Perhaps Jim Mattis should have stuck it out after all.

Jim Mattis made the judgment that if his commander-in-chief no longer trusted in his advice it was time to go. He resigned hours after Trump's decision to withdraw the 2,000 US troops from Syria. But perhaps he acted prematurely. Honourably no doubt, but if he had stuck it out and continued to argue for a more phased withdrawal, he might have succeeded, making his resignation unnecessary. I know it's easy to say that in hindsight. But Lindsay Graham, that wily old Republican senator and supporter of Trump, went and had lunch with the president at the White House and came away saying Trump wasn't going to bring the troops all out in a one-off withdrawal but would manage it more slowly, only after Isis had finally been totally vanquished in northeast Syria. So Graham got what he wanted. Why didn't Mattis do the same? Why didn't he go to Trump and say: "OK, Mr President, I know what you're saying, and of course it's what you promised in your election campaign, but might I suggest you do it nice and slowly so that we can finish off doing what has to be done?" Trump might have listened. He listened to Graham who was publicly critical of his decision to withdraw the troops. Of course for Mattis the Syria question was not the first moment when he and his commander-in-chief had clashed. It had become a regular occurrence. Nevertheless Mattis's presence at the Pentagon and in the Trump cabinet was too important for him to consider resignation as the only way out. Mattis officially bows out tonight with a phone call handing over the reigns of Pentagon power to his deputy, Patrick Shanahan. I suspect Shanahan will only be the acting defence secretary and won't get the top job. Who knows, perhaps Trump will offer it to Lindsay Graham, and Graham will accept it. He would probably only have to do two years. Either Trump will fail to win a second term, or if he does succeed - beating the likes of Senator Elizabeth Warren who announced her 2020 presidential bid today - he will want a new and fresh cabinet.

Best news for 2019 would be no Brexit

There are 89 days left before Great Britain and Northern Ireland leave the European Union. Brexit Day is March 29. Liam Fox, the international trade secretary and a keen Brexiteer, believes there is now only a 50-50 chance of Brexit ever taking place unless Parliament approves Theresa May's deal negotiated with Brussels. Hurray, that's good news! He of course is appealing to MPs to say yes to the May deal so that at least the UK will be able to leave the EU on March 29. My view is the opposite. If the alternative to the May deal is a no-deal and leaving in chaos then I am totally against it and would prefer all MPs to go for the Theresa option. But if a genuine alternative, following a no vote to the May deal, is to give the whole thing up and revert to the status quo-ante, ie stay in the EU and carry on as before, then I'll shout from the rooftops, "Vote No, MPs". Whether this alternative requires a second referendum I don't know. I have always been against a second referendum because I feared the result would be even more confusing and disastrous as the first one. But what if a miracle happens and a large percentage of those who voted Leave the first time are now so sick of the whole debacle that they decide, oh hell, let's just stay in the EU. Politicians have said that a second referendum would be a betrayal of the 17 million who voted to leave in 2016. But, hang about, that's absolutely not true. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that 50 per cent of the 17 million leavers change their mind in a second referendum and vote stay. That would mean that only eight and half million people would feel betrayed. That's still a lot of people but in a democracy, that's a helluva lot better and more manageable than having 17 million people taking to the streets. So, Liam Fox, I hope your prediction is on the right lines. Maybe just maybe by March 29, this country of mine will come to its senses and say: "Let's stay in the EU." But unfortunately I don't have much faith in Dr Fox's political judgment. And of course his intention in making the prediction was to try and put pressure on doubting MPs from all parties to go for the May Brexit deal. The vote is due next month. I believe very very strongly that it is in the best interests of this country's future to STAY in the EU. So please we need a lot more politicians to come forward and say: "For the Brexiteers this is your last chance. Vote for the May deal or the government will step in and cancel the Brexit plan altogether and revert to the pre-referendum position." To hell with the storm it will cause. Just do it!!

Is Trump enjoying shutting down the government?

You get the feeling that Donald Trump actually likes playing games with the governing of the United States of America. He is responsible for the current shutdown because he had a change of mind and decided to take the Democrats full on and give them an ultimatum: money for The Wall or else. We had shutdowns in the Obama administration. It's one of the peculiarities of the American political system. But you never thought of Obama sitting at home or in the White House grinning from ear to ear as millions of federal workers went unpaid. Trump on the other hand seems to be determined to sit this one out, never mind the suffering of families as the pay cheques stop coming. All he does is spell out the terms to bring the shutdown to a halt. Give him the $5 billion he wants to start constructing the wall along the southern border. Oh and he is also putting all the blame for the political impasse on Nancy Pelosi, fast becoming Trump's hate figure in the Democratic Party. Between the two of them it's difficult to see where there could be a hint of a compromise. There IS no obvious compromise because of the two sides' totally different views. Shutdown for good or $5 billion. Someone has got to surrender, but with the Democrats and Pelosi at their head about to take control of the House of Representatives, they are not going to start their rule in the House by giving into Trump. The government shutdown could go on for weeks or months by which time there are going to be a lot of very angry people. Who will they blame: Trump or Pelosi? Trump is hoping all his supporters will blame Pelosi. After all, he promised a wall in his election campaign and that's what his supporters are expecting, nay demanding. How on earth is this going to be resolved? Trump cannot afford to back down now. He did so a week or so back and was crucified by his right-wing supporters. He can't make that mistake again or his popularity will drop to zero. The only compromise has to be a slight give on both sides: Pelosi offers $2.5 billion but says it's just for repairing, expanding, atrengthening existing fencing along the border, and Trump agrees but tells everyone it will mean he can start building an actual wall based on one of the many designs which have been presented by specialist contractors. That way Trump and Pelosi can each claim victory and federal workers can get back to their jobs and earn some money once again.

The instant impact of Trump's troop withdrawal from Syria

The impact of Trump's decision to pull all 2,000 US troops out of Syria has been huge, even though the withdrawal has yet to begin. All the remaining players are making their moves: the Syrian regime forces have swiftly moved northeast to fill the vacuum. The Kurds who once relied on the US have taken the astute and safe option by inviting Damascus to send troops to occupy the key stronghold of Manbij in northern Syria which until now has been occupied by the US-trained Syrian Democratic Forces. The Kurds will leave, avoiding what was fast becoming an invevitable invasion by the Turkish army which has been building up forces on the border for the last few weeks. The Kurds are Turkey's main enemy. They are seen as terrorists. While the Americans were still in play, President Erdogan of Turkey was reluctant to send his army in to attack Manbij because of the risk of fighting and killing Americans. But Manbij is now in Erdogan's crosshairs and he wants the Kurdish-occupied town to be filled with Turkish troops. So what will he do now that Assad's forces are entering the town at the Kurds' request? Erdogan will no longer have an excuse to attack Manbij because the Kurds are leaving. It's all a win win win for the Assad government which has already recovered about three-quarters of its territory and has retained control of every major city. Trump effectively gave Erdogan carte blanche to do what he wanted in Syria when he told him in a phone call last week that he was withdrawing the US troops for good. But now the Turkish autocrat has to decide whether he wants to take on the Syrian army or just continue to pursue the Kurds wherever they go. He doesn't want them anywhere where they might try to declare an independent state. All of this is in the interests of Russia and Iran which will consolidate their gains and back Assad all the way. Provided some, if not all, of these protagonists continue to attack Isis in the northeast of Syria, then Trump's unfinished job of destroying Isis will be handed to other players. If that works, then fine. In truth, 2,000 US troops were never in a position to dominate territory in Syria. They were only there to help the Syrian Democratic Forces finish off Isis. That was their sole function. Trump must have realised that. So letting someone else do the last bit almost made sense. But only if Trump cares not a fig about what happens to Syria in the future and is indifferent to Russia and Iran gaining a political and strategic advantage in the region. And that is the only assumption than can be made after his announcement last week on the troop withdrawal. Some analysts have said that the Trump announcement was a disaster for Israel which will now be faced by a a rejuvinated Syria, an exultant Russia and an ever-deadly Iran across its borders. But Israel has shown again and again that it can defend itself, judging by the now regular airstrikes on Iranian arms and missile dumps in Syria. The withdrawal of 2,000 US soldiers from Syria is upsetting for them but the Israeli military will carry on doing what they have always done - bomb whatever they judge to be a threat to the safety and security of Israel.

What would $5 billion buy, apart from a bit of Trump's wretched wall?

Donald Trump has gone on so much about wanting Congress to cough up $5 billion for his south border wall with Mexico that you might think that's all he needs to keep the "baddies" out. But of course that's not the case at all. It has been estimated that $5 billion would provide a wall to fill up only 215 miles of the 2,000-mile border. So there would be a long way to go. Congress knows that if they give in this time and hand over $5 billion, the president will be back to ask for more and more and more until his wretched wall stretches like the Great Wall of China across the whole frontier. But it's not just about the wall. It's the whole concept of keeping people out of the United States by building a massive wall. Like someone has said, it's a Middle Ages idea. Will the US border patrol officers be required to stand on the top of the wall with pots of boiling oil to pour on anyone attempting to climb up? (There will no doubt be a thriving industry in extendable ladders on the Mexico side). But $5 billion is not small cash either. With $5 billion in your pocket you could build a town-full of houses or provide meals for the homeless for a decade, or build one and a half aircraft carriers. But Trump wants his wall because that's what he promised in his election campaign, and this time he seems prepared to hold out until Congress agrees. The government could be shut down as a result for weeks, or months, depending on who blinks first. The wall is one of his great failures so far in his presidency. He managed to get the courts to agree a version of his desired ban on certain people (Muslims) coming into the country, he got his chosen judge onto the bench in the Supreme Curt, he has announced the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, he has scrapped America's involvement in the climate-change agreement and US participation in the Obama nuclear deal with Iran, all of which were his election promises. But there is still no prospect of a wall, and I suppose Obamacare is still running, so that's a failure too. But the wall is his thing! He wants that wall. He needs that wall. Now where did I hear that before?

Trump visits Iraq but doesn't care about US allies in Syria

At least Donald and Melania Trump did one thing right. They went to Iraq to see the US troops who serve there with very little recognition from the people back home. Iraq has become like Afghanistan. The war and post-war and post-Isis have been going on for so long that most people are probably bored with the Iraq problem which is tough for the servicemen and women who still have to grind out their days in the intense heat and hostility of Iraq and try to help bring the country to its senses. There are 5,200 American troops from different services still in Iraq, training and advising the Iraqi security forces and so far Trump hasn't demanded their withdrawal. That time will come no doubt but at the moment he has satisfied himself with the pull-out of 2000 troops from Syria and 7,000 from Afghanistan. So he turned up with his First Lady to speak to the troops in Iraq, his first visit to see American military serving in an overseas assignment since taking office in January 2017. He wasn't shy about talking through his decision to withdraw the troops from Syria. He just said it was time for someone else to destroy the remnants of Isis in Syria and made it clear he was relying on the Turks to do the job. Well, we'll see. I don't suppose the Turks will be very discriminatory when they invade northern Syria with their tanks and armoured personnel carriers. President Erdogan may have told Trump he will finish off the Isis militants but really he wants a chance to eliminate the Kurds who, despite their brilliant achievements on the battlefield against Isis with American firepower and training, the Turkish autocrat believes they are terrorists and threaten the security of his country. If and when hundreds of Kurdish fighters die after the Turks invade, it will be difficult not to accuse Trump of betraying America's former allies and comrades. Meanwhile, quite what the British and French special forces will do once their American colleague leaves northeastern Syria, I don't know. They are relatively few in number and, like the Kurds, rely on the US to fight and train alongside them, and in far superior numbers and with far superior firepower. Once the Americans have gone home, they will be lonely warriors with an uncertain and much more dangerous future. Just like the Kurds.

Trump and his new chief of staff share Christmas bad grace

There's nothing like a bit of Christmas cheer for everyone. But this year two people have shown about as much grace as the head of New York's mafia godfather. First of all is Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America. His most loyal, trustworthy, experienced, work-devoted defence secretary Jim Mattis was basically given the boot. Ok, Mattis resigned after very sensibly deciding he could no longer work for a president who completely ignored his advice. But after Trump agreed with Mattis that he should leave in February to give him enough time to find a suitable replacement, the president had second thoughts. He decided he didn't like the tone or implied tone of Mattis's resignation letter and as a result ordered him out of the Pentagon forthwith, and announced his successor - Mattis's deputy - would start on January 1. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Mattis was frogmarched out of the Pentagon accompanied by security people. And, of course his security clearance will probably be cancelled. So the poor general who had served his country and put his life at risk on numerous occasions and had worked all hours to keep the president of the United States from behaving recklessly (failing unfortunately), was out out out! Go away, Trump basically said. Bad grace taken to its worst degree. Then along comes Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, to add his bit of bad grace. A highly distinguished official, Brett McGurk, who as special envoy to the US-led coalition fighting Isis in Syria, had toiled for more than three years, first as Obama's appointee and then retained by Trump, also resigned. He is a good guy. Everyone liked him and he kept the coalition of 60 countries going in the right direction. He resigned after Mattis because he, too, thought Trump's decision to withdraw all 2,000 US troops from Syria was wrong and undermined everything he had been trying to do. Trump stepped in and said the resignation of McGurk was unimportant, but Mulvaney went one big step further in the bad grace department. He said he had never heard of Brett McGurk or his job. I suppose he thought it was clever to say that but it was totally insulting to McGurk and all the good work he had achieved and it showed the new White House chief of staff to be an ignorant, disrespectful idiot. There are other words I could have chosen but it's Christmas. Happy Christmas to everyone.