It's the British behind chemical attacks in Syria - outrageous claim by a US Republican senator

Wars, conflicts, foreign crises are never won or concluded by propaganda but it can certainly make an impact. Propaganda was one of the big weapons in the Second World War. In the Falklands conflict in 1982, the military junta in Argentina claimed on numerous occasions that one of the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers had been sunk. Back in London, as a reporter it was almost impossible to know what was truth and what was fiction because the Ministry of Defence was being tightlipped about almost everything happening 8,000 miles away in the South Atlantic. But it was pretty crude propaganda and no one really believed it especially as both carriers had been sent to parts of the South Atlantic where the Argentine aircraft with their Exocet missiles found it difficult to reach. Bashar Assad the Syrian president has become pretty good with propaganda, blaming everyone else for chemical attacks, barrel-bomb attacks, slaughter of civilians etc. Now he has fed into the ear of a willing US Republican senator the old chestnut that British intelligence has been behind the chemical attacks in Syria with the aim of blaming the Damascus regime and getting Trump to bomb the Syrian regime. Specifically, a smooth-looking individual who had a nice chat with Assad in the Syrian capital, Senator Richard Black has claimed on an Arab TV station that MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service, coordinated with the White Helmet rescue organisation in Syria to fake chemical attacks, including training people to act out as victims. It's baloney. And such obvious black propaganda that only a fool would believe it. Senator Black is obviously a fool. But a dangerous one because it means Assad believes he has certain American politicians in his pocket. I'm sure MI6 has officers or agents or both working behind the scenes in or around Syria but the idea they are manufacturing chemical attacks and filling hospitals with crying children affected by chlorine burns is ludicrous. The US State Department has said as much. Shame on Senator Black for being so gullible.

Will they ever find out who dunnit in the White House?

It has to be unprecedented for pretty well every single person in the Trump cabinet member and senior official closely associated with the president to put out a statement denying being the author of the devastating anti-Trump oped in the New York Times. It's the most intruiging mystery since the hunt for the Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal who spilled the beans bit by bit in an underground car park to Woodward and/or Bernstein during the 1970s scoop of the century. But what really fascinates me is not who penned the article but how many people at the New York Times know who he or she is. The paper says it defnitely knows who the author is. Well, they could hardly print an anonymous oped without knowing who was writing it. That would be seriously unprofessional. So who knows what we all want to know? Just the editor, the publisher and the oped editor perhaps? Who would the anonymous author have initially contacted and was it by email or by phone or during a discreet lunch somewhere in or outside Washington? Whichever way the deal was done it could be traceable by the FBI IF Trump insisted on the Justice Department getting involved. After all, he did tweet that it was TREASON. If I was a disgruntled Trump cabinet member and wanted to air my views in public in the New York Times I reckon I would only contact someone I personally knew and could trust. So, it could even be an individual reporter I had known for years, or a columnist. Then that person would go to the editor and tell him. The editor would then bring in the oped editor and probably no one else. The subeditor given the job of putting the oped into the paper would certainly not be told the identity of the author. So that's a maximum of three people. The publisher might want to know but the editor would probably say it was best to keep the name within the tightest possible circle. The first question the editor would have asked is: "Are you absolutely sure this is genuine and is not a scam by the Democratic Party?" The author would have to have shown his face at some point to verify his bona fides. The one thing that worries me is that in the newspaper world, when a rival paper gets a big scoop - eg Bob Woodward's book on the Trump White House serialised in the Washington Post - the number one priority is to get back at your rival by publishing something equally scoopish to snatch away all the publicity being made by, in this case, the Washington Post. The timing of the New York Times oped was no coincidence. The Woodward stuff was running to huge acclaim, the paper's circulation was rising rapidly and, BANG, in comes the New York Times with its "spoiler" as we say in Fleet Street. So how long did the paper have this anonymous oped on the stocks or was it penned as soon as the Woodward book serialisation started to run because the author thought it was the best time to contact the New York Times? I bet they had it ready to go for some weeks, knowing that their rival was soon to publish the Woodward stuff. The spoiler succeeded. All the attention now is on the New York Times, not the Washington Post. Brilliant. Reporters on the New York Times who don't know who wrote the oped must be gossiping like mad. "Go on, Mr Editor, tell us, we promise not tell anyone else." Ho ho ho. The name will come out sometime I guarantee.

Who is telling the truth, Jim Mattis or Bob Woodward's sources?

Well, having put Jim Mattis firmly on the map yesterday in my Times piece and blog on the rift beteeen the US defence secretary and Donald Trump, up comes the first excerpts of Bob Woodward's latest book detailing extraordinary remarks attributed to Mattis in denigrating his commander-in-chief. Woodward in his book "Fear: Trump in the White House", says his sources told him Mattis described Trump as having "the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader", following a conversation he had with the president explaining why it was necessary to keep troops in South Korea. It's also claimed Trump ordered Mattis to go and kill Syrian leader Bashar Assad (in four-letter terms) after the regime's chemical strike against rebels last year. Mattis said ok, then told aides he would do no such thing and came up with a limited cruise missile strike instead which Trump approved. The latter allegation I can well believe because Mattis has had to play this game ever since he took over ss defence secretary. Keep the president happy by looking as if he is going to carry out his intemperate orders and then produce a more modest option which Trump is persuaded to accept. But the allegation that he called Trump a fifth or sixth grader doesn't sound like Mattis to me. He is the most tightlipped person in Washington. He doesn't do insults, especially against his commander-in-chief. It would be pretty stupid and Mattis is not stupid. Rex Tillerson is alleged to have called Trump a moron when he was secretary of state, and, despite his denial, I'm pretty confident he did just that. His job was on the line for ever afterwards and, sure enough, he was sacked. Mattis's denial was immediate and convincing. Here is what he said in a rushed-out statement while he was en route to India: "The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence. While I generally enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and his anonymous sources do not lend credibility. While responsible policy making in the real world is inherently messy, it is also essential that we challenge every assumption to find the best option. I embrace such debate and the open competition of ideas. In just over a year, these robust discussions and deliberations have yielded significant results, including the near annihilation of the Isis caliphate, unprecedented burden sharing by our Nato allies, the repatriation of US service member remains from North Korea, and the improved readiness of our armed forces. Our defense policies have also enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. In serving in this administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is a product of someone's rich imagination." I kind of believe him. Someone has done the dirty on him, some closeish aide may have heard him mutter something under his breath and embellished it, or perhaps made it up for his or her own satisfaction, knowing that Woodward would seize on it for his juicy new book. Or perhaps it was a rumour going round that Mattis may have said something and, Chinese whispers, it suddenly becomes a full-throated insulting quote. If Mattis did say it, it would be totally alien to his normal very very careful posture on all things political. He must be looking around at all his officials and wondering who the hell just put the skids under his job. Will Mattis survive? Possibly. But it's going to be an uncomfortable time over the next few months. As for General John Kelly, White House chief of staff, allegedly calling Trump an idiot, he must have thought it on numerous occasions but did he actually say it in the presence of others? He denies it. Perhaps he mouthed it and someone lip-read!

Mad Dog Mattis's rift with Trump

FOR THOSE UNFORTUNATES WHO DO NOT READ THE TIMES, HERE IS AN ARTICLE BY ME RUNNING ONLINE TODAY, WITH A BIT EXTRA THAT WAS SUBBED OUT. Donald Trump used to routinely refer to Jim Mattis, his Defence Secretary, by his nickname “Mad Dog” in honour of the warrior reputation the former Marine Corps general acquired during a long military career. These days, after a series of policy disagreements, the president mockingly calls him “Moderate Dog”. “The bloom is definitely off the rose as far as Trump is concerned,” according to a former senior Pentagon official, talking about the president’s waning enthusiasm for his defence secretary. It is, he said, “a reflection of Mattis’s efforts to modulate Trump’s mood swings on issues like North Korea and Iran as well as relations with allies”. General Mattis, 67, is one of the group of so-called ‘grown-ups’ in the cabinet, and widely regarded to have formed a well-coordinated team with John Bolton, the national security adviser and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state - even though the defence secretary’s policy instincts are sometimes at odds with the more abrasive Mr Bolton. The other general in the cabinet, John Kelly, the president’s chief of staff, gets on well with General Mattis but his days may be numbered. “Kelly is merely going through the motions at this point,” the former official said. Moving against the two military men in his inner circle is not without risk for Mr Trump. The extraordinary memorial service for Senator John McCain was packed with rows of senior officers in uniform applauding Meghan McCain, his daughter, as she spoke about her father’s legacy as a great American against the “cheap rhetoric” of a president who has never served in the military. Mr Trump retains the support of the majority of the armed forces according to polls, but General Mattis is revered by the services. A dispute over future joint military exercises between the US and South Korea was the latest in a tug of war between the president and defence chief. This year’s planned exercises were cancelled by Mr Trump as a mark of good faith to help motivate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to start dismantling his nuclear weapons stockpile, following the summit in Singapore in June. General Mattis last week indicated that the next round of exercises for 2019 would go ahead. Mr Trump jumped in quickly, tweeting to emphasise that it was the White House not the Pentagon, that made these sort of decisions. The president picked General Mattis as defence secretary because he admired his record as a combat commander, and military people Mr Trump trusted had recommended him for the job. However since General Mattis took over at the Pentagon in 2017, there have been numerous policy disputes between the two: *The president said he wanted US troops out of Syria as soon as possible. General Mattis made it clear they had to stay to finish the mission. *Mr Trump wanted a close relationship with Russia and for the Russian and American military to work together in Syria. General Mattis said he was happy to continue with the existing arrangement under which the two countries maintained contact to avoid mid-air jet fighter clashes over Syrian territory. He opposed any other military cooperation. *The president proposed a new space force. The defence secretary was against the idea on the grounds it adds to the Pentagon’s bureaucracy and was unnecessary. Mr Trump announced it anyway and General Mattis has been forced to implement his president’s wish. He is trying to do it at minimum cost. When General Mattis was appointed, the view in Washington and in Nato capitals was that he would act as a restraint on a president who appeared to make foreign policy decisions on the hoof and in many respects he has succeeded. Mr Trump accepted that US troops had to stay in Syria, and Afghanistan, and the idea of American and Russian forces working together in Syria soon fell by the way side. “Friction between the president and secretary of defence is not unheard of, but what is generally unheard of is how public the friction is,” another former senior Pentagon official said. “We have a president who apparently feels compelled to share his every thought with everyone, and whose policy-making process seems limited to what he and he alone happens to believe at any particular moment – and which is often subject to change at a moment’s notice.” “We have an unusual situation where a former general is serving as defence secretary. George Marshall did but that was a long time ago [1950-51] and President Truman adored him,” he said. “I think Mattis’s objective, as it was during his time in uniform, is first and foremost to serve the nation. The oath is to the constitution, not the president. I also think he sees himself trying to help the president who had no experience in national security affairs prior to assuming office, to learn on the job,” the former official said. “Failing that, Mattis is trying to limit what he sees as any missteps by the president. At times he tries to take the lead, as with the issue of military exercises in Korea, at the risk of finding himself too far out in front,” he said. History is littered with US defence secretaries who have fallen out with their presidents. Jim Schlesinger, probably the best strategic thinker to serve as defence secretary, from 1973-75, did not get on well with either President Ford or Henry Kissinger, secretary of state. Congress regarded him as too abrasive. He was finally seen as a liability and was eased out. Donald Rumsfeld who served as defence secretary from 1975-77 under President Ford, and from 2001-2006 under President George W Bush, was associated with failed policies, particularly Iraq, and was replaced. Robert McNamara, 1961-68 under Presidents John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, suffered the same fate over Vietnam. Caspar Weinberger, 1981-87, was seen as pushing too hard for increased defence spending and also became a political liability in the latter part of President Reagan’s administration and he was replaced. Chuck Hagel, 2013-2015, came to differ with President Obama on several key policies, most notably on US strategy in Syria, and was sacked. However General Mattis is a determined survivor, and is not a man who wants to be seen to be confronting his own commander-in-chief. He backed down over the space force decision and issued a statement clarifying his remarks about military exercises with South Korea. Mad Dog or Moderate Dog, General Mattis’s advice will likely be indispensable in the months ahead should North Korea talks break down irretrievably, and Kim Jong-un reverts to ballistic-missile tests, or the stand-off with Iran escalates towards a military clash.

Who is going to run against Trump in 2020?

From Donald Trump's perspective, the chance of being relected for a second term probably looks pretty good. Not because his leadership and policies are so successful that every voter in the land will make the decision he is the best man for another four years. But because the Democrats are coming up with a host of most unlikely candidates to fight him. Joe Biden is near the top of the list of possibles. But this is a man who said he wanted to be president, then he said he wouldn't go for the 2016 nomination because his son tragically died of cancer, but went through a period of not being sure and now he seems to think 2020 is the one to go for. But he will be 77 by then. Surely the US needs a younger man at the helm, especially after Trump? Then there's Senator Elizabeth Warren, a smart woman no question but she will be 71 in 2020. Senator Bernie Sanders wants to have another go. But Bernie shot his bolt the last time round when he was rival to Hillary Clinton. I have stood up close to Bernie Sanders in the White House Park when he was beng interviewed for a television programme and he seemed, to me, to be a very ordinary person, lacking in charisma and certainly lacking presidential qualities. There's a string of others, such as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Senator Kamala Harris of California, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and New York governor Andrew Cuomo. But none of them are inspiring candidates. And now there is one more potential candidate, John Kerry, an energetic secretary of state under Barack Obama, and failed presidential candidate, beaten by George W in 2004. I like Kerry, I thought he was a good secretary of state, a very tall imposing man who, if nothing else, would look like a president. But he will be nearly 76 when the election is running. Trump has already laughed him off as a rival, attacking him for being the archtect of what he sees as the disastrous 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Despite his age, I would vote for Kerry if I were an American citizen, unless some young inspiring politician steps forward. I am still holding out hopes for Joaquin Castro, the 43-year-old Democratic congressman for Texas. But then that's because it would be so bizarre to have a President Castro running the United States!

When will Isis be actually defeated?

Isis are still around, still plotting to attack the West, still recruiting foreigners, still a big threat to our security and lives. They were supposed to have been defeated in Iraq and mostly defeated in Syria, and crippled in Libya and constantly targeted in Afghanistan. But they remain a threat. It's always dangerous to say any terrorist organisation has been defeated. Look at al-Qaeda, they're not the threat they posed under Osama bin Laden but they haven't gone away, especially in Yemen. The best bit of news was the confirmation that al-Qaeda's chief bombmaker had been killed. Ibrahim al-Asiri had been a mighty and dangerous thorn in the flesh of the West for years, designing increasingly sophisticated explosive devices. His death is a major blow to al-Qaeda. But they're still in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and a host of other places. The same with Isis. Just when you think they're all gone from Iraq, they stay fighting in Syria and start up training camps in northern Afghanistan. Neither al-Qaeda nor Isis are defeated. What worries me is that the US is now so obsessed with preparing for war with Russia or China that these terrorist groups will slip down the list of priorities. That would be dangerous for all of us.

Donald Trump persona non grata at McCain funeral

Donald Trump was everywhere at John McCain's funeral, everywhere but actually there. His absence, demanded by McCain himself, said everything about the way the United States is at the moment, politically, and everything about the disdain for Trump felt in what I suppose is right to call the Washington estabishment. John McCain was not a member of the establishment. He was in many ways a maverick, like Trump. But the establishment, headed by Barack Obama and George W Bush, wrapped their arms around one of their favourite sons and closed the door on the incumbent president. I don't suppose Trump cares that much, but it was the clearest and most symbolic snub to a man who showed no respect for one of the country's most dominant and resilient politicians. The funeral eulogies for McCain were devastating in their rejection of Trump, especially by the senator's daughter, Meghan. Will any of this make a difference to the political scene in the US? Will it persuade some people to vote Democrat rather than Republican in the mid-term elections in November? I fear probaby not. For everyone living outside Washington, this was a funeral for one of the best known senators, but all the anti-Trump stuff will probably fall by the way side. People outside Washington do not think like people inside Washington. That's the reality. As a consequence, I think the funeral of John McCain, an emotional and emotive event, will have no impact on the mid-term elections or on the way voters decide to vote on November 6.