The Trump factor in the UK December 12 general election

Having Donald Trump on his side is not necessarily going to help Boris Johnson stay in Downing Street as prime minister! All the talk about huge and beautiful trade deals between the UK and US after Brexit sounded fne until the president himself today cast serious doubt on anything like that happening. Either he has actually read the Boris Brexit deal in full or someone, probably on Fox News, has told him the deal means the UK can't do any trade deals with the US. This is effectively what Trump said on the UK's LBC radio station today (what a scoop for LBC by the way). The Brexit deal negotiated by Boris will "preclude" any trade bonanza with the US, Trump said. Well, thanks Trump, Boris will be muttering to himself. Bang goes one of the juicy morsels he was hoping to promulgate during the election campaign. But don't worry, Boris, Trump still thinks you are terrific and he loves you, especially because people are saying Boris and Trump are like-minded chaps, twins if you like. In a UK election, the name Trump is not going to win votes. It may do in the Nigel Farage Brexit party - he also took part in the LBC programme - but traditional Conservatives are probably as wary of Trump as anyone else. Trump described Jeremy Corbyn as probably a pleasant sort of guy but said he was bad for the country, not his sort of bloke at all. But that may play well for Corbyn because he can tell the voters that he, Corbyn, is his own man and is certainly no poodle to that fellow with the funny hair in the White House. Yes I reckon Corbyn is probably delighted by the LBC programme. Trump dismissed Boris's Brexit deal! Oh dear, poor Boris. Mind you, were Corbyn to win the election, he has promised to spend six months renegotiating Boris's Brexit deal and his version would no doubt make it even harder for the UK and US to enjoy big fat trade deals. But Corbyn won't care two hoots about that if he is sitting in Number 10 Downing Street. He will be so excited and astonished that he has made it that he will refuse to take Trump's congratulatory phone call. I fear that on day one of the election campaign, Boris has suffered a huge setback, thanks to Trump. The trouble is, Trump is probably right. Any Brexit deal is going to make it hard to negotiate with the US as an independent nation because the UK will still be tied to complex legal trade regulations for years while talks go on and on about a new trade relationship with the EU. It's going to be five years of uncertainty and economic misery. Unless Boris can lift the country out of this gloom over the next six weeks, he could well be replaced by Corbyn who looks vibrant and refreshed, and promising a new world. A world without Trump breathing down the UK's neck.

The name Vindman is echoing through the impeachment corridors

Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman is a brave man. He already proved his courage on the battlefield, winning medals for brave actions and a Purple Star for being wounded. But dressing up in his uniform and giving evidence to the House committee investigating allegations against Trump that could lead to his commander-in-chief's impeachment is a different kind of courage. Fo heaven's sake, the colonel works for the National Security Council. How on earth is he going to carry on with that job now that Trump knows what he thinks about that very dodgy phone call the president had with the new leader of Ukraine on July 10? Colonel Vindman wanted the committee to know that he was NOT the whistleblower who set off this whole Ukrainegate controversy but he did reveal he listened in, legitimately as the Ukraine expert in the National Security Council, to THAT phone call and was so disturbed he went off to seek the advice of a White House legal counsel. Trump must have been very angry when he heard that. What's this Vindman guy doing going off behind my back? Vindman must be having a very uncomfortable time back in his job today. I sympathise with him but surely he won't be long in the job. One thing Trump demands is total loyalty and he wanted all his advisers and officials to refuse to cooperate with the Democrats' "witch hunt". But poor Vindman was subpoenaed, so like the good citizen he is, he went along to do his duty. Vindman has now become a crucial component of the Democrats' case against Trump. Who else will give evidence from the National Security Council? Well, John Bolton, ex-national security adviser, of course! He knows a thing or two and no longer feels loyal to the president I assume. The Vindman and Bolton show. Could be devastating for Trump.

How the hunt for Isis leader Baghdadi matched the hunt for Osama bin Laden

MY TIMES ONINE PIECE YESTERDAY: The hunt for the leader of Islamic State relied on old-fashioned, on-the-ground spycraft that succeeded in finding Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by identifying couriers who were trusted to pass on messages to the jihadi’s followers. Tracking Baghdadi to his compound in Idlib province, northwest Syria, followed exactly the same covert routine used in the search for Osama bin Laden. In both cases it was CIA human intelligence (known as “humint”) that eventually paid dividends. The reliance by terror leaders on couriers proved their downfall. Bin Laden, killed by the US Navy Seal Team 6 in May 2011, and Baghdadi, who died from a suicide vest explosion when cornered by the US Army’s Delta Force, learnt early on that using satellite or mobile phones was potentially fatal. America’s National Security Agency (NSA) with its global signals intelligence satellites, linked to Britain’s GCHQ eavesdropping centres in Cheltenham and Cyprus, was on 24-hour alert to snatch electronic communications from Bin Laden and Baghdadi. The US also had a massed array of surveillance aircraft to try to pinpoint them. Each of these terror leaders made mistakes. Bin Laden used his satellite phone once when on the run in Afghanistan in 2001 and his location was pinpointed by a US satellite. But he escaped because it took too long for the US military to receive orders to target him. Likewise the Isis leader once risked revealing his identity by using his mobile phone when hiding in Mosul, northern Iraq. He made a brief call outside the city in November 2016, urging his followers to keep fighting. The call was picked up by a US electronic surveillance aircraft and the caller was swiftly identified but he, too, escaped before the strike aircraft arrived. The CIA in both cases was forced to turn to the intelligence game of recruiting agents close to al-Qaeda and Isis to try to track down the terrorist targets’ whereabouts. In each case the courier link became the key factor. The capture in the summer of one of the couriers used by Baghdadi, and information supplied by one of the Isis leader’s many wives, also seized around the same time, helped the CIA to work out a “pattern of life” that finally led to the discovery of the compound in Idlib province. Baghdadi’s apparent habit of wearing his suicide vest at all times, including at night, was the clearest indication that he was aware the Americans were catching up with him. The disappearance of one of his couriers and wives would have raised alarm bells. The wife of a senior Isis figure captured by Delta Force commandos in Syria in 2015 revealed that Baghdadi was more confident about his security in Iraq where he had hidden for years. But he took the risk of village-hopping across northern Syria before reaching the compound in Barisha in Idlib province close to the Turkish border. A picture of his quick-change routines was gradually built up by the CIA with the help of Kurdish and Iraqi intelligence agencies. As President Trump disclosed, his location was pinpointed on a number of occasions, but each time he had moved on to another village before settling in the compound in Barisha. The scene was set for the Delta Force attack. A similar scenario played out eight years earlier when the founder of al-Qaeda was located and killed. The CIA began its hunt for Bin Laden shortly after the 9/11 hijacked-plane terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The intelligence agency with a dedicated team started collecting information on key individuals linked to or providing help to the al-Qaeda leader. A courier with the operational pseudonym of Kunya was uncovered although it took several years before he was identified. The CIA with a network of agents tracked the named courier to a compound in the town of Abbottabad, about 35 miles north of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. It was 2010. The compound had extensive security features with high walls topped with barbed wire. There were no phone or internet connections and all rubbish was burnt, not collected, all adding to the conviction that the tall man spotted taking walks every day inside the compound without ever looking upwards was Bin Laden. It took ten years to hunt down and kill Bin Laden. It took five years to locate Baghdadi. In each case the courier loophole was the greatest weakness in their personal security arrangements.

What about the US and Syria now?

It is always difficult to keep up with the current president of the United States' policy on Syria. In his press conference yesterday announcing the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Donald Trump said it made no difference to his decision about pulling out troops from Syria. Syria is over, he said. Now leave it to the Russians and Turks and Syrians and whoever, but not Americans, he said. Well fine, but at this very moment a convoy of US armoured vehicles flying the American flag are crossing over from Iraq into northern Syria and heading for the oil wells which Trump has decided belong to the US and not to the Syrian government. Then there are the 300 or so US troops who have been held back somewhere in southern Syria just to be a presence. So a total number of troops of say, around 500-600 or perhaps even more. Is Syria over, Mr President? It doesn't look like it. He ridiculed the idea that the US military would still be serving in Syria in a 100 years. Yet at the same time he gets persuaded by the Pentagon to keep quite a lot of troops in Syria one way or another, having brilliantly come up with that crucial word "oil". It was like a light coming on in Trump's head. Yes, yes, we must preserve the oil. Why shouldn't we benefit after spending so many trillions of dollars on fighting wars we don't like or want? That seems to be his thinking. Mark Esper, the US defence secretary, who is right in the middle of the shall-we-shan't-we have troops in Syria conversation, would surely have emphasised the importance of stopping Isis from getting their hands on the oil wells again. I can't believe he and General Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, would have recommended the US control the oil in order to bring in revenue for the US Treasury Department. But Trump clearly thought that would be a by-product of havng US troops defending the wells from Isis. The Russians have already accused Trump of oil "banditry". Anything Moscow says about banditry makes one laugh, with their sort of reputation for exactly that in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine. But it does make me slightly uncomfortable to say the least that Trump seems to think it's America's right to grab some of the Syrian oil. Especially when his overall policy is supposed to be to leave Syria to its own devices and bring all US troops home to their families. Anyway the convoy of troops is on the way and I can't see them returning to their families in time for Christmas. The Kurds who felt abandoned by the US threw potatoes and rocks at the armoured vehicles when they were leaving northern Syria for Western Iraq last week. They must be as confused as everyone else when they see the same armoured vehicles popping back again over the border heading for their new mission and presumably rejoining the Kurdish-led forces who have been guarding the oil wells from Isis until now. Perhaps the Kurdish people in the region will throw roses and forget-me-nots at the returning US convoy.

Donald Trump in full flow over the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

President Donald Trump was positively imperious when he announced the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during a raid on his compound in Syria by US special operations troops. When Barak Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, he did it in a quiet, albeit dramatic, way, with a statement about the historically important moment and the American military's brave involvement. For Trump, the death of al-Baghdadi provided him with a unique political opportunity to show that he was the US commander-in-chief and gave him a chance to boast of the brilliance of the US special operations team that chased al-Baghdadi down a tunnel under his compound until he blew himself up and three of his children he had dragged with him rather than be captured. Trump gave amazing detail and kept on repeating that the Isis leader had run down the tunnel screaming and crying and whimpering before he detonated his suicide belt which apparently he always wore at night. It was an incredibly riveting performance, superb television and a sort of impeach-me-if-you-dare address. All the credit of course should go to the Delta Force commandos who executed the mission, the CIA and other intelligence agencies who contributed vital clues to al-Baghdadi's whereabouts and the special operations helicopter crews who flew the troops to the Idlib compound in northwest Syria. But this was a political blast from the White House pulpit like nothing else in living memory. Trump had got rid of the most wanted terrorist on the planet. Obama had done pretty much the same thing with Osama bin Laden and he definitely benefited politically as a result. But Obama didn't swagger like Trump did. Trump positively swaggered, and, for good measure, to prove his infinite diplomatic skills, he thanked Russia and Syria and Turkey for their assistance. Amazing!! They were not involved in the operation in any way, but Trump and co had tipped off the Russians and Turks and Syrians that they were going to be engaging in an operation that would involve US aircraft flying low over where they had troops on the ground. Trump even said the Russians were told they would like whatever the US was about to do. Trump said Russia hated Isis as much as the US. Clearly the Russians who now have hundreds of troops in northern Syria had to be forewarned of the approach of eight Black Hawk helicopters and an escorting ground-attack aircraft and three surveillance drones. Otherwise the whole lot could have been shot down. But it was a high-risk move. The one thing Trump hates more than anything is leaks and there must have been a danger that this extraordinary tidbit of intelligence might be leaked by Moscow. But Putin is a cunning guy. As soon as he was told, he would have kept it a secret although, I suspect, with a quid pro quo, that well known phrase or saying!!! "When you announce whatever you are doing, make sure you thank Russia for its cooperation". Trump was totally triumphant in his address and sbsequent Q and A session and had no compunction about thanking the Russians. The Democrats with their impeachment hopes have just lost their cause. Trump killed al-Baghdadi and he made sure every voter in the land knows it.

Free press but not in the Trump government

Donald Trump has been ranting and raving against The New York Times and The Washington Post for so long it was hardly surprising that he has now ordered the whole of the federal government to cancel their online subscriptions to the two newspapers. Trump paticularly hates The Washington Post because it is owned by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon boss, who is a strong critic of the president. But it's tough for federal workers who rely on their individual department's subscriptions for these two papers to find out what the hell is going on in Washington and especially inside the White House. They will still be allowed to read The Wall Street Journal which is an excellent newspaper but very often the big political scoops seem to appear in The New York Times or The Washington Post. It's an extraordinary move by Trump hinting that he is so irritated by the leaks appearing in the papers that he wants them banned. As some US four-star general suggested today the subscription ban recalled the actions of Mussolini who hated newspapers and freedom of speech. Of course federal workers can still go out to their newsagent and buy a copy of either paper but will there also be a ban on bringing them into their place of work? "Excuse me Sir/Madam, can I check your bag to see if you have a copy of The New York Times or The Washington Post? I have orders to seize them and shred them." Trump must hope that everyone in government reads just the Washington Times wich is pretty pro-Donald or watches Fox News which he can rely on to get his views across. Being hated by Trump is not a good business objective. Bezos has had two blows to his business empire this week. First came the ban on The Washington Post subscription, then, under orders from the White House, the Pentagon gave a $10 billion contract to develop new digital computing technology at the defence department to Microsoft even though Amazon had been the favourite to win. That smacks of revenge, although I'm sure Microsoft will do a good job. But Trump could not face giving Amazon a juicy Pentagon contract while Bezos's paper is constantly criticising his presidency. I wonder how Bezos and The Washington Post will deal with these two blows. I suspect the sparks will fly. Bezos is not a brilliantly successful entrepeneur for nothing.

Yet another Trump reversal on Syria

First Donald Trump orders the Pentagon to withdraw all US troops from northeastern Syria. Then he says a couple of hundred or so will stick around to guard the Syrian oil fields in the region to stop a reemerging Isis from getting their hands on them to boost their funds, and now the White House has a new plan: to keep FIVE HUNDRED US troops, plus tanks and armoured vehicles, to protect the oil and presumably to stop anyone, including the Syrians, Iranians or Russians, from selling the oil. It's topsy-turvy decision-making. Are the Americans going to keep the oil and sell it on the open market? I'm all for stopping Isis from seizing back the oil wells, but these wells belong to Syria. Gross though the Syrian regime may be, the oil is theirs and, I assume, necessary for boosting the Syrian economy and helping to power electricity. Does the US have the right to grab this oil? But that's another issue. The point I'm trying to make is: what is Trump up to? Withrawing all troops and then keeping 500 of the 1,000 for oil well protection is bizarre to say the least. I'm sure the Pentagon and the CIA argued relentlessy for this outcome, fearful that Isis would come back and once again sell oil on the black market as they did before when they were running their caliphate. In fact, through middlemen, much of the oil actually got sold to the Syrian regime. As soon as oil was mentioned, Trump was persuaded. But how will this fit in with his desire to get the hell out of Syria and leave the mess to Turkey, Syria, Iran and the Russians? The 500 plus tanks and all the paraphernalia needed to sustain such a force in a hot desert area for, possibly, years, will be hugely expensive. They will have to be rotated every nine-to-twelve months which means another 500 back home have to start training and preparing. And so it goes on. What this back-and-forth decision-making shows is that there is no long-term, proper planning being carried out, and the Pentagon is in the middle in a total muddle. Mark Esper, US Defence Secretary, announced to the world that 300 or so of the troops leaving northeast Syria would set up home in western Iraq as a counter-Isis anti-terror force, only to be snubbed by his Iraqi counterpart in Baghdad who told him: "No you can't. I want all these troops out of Iraq within four weeks." How humiliating was that for Esper and for General Mark Milley, his new chairman of joint chiefs? Esper bizarrely explained that it had never been his plan to keep the 300 troops in western Iraq for an "interminable" length of time. But four weeks!!! I don't think that was what he had in mind. So where will they go? Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Qatar? No, what's the point? There are enough US troops in these places already, and anyway these are highly experienced anti-Isis special operations troops. There's no reason to have them sitting around in Kuwait or Qatar. So presumably they will go home. Humiliating and embarrassing for those poor guys. Unless, of course, they just turn around and go back into northeastern Syria to start guarding those oil wells. These elite Green Berets must be wondering what the hell is going on.