good, raising hopes that from hockey players you could go on to better relations and sweetness and light and an end to the nuclear crisis. That was always a false hope. But for a time the tension on the Korean Peninsula was definitely lowered. However, that was all slightly ruined by the frosty non-relationship between Mike Pence, the US Vice President, and Kim Jong-un´s sister, Kim Yo Jong. They sat near to each other in the VIP box but never met eyes and their planned meeting in which no doubt hands would have been shaken, didn´t happen. That´s because Pence who seems to me to be totally dreary, uninspiring and boring, never moved an inch. He made it clear that the only thing he was interested in was a conversation about North Korea getting rid of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Ok fair enough!! But diplomacy is all about nuance and suggestion and hints and a sort of friendliness. Obviously too subtle for Pence who sat there in his huge anorak and seemed immovable, a bit like one of those stoney-faced Soviet Politburo leaders on the high dais in Red Square watching the military parade go by. What was he going to say to Kim Yo Jong? “Maam, unless you speak nuclear to me you can go hang and go back to your Fatty Brother and tell him we´re going to annihilate you.” Ha!! You don´t have to concede anything, Mr Vice-President, but a touch of human give and take in the name of diplomacy wouldn´t have harmed. Anyway, Pence might as well have not been there. He achieved nothing. North Korea called off the meeting and he went back to his office in the White House. But now there is a new opportunity for some clever chatting. Trump is sending his daughter Ivanka to attend the closing ceremony, and North Korea is sending General Kim Yong-choi who used to head up the Reconnaissance General Bureau, a wonderfully quaint name for North Korea´s spying agency. Now that, I grant you, is not a perfect match, Ivanka and Kim Jong-un´s ex-spymaster, but who knows, perhaps they will get along, if they are allowed actually to meet. They probably won´t but it´s fun to imagine. I quite like Ivanka. She has a bit of style, a helluva lot more than Mike Pence at any rate. The general doesn´t look as if he has much personality but he might be charmed by Trump´s daughter. Give it a go, I say. But the bureaucrats on both sides will never allow it to happen. More`s the pity!

Does Trump have a red line in Syria?

Obama had a red line in Syria but let it be crossed without doing anything. On the question of Bashar Assad using chemical weapons against his people, Obama was saved by the Russians who came up with their idea of persuading Assad to give up his chemical and biological weapons. Thinking back, especially with the current antagonism between the US and Russia, it is quite bizarre that it was Russia that came to Obama's rescue. But does Trump have a red line for Syria? Does he really care that the Syrians and Russians are currently bombing the rebel-held Damascus suburban enclave of eastern Ghouta to a pile of rubbish and killing hundreds of civilians? Does Trump feel any sense of outrage? The only red line that Trump has shown interest in is to stop North Korea from acquiring a long-enough range missile with a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the US. But even that red line seems somewhat uncertain. The CIA director Mike Pompeo has said that North Korea is just a handful of months away from achieving this "dream". So the red line will come this year. Will Trump act or prevaricate? And will Trump do anything about Syria? No one is stopping the Syrian regime and its Russian backers from slaughtering men, women and children on a daily basis. The UN pleads for the killing to stop but no one is listening. When this sort of rampant murder is going on, it needs a western leader of exceptional quality to intervene. Trump has so far shown no interest in stopping the bombing. He has no red line. It would be highly dangerous but if Obama considered bombing the Syrian airbase from where chemical weapons were stored, why should not Trump tell Assad: "If you don't stop bombing Ghouta I'm going to take out your airbases." Of course the risks are huge. What would Russia do? But the United States needs to become once again the leader of the western world. Trump's America First policy is a disaster because it has given the impression to the rest of the world that he doesn't care about standing up for human values elsewhere. So Putin gets away literally with murder. It's time for Trump to speak out for the women and children being killed and wounded in Ghouta. And to act!