He may not use it but Obama has got a big stick in his back pocket, to fight his way past the Senate.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has officially declared that carbon dioxide is a threat to the welfare of the American people.

This means that Mr Obama could, if he chooses, impose stringent new environmental standards by what amounts to presidential fiat, rather than wait for the agonisingly slow process of legislation on cap and trade making its way through a doubtful Senate.

According to the New York Times, "the agency finding also will allow Mr Obama to tell delegates at the United Nations climate change conference that began today in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem".

At the weekend, while I was making snowmen with the children and examining the National Christmas tree (in other words doing Cunardesque wintry things), we saw the flashing of police car lights as President Obama went up to the Hill.

He was there to gee up his team in the Senate and to try to move the conservative and liberal wings of the party towards a compromise.

And that is without dealing with the objections of the Republicans who could still talk out a bill - forcing such a protracted debate that the bill withers and dies.

Although the separation of powers in the USA is a key part of any course on comparative politics it is still, to my British eyes, a curious sight to see how a party in a majority, which has just won a presidential election has to kowtow to the losers.

In Britain, any prime minister, while cautious of the middle ground of public opinion, is happy to follow Disraeli's declaration "as for our majority... one is enough".

So I was interested to come across this article from Brussels' main political magazine, E! Sharp, arguing that the Senate almost exists to thwart decent legislation, from anti-slavery laws onwards, and that it is high time it is reformed. What do you think?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The US won't pull out of Afghanistan in 2011.

President Obama's top national security adviser, who has played a key part in designing the new Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, has been trying to clear up some confusion about the exit strategy.

Gen James Jones told me that "in no manner, shape or form" would the US withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011.

In his speech on Tuesday, President Obama for the first time put a date on the beginning of the end of the United States presence in Afghanistan.

He said "these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

While it was a necessary political message to those Americans who are doubtful about this war, sweetening the pill of the troop increase, it has worried many in the region, where some have interpreted it starkly as meaning that America will pull out in a year and a half's time.

Gen Jones was deeply involved in designing the new strategy, attending all 10 meetings between the president and his top advisers at which the strategy was discussed. And he told me that wasn't so.

He said that "with a relentless application of this new force in 2011 we will be successful in reaching our goals...That will allow us to start pulling some of our forces out. So there is no contradiction."

I put it to him that that wasn't the way the speech had been seen in the region. This was his response:

"Its very important that people in Afghanistan hear this very clearly: this is not a withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan in 2011, it is a decision to turn over to the Afghans some of the responsibility where they are ready to accept that responsibility. But in no manner, shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011."

I asked Gen Jones whether the combination of the push in Pakistan and the new strategy from the United States made him more confident about killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden. He said:

"It certainly makes it more optimistic that we can dislodge al-Qaeda, hopefully capture him, he is a very important symbol, but I would be satisfied if we could cause the insurgent safe havens to feel less secure and to have to move. Once you eliminate sanctuary for an insurgency it becomes very difficult for that insurgency to operate. So obviously capturing Bin Laden would be terrific but the important thing is to eliminate those sanctuaries."

Despite recent reports, he said that the conventional wisdom was that Bin Laden was still in northern Waziristan but he hoped he would be "forced to rethink his location" soon.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The hard sell is under way. President Obama's speech was mainly aimed at convincing the American people that his strategy - hit hard and fast, and then plan to get out of Afghanistan - was the right one.

Now his top team have been on Capitol Hill trying to convince the serious and senior elected politicians that this is the right strategy. There was a fair bit of flesh on the bare bones of the president's speech but the trio also hit hard one very basic message.

Speaking to the Senate's Armed Services Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton struck an emotional note.

"In the aftermath of 11 September, I grieved with sons, daughters, husbands, and wives, whose loved ones were murdered. It was an attack on our country, but it was also an attack on my constituents. I witnessed the tragic consequences in the lives of thousands of innocent families, and the damage done to our economy and our sense of security. So I feel a personal responsibility to help protect our nation from such violence," Mrs Clinton said.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates set out why this responsibility implied dealing with the Taliban: "The lesson of the Taliban's revival for al-Qaeda is that time and will are on their side. That, with a Western defeat, they could regain their strength and achieve a major strategic victory - as long as their senior leadership lives and can continue to inspire and attract followers and funding. Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Michael Mullen, argued that "if the United States should be hit again, I remain convinced that the planning, training and funding for such an attack will emanate there".

"It is a region where a nuclear weapons state, Pakistan, is under direct threat from
al-Qaeda and affiliated Pakistani Taliban groups that aspire to acquire and use
nuclear weapons against the United States and our allies. Thus, it is a region
with a unique - and deadly - combination of the most dangerous terrorists and
the most dangerous technology in the world. Our actions in Pakistan and
Afghanistan seek to prevent catastrophic outcomes from these toxic forces."

But senators were concerned that announcing that the US would start getting out in a year-and-a-half's time gave the wrong signal to the enemy.

Former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain repeatedly pressed Mr Gates on what would happen if there was no victory by then, if conditions on the ground weren't right, but he didn't get much of an answer, beyond the promise of a review of the situation.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?