Archives for August 2010

That's enough about Iraq, let's talk about jobs.

You could argue that is at least part of President Barack Obama's message tonight to an audience that may be proud of the troops but is rather fed up with foreign wars and is very worried about the still-floundering economy.

It is difficult to judge whether that will be the overall impression at the end of the speech from the few extracts that have been seen so far, but I expect it is at least one of the messages.

When the president speaks tonight he will say he has kept his campaign promise, but he will be ambivalent about whether the war he was against was in the end worth it.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest - it is in our own. The US has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people - a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilisation. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page.

The war may have dented the US's ability to lead in the world, but Mr Obama will make it clear that the country should still lead.

This milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that our future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

One of the main extracts the White House has chosen to release in advance stresses the president's overriding concerns, like those of the voters, are domestic and economic.

Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy.  We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs.  This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.

He will be hoping it doesn't take seven and a half years to declare the war on the home front over. If it does it will be too late for him.

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

Ending the Iraq war is no small accomplishment.

Yet it is another achievement for which President Obama will probably get little credit.
There would be much criticism if he had failed to achieve this campaign promise, but it had been obvious for a while this moment would come.

Both voters and the media tend to ungratefully pocket predictable triumphs, without so much as a "thank you".

In his address from a newly redecorated Oval Office, on his second such address to the American people, he will not attempt to rehash the arguments for and against the war.

But he will say instead that there were patriots on both sides of the argument.

That's a rebuke to those on the right who automatically characterise opposition to any particular war as unpatriotic.

He will, largely for Iraqi consumption, stress that the withdrawal of troops is not the end of engagement with Iraq.

Mr Obama will also emphasize that political, diplomatic and cultural efforts will be ramped up, and that the American effort is changing from military to civilian leadership.

He most definitely will not utter George W Bush's famously premature words "mission accomplished".

Obama will also have a much wider message about the United States mission in the world and will suggest that there will now be an increase in the tempo of the fight against Al Queda.

He is announcing the end of a war that changed the way much of the world saw America.

It's also a war that hasn't really touched the way America sees itself.

But where does this divisive war leave America?

For George W Bush it was unfinished business, which in its execution amply demonstrated why his father and Mrs Thatcher decided against finishing the job.

And for many in the Bush administration Saddam Hussein was the preferred target after 9/11, even though it was obvious he had nothing to with it.

But 9/11 provided the rationale for attack, the dire prediction that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and the fear they could find their way into the hands of terrorists.

It was at best a symbol for a fear that Saddam Hussein was flouting the will of the west and was still determined to challenge American dominance in the region through military power.

At first, despite dire warnings from many in the rest of the world and the gaping fissure in the western alliance, victory seemed quick and easy - the enemy shocked and awed out of power.

But even allies like Britain were puzzled by the lack of planning and the lack of thought about what happened next - driven apparently by a neo-con ideology that preached that once the basic military job was done there would be no need for prolonged heavy presence by the USA.

The belief was that delighted Iraqi's would take over the reins, turning their country into a beacon of democracy and capitalism for the rest of the Middle East.

It was the stubborn refusal of the citizens of a foreign country to rise up and play their allotted parts that undid America in Vietnam and Cuba, too.

As Iraq descended into civil war, a battle between ethnic factions Bush senior and Mrs Thatcher had foreseen, the American public grew ever more hostile toward the conflict that was costing so many lives and so much money.

George W Bush reversed the theory of the neo-cons light footprint and ordered a surge of troops that reduced civil war to insurrection and insurrection to terrorism. Elections have been held, and if the results are muddled they are no more so than in many other democracies.

What the second Iraq war has in common with the first Iraq war, with Vietnam and the end of the Cold War is that although it provoked profound rethinking of how the United States military should operate, it has not provoked similar questions about why and when it should operate.

Tactics are constantly under review in Washington but strategy rarely.

Obama's first challenge in the speech is how much he boasts of progress, against what I would guess would be his personal instincts.

That is pretty close to endorsing the original neo-con argument for war.

He has to decide how boldly he will outline an Obama doctrine.

His most obvious policy change from Bush is to seek out allies even before alliances are formally needed for a task, which his enemies portray as towing to the rest of the world.

If he emphasizes his belief in international partnership, he may also choose to tacitly endorse the firm belief of many Americans that they have a God given duty to lead the world.

His emphasis matters hugely.

There are parallels with the wind down of operations in Afghanistan.

But much more importantly the regimes in Iran and North Korea pose a similar challenge to America and its allies, as did Saddam Hussein.

The Iraq war has reduced America's ability and appetite to respond in a similar manner, for which some will be thankful.

But Obama is unlikely to remove the military threat from the equation.

He must know he is likely to get little political credit for the birth of "Operation Dawn", but he would have had plenty of blame heaped upon him if he hadn't reached this point.

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

The vice-president is in Baghdad to stress the mission has changed but America will remain as a partner in Iraq. Many feel the war was a huge mistake, fought on the basis of allegations that turned out not to be true, an episode from which America's reputation has taken a battering in the world.

The president will have his say tonight (at midnight UK time) but I wanted to find out what those who backed the war feel now.

So I've been talking to one of the architects of the war, Richard Armitage, who was Under Secretary of State at the time. The jovial former commando who earned a hardman reputation in Vietnam is still massively built, his arms and shoulders muscled from his hobby of powerlifting, but he seems less of a hawk these days. Indeed he surprised me, admitting the Bush administration made huge mistakes.

He said: "I'm obviously not sorry about the fact that we invaded Iraq, but I'm terribly sorry about the manner in which we invaded it, we really hammed it up a bit...

"I think we had far too few troops, we were far too unprepared, for the fractions in Iraqi society - I don't think we took enough counsel from our friends prior to going in. You name it, we did it - took us a long time to finally get it right.

"In April of 2003 when that statue of Saddam Hussein came down and young men were hitting it with their sandals and whatnot, the international community was saying George Bush was pretty damn smart, he got this thing done pretty well, but it was after the looting, and after the Iraqis saw that we weren't there to put order in the place that our problems began."

I asked why he felt those mistakes were made.

"I've thought about it a lot - the initial impression from the Department of Defense was that they wanted to go in as light as possible - we had campaigned on light, mobile, hostile agile forces and I think that [US defence secretary] Mr [Donald] Rumsfeld and his colleagues were intent on proving that - and by the way, Secretary [of State Colin] Powell as has been reported was able to double the size of the invasion force.

"I think as a general rule the biggest initial mistake we made, was that we overlooked an essential fact of combat and that is only infantry men with a bayonet can bend an enemy to our will and by going in too light we gave the enemy time to re-constitute and reassert their will."

Richard Armitage was seen as one of the leading neo-con hawks who believed in using military power to mould the world, one of the founding signatures to the Project for the New American Century, with its belief "that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle".

So where did he think the war left America's attitude to conflict?

"Well I guess I don't know, because I don't know what the future's going to bring but I guess you can see many of our enemies historically think Americans will get short of breath - this is what we heard in Beirut - but the fact that we've endured seven years in Iraq and our ninth year in Afghanistan shows quite the opposite - shows that we are willing to give it a good go, and the public is willing to support it as long as they feel we're doing the right thing but they won't do it forever."

Had the conflict not reduced America's appetite for war?

"I think in the near-term it has and I think it's depleted to some extent our coffers, but I think, as I was indicating, Americans can be awfully bloody-minded when the situation requires it."

But what justifications were there for war: simple defence, getting rid of hostile regimes or intervening to get rid of dictators?

"Well I think depending on the situation it could be all of the above. It is certainly from my point of view worth going to war for self-defence and I think most of us did feel that Iraq had WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] and after all they had used them on their own people.

"I think there's always a bit of a desire to make the world a better place, to leave the world in a better place than you've found it - when you're dealing with warfare and that amount of violence, that is a difficult thing to do admittedly."

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

This week the mission in Iraq officially changes, combat is over.

On Tuesday night, President Obama will give an important speech marking the end of the conflict. I am talking to a number of people who were involved in the war about what it means to them and where it leaves the notion of American military might. The result will be broadcast on the Ten O'Clock News on Wednesday night but I'll be posting some fuller versions of the interviews here.

Boston

Tim McLaughlin is flicking through an album of photographs he took in Iraq as his tank made its way to Baghdad - part of the invading American forces in 2003. They are not your average snaps.

He shows me one of a burnt-out tank they passed on the way. An American tank. He says that's a bit worrying. His comrades-in-arms, smiling in front of their tank. They all lived, but he remarks the sergeant is blind, but doing well, running for Congress in California.

The narrow view from inside the tank, a slit that shows road and desert. In one a body, a dot on the ground, an Iraqi soldier who got too close.

Perhaps you've seen one of Tim McLaughlin's photos too. You've almost certainly seen a picture of his flag. It was the stars and stripes that was raised as the statue of Saddam Hussein came tumbling too the ground, with a little American help. Some saw the moment as a defining and damaging image, one of conquest not liberation.

For Tim, now a solicitor in Boston, it was not a exactly a moment pregnant with meaning at the time.

''What I remember is not very much. It wasn't a particularly memorable moment for me and I don't think it was intended to be. I truly didn't feel anything about the flag - I was more concerned about posting the tanks around the embassy for security. To the extent that there was a crowd gathered around the statue trying to pull it down and to the extent that Mike 88 (motor transport operative: the guy driving the crane) was trying to help them I remember my company commander said: "Hey Mac, go get the flag, get a picture of it." That's very different from the way the world perceived it but that doesn't mean that they didn't perceive it correctly. I understand it symbolises a lot of things for a lot of people."

I said that as far as it symbolised a moment of victory, what were his reflections on that?

"I would disagree with you. It was not my moment of victory. Corporal Gonzales was killed three days later. So if you are sitting at home watching it on TV, wars have endings just like movies on TV have endings but there was no ending for me there. There was a flag that went up, that was perceived as something other than it was at the time. My friend Andy Stern died 18 months later. There was no victory for me.

"When the flag went up that was perceived in the minds of people who watched at home as victory. But as time wore on it was clear from our perspective the enemy didn't want to quit, didn't want to give up. They put up resistance and in fairness to them they did develop a very good strategy, very good tactic for defeating what would otherwise be a superior military force."

He says Petraeus is a smart man, who had a smart plan and the Iraqi people are "getting there".

So what are his thoughts before this official change of mission?

"Makes me kinda proud of my experiences. The opportunity to give them a chance to let their country be whatever they want it to be."

He has talked about those who died, so was it worth it?

"Of course I think it was worth it. But I think you are asking two separate questions. Was the question of invading Iraq right? At the time it appeared to be the right decision, in retrospect things were not as they were said. But that conversation is different from 'Should we have stayed or should we have gone, 2004 to 2010?'. However mistaken the decision to invade, the stubbornness - as some people saw it - of George Bush in not leaving, I think that was a courageous decision on his part. I had the experience more recently of working in Bosnia (for the International War Crimes Tribunal) and Bosnia was a country where we didn't intervene and truly horrific consequences resulted. If we had simply run away from Iraq the way some people wanted, we would have seen truly catastrophic consequences - not 25 people dying in a bombing one day but entire villages wiping out other villages.

I quote something he wrote a couple of years ago:

"No-one has to convince me that there is a difference between the way the world is and the way it should be. I'll stand for the way the world should be every time" - what implications did that have for the use of American military might?

"I'm writing as someone who had been in the military, not as a politician who makes a decision to go to war. One of the things you will find among almost all of those who become servicemen is that one of the primary reasons we join is the notion that we are making a difference in the world and frequently the military is the right place to make that difference. You see the military's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in places like Haiti. So my decision to join the military was an opportunity to make the world a better place somewhere. Of course military force never makes the world a better place for the people who experience the military force, or people who apply the military force like me, but over the course of history I think Europe is a better place for the application of military force, Japan is, South Korea clearly is.

Iraq? I interrupt.

"I think it's too soon to tell. I think one of the difficulties people have in this world of drive-thrus and 24-hour instant news feeds is that the military will go in in September and by the end of the year we will have a functioning democracy. But they are having elections, they are having the same sort of honourable gridlock in their politics that we have in ours. Germany is the third-largest economy in the world, but it's taken 60 years."

So while some would only use force to defend, he would agree with those who want to get rid of the bad guys?

"No, that's not what happened in Iraq. At the time at least what was reported to the public by the president's administration and the media was that Iraq had some responsibility (for 9/11) so to that extent that's not getting rid of the bad guy, but getting rid of the guy who attacked your country."

I remark afterwards that in Britain the focus was all on weapons of mass destruction and I didn't know anyone who believed that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

He said in the US it was different. I ask him about lessons for the future about the uses of war.

"It is up to the people. I think the president and government is obligated to defend this country whether it is the borders or energy policy. I think we would be fooling anybody to believe that there wasn't defence of energy policy. Given that our energy policy means we consume about 25% of the world's natural resources then we have to engage and defend those resources where they are."

How would he sum up?

"I am incredibly proud at what I see over there. I really see good things. I hope one day I can go back to a functioning country, however they want it to function. I am incredibly proud of the American servicemen over there - they do an extraordinary job. As for what I miss, I miss the people, not getting rained on for a month, getting shot at, shooting other people. My experience was a particularly violent one overall, but it gives me perspective that you can't get at an Ivy League school and that's my take on the world."

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

It was another reminder of just what a foreign country this is - on an internal flight across the US, once the routine announcements about mobile phones and life belts were over, the flight attendant took me by surprise:

"On board today is one of America's heroes... a brave member of the military... in uniform... let's show our appreciation, folks, for his service."

Enthusiastic clapping followed.

Some airlines go further than organising impromptu applause and automatically upgrade members of the military to first class.

Companies from double glazing firms to cinemas regularly offer discounts and special deals to America's fighting men and women.

But what is going to happen when the heroes come home from their battles in Iraq and Afghanistan?

For one thing, I suspect they will be held in high regard for a long time to come.

Personally I think they deserve it just as recompense for their harsh training. On a recent visit to the home of the Screaming Eagles 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell on the Kentucky-Tennessee border, I watched soldiers slither down ropes in a mock-up of an air assault by helicopter.

They call it the toughest 10 days in the army.

"How does it compare to the marines?" I asked. "Sissies!" smiled the soldier showing me round. "Only the French Foreign Legion comes close."

But their reward after the rigours of training, and indeed real combat, is the unbeatable satisfaction of being loved by their fellow citizens.

Major Ali Johnston from the Screaming Eagles told me that public appreciation ranged from finding his bill had been paid after eating in a restaurant, to having his hand clutched and pumped by a stranger.

In part this is the unfaded afterglow of the sunburst of patriotism that followed the attack on 11 September 2001.

Americans huddled together in vulnerability and outrage and looked to the mightiest military the world has ever known to defend and avenge.

But there is another powerful emotion at work too.

Maj Johnson told me he was at a regimental dinner the other night with veterans from D-Day, Korea and Vietnam.

In 1969, the Screaming Eagles fought at the battle of Hamburger Hill on Dong Ap Bia mountain in Vietnam - a bloody, pointless victory, a turning point in that war.

The major told me that the veterans spoke about being spat on when they came home, enduring the hostility, and perhaps worse, the indifference of a nation that was anything but grateful for their service.

They told the current generation they didn't know how lucky they were.

That's not luck. That's guilt.

There is now a feeling of deep shame that people doing their duty were treated so badly. The second Iraq war became hugely unpopular; but President George W Bush was blamed, not the men and women who obeyed his orders.

The intriguing question is whether this respect becomes reverence - whether decency and gratitude turns into something politically potent.

The self image of the US military is in stark contrast to the way some others see them.

Abroad the picture may be of a jarhead weighed down with muscles, guns and technology, but not over-burdened by foreign languages or intellectual sophistication.

But many American officers see themselves as warrior intellectuals - Harvard and Yale are stuffed with top brass taking doctorates and second degrees.

Politicians boast of their military record and their children's service as much as their small town background.

If you read too many blogs and tweets, as I do, it can seem a lot of Americans are torn between a very deep theoretical love of their country and an equally profound dislike of its actual democratic expression - politics and government.

It is easy then for the military to be seen as honest brokers, much as officers of the Roman empire were seen to embody stern republican virtues, and periodically felt themselves called to intervene and purify the political process.

I don't see the American military crossing that Rubicon. Their influence is already part of the process.

There was a hint of this when the man in charge of the marines, James Conway, made waves suggesting President Barack Obama's start date for withdrawing some troops from Afghanistan had given comfort to the enemy.

But it was his observation that things had changed since Vietnam that caught my eye.

He maintained that after that watershed war the country had "matured to the degree" that people could be against a war, but still support the troops.

So, he said, the military leadership had to do a better job convincing Americans of the need for victory in Afghanistan.

He suggested the military's political views may now be respected as much as their dutiful service.

The US will be very busy in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long while to come and some of the images of withdrawal are for public consumption.

Still, the two wars ARE winding down, and I do wonder what role the generals will play in 10 years' time.

It is easy to get used to a seat at the top table... although some might choose to relinquish influence in return for a period of peace.

At Fort Campbell talking to the soldiers who are meant to end America's longest war, another major showed me around a new memorial as yet unfinished, hewn out of stone from the Screaming Eagles' home state, Georgia.

Engraved on the giant headstones of Georgia granite are the names of the Screaming Eagles' many conflicts - World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ominously several stones are still blank.

"Not waiting, I hope," I said, "for the word Iran?"

The laughter was unconvincing and nervous.

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

America's top banker says the country's biggest economic problem is confidence. But is he doing enough to inspire it? Ben Bernanke's analysis is that after what he calls the "eruption of the Panic of 2008" (his capital letter), the world rose to the challenge and by the end of last year, economies were growing and international trade was expanding.

But now he says it is clear that "economic recovery and repair is far from complete". His summary of what has not been going so well makes gloomy reading at the end of a week of fairly dreadful statistics.

America's top banker says "growth... has been too slow", labour market figures "have remained disappointing" with private-sector jobs growing "only sluggishly" and he was "surprised by the sharp deterioration" of the balance of trade, concluding that "the economy remains vulnerable".

His essential analysis is that "the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed somewhat in recent months, in part because of slower-than-expected growth in consumer spending". The worry over jobs is central.

"The prospect of high unemployment for a long period of time remains a central concern of policy. Not only does high unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, impose heavy costs on the unemployed and their families and on society, but it also poses risks to the sustainability of the recovery itself through its effects on households' incomes and confidence."

To me, this comprehensively depressing outlook seemed to be the top line of the story, so I was surprised to see the headline "Chairman: Fed 'will do all it can' to stimulate economic recovery" in the respected online newspaper The Hill.

It's true he certainly said it, and The Hill is not alone. The Wall Street Journal picks up the same line and the Washington Post has a toned-down version of it.

Perhaps it is just a question of gloomy Brits versus ever-optimistic Yanks, but the Economist is right to point out in its detailed take on the speech that when you look at how the Fed might support recovery, Bernanke rules out three of the four options he puts forward and suggests that the fourth will only be needed if things get much worse, and then it has some downsides.

I am not qualified to comment on his economic analysis but it seems odd to me that the speech is oddly unspun. The media have been allowed to pick and choose whatever interpretation they choose. There is no juicy soundbite, because the whole thing was "off camera". He doesn't appear to have given any interviews afterwards. No other member of the administration has felt moved on this Friday afternoon to come forward to offer his or her gloss.

So if you feel more confident as a result of the speech, fine. But no-one is prepared to guide you that way (except some journalists). Good economics? I don't know. But it's bad politics.

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

Providence, Rhode Island

At the back of number eight Osbourne Street in Providence, Rhode Island lies a jumble of junk, an old bath, a battered gas heater and a pile of pipes.

The windows are either empty or boarded up.

Once a home to several families it has been repossessed, and it is scarcely the only house on the street in such a state.

But this is a positive story.

Number eight, number 10, five and three have all been bought up by Rhode Island Housing, a self-funded body set up by the state.

These homes are being gutted so they can be done up and rented out at an affordable rate.

RIH's deputy director Susan Bodington tells me they've been able to make a real difference in the area, along with providing much needed jobs in the construction industry.

Osbourne Street is in the heart of Smith Hill, a solid working class area that has been home to successive waves of Irish, Jewish, Italian and now Hispanic immigrants.

It's just a few streets, but it has been hit hard with around 60 homes being repossessed here.

Rhode Island is not only America's smallest state but was one of the first hit by the recession.

It used to ride out downturns better than the rest of the country, but not this time.

Unemployment was way above the national average (9.6%) at 12.3%. Although it has been falling since March, it is still at 11.9%.

Susan Bodington says she is optimistic that the economy is getting slightly better.

Foreclosures are down a bit although the housing market itself isn't showing any signs of improvement.

And the real underlying problem is that jobs are still very hard to find.

Wendy Macari would agree.

She has been out of work for five months and as a temp, she felt things were pretty bumpy before that.

She felt like she was firing job applications into space because she was not receiving replies.

Bringing up four children on her own, it's been a hard summer.

She says she couldn't even afford petrol to drive to the beach, and items like shampoo became a luxury for her.

But today she can hardly contain her excitement and says she feels like doing a dance.

She's starting work on Monday largely due to a government-funded scheme that pays the wages of new employees in small business for a limited period.

The scheme has only been running since June, and it has found work for 550 people. But the money runs out in September.

Wendy's new job is with Lighthouse Financial Services.

The boss, Debbie Bettencourt, takes the symbol of their slogan "a guiding light to financial freedom" seriously.

She is wearing a lighthouse broach and a lighthouse necklace. There are also lighthouses on the curtains and lighthouse ornaments everywhere.

The company provides book keeping services for small and medium sized companies.

And Debbie is enthusiastic about the government-funded, state-run programme, which has allowed her to take on two more workers and pay for them while they train.

Looking over the books of lots of companies, she's in a good place to judge how the economy is doing, and she is emphatic that very slowly companies are taking on more workers.

While economists and politicians talk of double dips and make gloomy prognostications, people in the Ocean State feel things are getting a bit better, and in part, that the stimulus money is helping.

When I remark on this dichotomy one Rhode Island resident says sweetly, "Is this your first election year in this county?"

They have a point.

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

The blogosphere is alive with analysis suggesting that Sarah Palin is the real victor of Tuesday's primaries.

Others argue the whole picture is more confused.

It's true John McCain won after she backed him against a Tea Party supporter.

It's true that in her home state of Alaska, it seems her support has helped propel a little-known Tea Party activist to victory over the sitting senator.

And it's true the other three candidates she endorsed have won.

But beware. This might seem a little hypocritical ahead of spilling my own ink on the subject.

But it is wise to be a little wary when looking for patterns and trends in elections.

Sometimes there are trends of great importance. Sometimes they have as little predictive power as a pattern in a flight of birds or a chicken's guts.

But let's assume Mrs Palin wields a power in the party - that her folksy energy sways the base.

Is that good news for Republicans?

When even moderates like McCain feel the need to make right-wing noises there is little doubt the party is heading further in that direction.

It's long been a dilemma for political leaders that what is red meat for their party can be unpalatable fare for the centre ground. They have to woo to win elections.

This is less so for parties of the right - tough lines on immigration, law and order and defence can be very popular.

But on the whole, the voters in the centre don't like the shrill and vicious.

A point made by a Colorado mayor, who takes a shower in his political ad.

In the last presidential elections, voters seemed in a mood to reject extremism of any sort and the low politics that wants to force divisions rather than find common ground.

I was struck this week by my meeting with an important player in the Bush administration, whom I have never before met.

Our conversation ranged wide, and he surprised me for someone I have always thought of as a rather hard-line right-winger.

He told me the moment he decided he didn't want Mr McCain to win was when Sarah Palin was chosen as a running mate.

"I'm a Republican, but I am not a mad Republican," he said.

So the Palin bounce may catapult some Republicans out of the arena.

That is not to say that statement is any sort of prediction about the November elections.

On a New Year's Day BBC programme, when we try to peer into the future, I suggested the Democrats wouldn't lose the House if they pulled their finger out and started to rethink their strategy.

Like Keynes when the facts change, I change my mind.

The Democrats have not mounted an effective fight-back and their fall may be hard.

What interests me then is how Obama plays it.

He can hardly adopt the Clinton approach and try for a bipartisan approach.

It is unlikely a Republican Party dominated by its own right wing would be interested in playing ball.

All the signs are in his recent speeches - he plans to cast them as Washington insiders playing as the government, who are standing in the way of an economic recovery.

So the stage will be set for 2012, along with a real test of the limits of Palin power.

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

The man in charge of the United States Marines, who has just returned from a tour of Afghanistan, has said President Obama's plan to start withdrawing troops next summer has given sustenance to the enemy.

General James Conway said that it will be a few years before the time is right to hand over to Afghan forces in some key areas.

The assessment by the Commandant of the Marines, who are fighting in the most critical areas of Afghanistan, is the most blunt so far from a senior military figure.

He says America is growing tired of war, but his troops sense conditions are turning their way. He said their only concern was expressed by a person to told him to not let the country go wobbly on us.

General Conway said that he did not believe that conditions would be right in Helmand and Kandahar to hand over to Afghan forces for a few years. And he suggested the president's date for the beginning of the withdrawal gave the wrong signal. It's worth quoting at length:

"In terms of the July '11 issue, you know, I think if you - if you follow it closely, and of course we all do, we know the president was talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments on July 2011. In some ways, we think right now it's probably giving our enemy sustenance. We think that he may be saying to himself - in fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.'"

"But let me give you a different thought, okay? If you accept what I offered earlier as true, that Marines will be there after 2011 - after the middle of 2011, what's the enemy going to say then? You know what he is going to say to his foot troops - when you've got the leadership outside the country trying to direct operations within because it's too dangerous for them to be there?

And the foot troops have been believing what he's saying - that they're all going to leave in the summer of next year. And come the fall, we're still there hammering them like we have been.

I think it could be very good for us in that context, in terms of the enemy psyche and what he has been, you know, posturing now for really the better part of a year."

So the general suggests that if the Taliban listen to the president, their morale will improve.

If, however, they listen to him, and he is right they will lose face.

James Conway is due to retire in the autumn, and the Obama administration will regard him as something of a maverick. Or at least that is what they would like us to believe.

Despite his belief that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq and his very fierce opposition to gays in the military, I can't see much that suggests he's a real wild card.

Certainly the administration won't take any action.

After the sacking of General McChrystal, they aren't looking for another dust up.

The president can't afford to lose another senior figure, particularly one who is headed for the exit anyway.

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

Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Soldiers crouch in a narrow walk way about thirty feet above the ground, shuffling forward to take their turn abseiling down a pair of ropes.

Many of these Screaming Eagles are just fledglings, new recruits to the 101st Airbourne.

They're on what the US army says is the only air assault course in the world, learning how to land from a helicopter They say it is the toughest ten days of training in the army.

How does it compare to what the marines go through, I ask the major in charge of showing us around.

"Sissies," he says with a smile.

The Screaming Eagles, with their long history of tough fights in World War Two and Vietnam and Iraq has around twenty thousand men in Afghanistan.

But the 4,000 who have been flying out over the last week will bring the surge to its peak.

The men and women who fly out to Afghanistan tomorrow are the last wave of the final surge, the force that President Obama is relying on to bring this war to an end.

Some of the recruits clutching the rope don't quite get it right. They rotate. They fail to let go and move away from the rope.

They jump before they are told.

For all these sins the trainers yell and make them perform the "dying cockroach" an ungainly, and I guess painful exercise.

Some of the surge troops are pretty raw.

I talk to several who only joined the army at the beginning of the year. Private Anthony Coscarella is frank about why he joined.

"It's the only place you could get paid to travel, shoot guns and exercise. There's no other job for that type of adventure. I'm kinda excited. A little nervous, I mean it's the first time I'm going to be out of the country and it's the most dangerous place on earth for Americans," he says.

Pte Coscarella says he thinks they can win, but it will be hard.

"Well the Russians couldn't do it years ago you know, so they're gonna fight until they can't anymore," he says.

"It's not an easy war, you know. They're not wearing uniforms so we gotta look for all sorts of clues as to who's the enemy and who's civilian really. And that could be anywhere at anytime. Our drill sergeant told us stay alert, stay alive that's what I'm going to stick to."

For Sergeant Nathan Hyman, it will be the third time he has been to war.

He's fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But this time is different.

"It's very crucial as far as what's gonna be happening so it's definitely an important time in the war and I'm glad to see it come to this point. You know, to see the light at the end of the tunnel kinda thing," he says.

I ask Sgt Hyman if the President is right to announce that American troops will start coming home next summer.

"I don't know as far as right or wrong but I'm glad that he has you know made those decisions and I will definitely stand by him as much as I can. Everybody likes to see the war coming to an end," he says.

As I mention yesterday, Major Bradd Schultz won't be going out to Afghanistan this time, but he's been many times before, and while he is quite clear that Iraq shows what progress can be made in a year - he cautions against artificial deadlines.

He says he is impressed with the Afghan security forces, feels a bond with them and wouldn't want to let them down.

I ask Maj Schultz if he trusts American politicians to get it right.

"Right now they've shown a commitment to the people of Afghanistan by sending our brigades, by sending the man power in there. I think they are finally starting to listen and we can get the job done. Trust? Politicians are politicians but to us it's not about politics it's about going over and getting the mission done and help the people of Afghanistan," he says.

I put to him that there is a suspicion that the military will, in a year or two's time, ask for another few months or another few years to do that.

"I don't see a drop dead date when we will just pack up everything and take off. Even in Iraq we are leaving fifty thousand soldiers. We're not just going to stop and get up and leave. You feel responsible for those guys. You get in firefights, planning sessions, you are with the Afghan national security forces, you become a team. It's just not fair to them. They won't trust you if they know y'all gonna leave," Maj Schultz says.

The soldiers I speak to seem torn, just in the same way I suspect their Generals are, and indeed their political masters.

They like the idea that the end is in sight - they want the conflict to end. But they want it to end in something that feels like victory and a job well done.

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

Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Karin Jenkins, vivacious and bouncy, puts on a lively show for those left behind, introducing them to the Family Readiness Group.

"Thank you so much for your time today, I know that time is super-precious because we literally getting our soldier-heroes ready to rock out of the door for their year-long deployment."

She tells them of group activities, from Bible study to a trip to Georgia to celebrate the Screaming Eagles' exploits in World War Two.

We're in Fort Campbell, home to the 101st Airborne, a vast base that spills across the Tennessee-Kentucky border. The surge of 30,000 troops that President Obama has ordered will be at its height by the end of this month and the 4th Brigade Combat team are among the very last to leave for Afghanistan. It is their attentive spouses who sit listening to Karin.

She is the wife of the brigade's commander, and stands in front of a table full of helpful pamphlets. And a pile of rather strange dolls, dressed in camouflage combat gear with a transparent plastic window where a face should be. A message reads "take out this photo and replace with a photo of a soldier you miss."

Karin says as the soldiers have a mission the Family Readiness Group has a mission on the home front, providing the mutual support within a unit that's so important when the troops are sent to war, and the families stay behind for a whole year.

You can't forget this is the army, with its love of acronyms and codes. The FRG sends out its messages colour-coded, according to priority. White is probably an invitation to a party. Blue is routine official information. Red is "extremely sensitive and urgent".

I ask Karin what happens if the worst sort of red message arrives: that a solider has been killed in action.

"That is reality. What happens? It is an amazing thing to watch. I would never wish it on anyone but if that call comes to a family, the network comes to their aide. After the family is told, me, the brigade family readiness support assistant, folks here at the command in America - we come together and prepare care teams that can go and assist the family in the aftermath of the news, until other friends and family can arrive. Almost simultaneously, their readiness group mobilizes its effort, doing things like making meals for the family."

Listening to the family readiness introduction are about 20 women, surrounded by babies and very young children. There's just one man among them, Major Bradd Schultz, who is holding his three-year-old daughter Katilin. Her brother is at school. And her mum, Major Rae Schultz, is in Afghanistan, serving with the military police. This time it is Bradd's turn to stay behind, not only looking after his own children but in charge of liaison with all those who are left behind. He says he and his wife are getting used to this peculiar rhythm of life.

"I've been in 17 years, and she's been in 12. This is her second tour, I've just completed my third, so this is something our family is prepared for."

I ask who worries most, him or his wife?

"It's kinda strange. I really don't worry too much about her, I've got enough to do here with the kids and the job, but it's probably harder being over there. But I would rather be over there. You can focus on what you've got to do. Back here there's all kind of stuff with the kids. It's nice to be here with them, but I signed up to be a soldier."

Little Kaitlin has one of those camouflage dolls, but there's no photo in it at the moment. Apparently she keeps trying to give Mom a drink of water and the picture falls to bits.

There have been support groups and men and women left behind since the war in Afghanistan began nine years ago. But this deployment is different: it is part of a surge designed to end a war, the beginning of the process of America's withdrawal less than a year from now.

How does that affect the way the solders see their mission? Find out tomorrow.

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

In the Time of the Great Snow I wrote a piece bemoaning the power cuts which I had suffered in my home just outside Washington, and got quite a lot of comments.

Some agreed that it was pretty poor, some suggested that I should quit complaining or move - overhead power lines were part of the beauty of the American way.

Since then the area has had quite a few more power cuts, this time as the result of summer storms. I am glad to say for me, the worst only lasted a few hours. But others were out for days.

It seems this whining Brit isn't alone in feeling frustration at what seems rather odd in the richest country in the world.

The governor of Maryland has written to the power company Pepco complaining that "power stays on more consistently in many developing nations than it does now in the communities surrounding our nation's capital".

And the company has been called before a hearing by the Maryland Public Service Commission.

According to one local politician, Roger Berliner: "The Commission expressed great incredulity that Pepco could have such a poor record for so long and not have put before them or their predecessors on the Commission an aggressive plan to remedy the situation. After almost three hours, Pepco belatedly unveiled a six-point 'comprehensive plan' that envisions, over the course of the next five years, a $250 million (£194m) upgrade of its system, $100 million more than they had previously anticipated."

You may feel this belongs in the Metro edition of the blog, but the point remains that it is very odd that the Washington suburbs are often plunged into a dark powerlessness more familiar in poorer parts of the world.

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

The last US combat brigade has left Iraq. I am preparing a TV piece ahead of the formal end of the mission.

I think my focus is going to be on how it has, or hasn't, changed America's attitude to war, and how the rest of the world sees the US.

One big question it raises, which has long fascinated me, is the whole idea of liberal interventionism.

At a seminar this week organised by the Centre for a New American Security, I was struck by a remark by the current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq Michael Corbin.

My notes are not verbatim but he said something along the lines that for 50 years Iraq had been a negative force in the region, a destructive role and now was in partnership with other countries, a model for laws on civil society, a democracy, decentralized, where not state planning but the private sector was in charge.

It struck me that this statement from an official in the Obama administration was rather close to the standard "neo con" justification for going to war in the first place, that Iraq would not only be a better place itself but a beacon for the region.

Tony Blair's free prime-time advertising campaign for his new book also reminded me of the former UK prime minister's commitment to the idea of liberal interventionism, as set out in his Chicago speech of 1999.

The matter of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction can hardly be put to one side, but I have little doubt he wanted regime change in Iraq for many other reasons.

Those who believe in what I am calling liberal interventionism think it is the duty of the strongest military powers to stop bad people doing bad things, even to their own people.

I once asked Condoleezza Rice if she would justify the invasion of China on similar grounds.

Her reply was on the lines of "what we can do, we do". Realistic but not exactly reassuring to those in the People's Republic who believe in an inviolable nation state.

I also recall asking Blair on the eve of his departure from office whether this philosophy was not just a thin veneer for old style imperialism, the West imposing its way on "lesser breeds without the law" (as Kipling put it).

Sitting in the garden of Number 10, perhaps I spoilt my point by adding that it might be more believable if Sweden had been in charge of the invasion. His reply was understandably dismissive. "They don't have the forces."

That is sort of the problem. Those who have the forces, have the history.

Has war weariness perhaps killed off the desire to make the world a better place through military might?

Perhaps, but the impulse is deep.

Listening to the radio news reports of the Taliban stoning a couple to death for adultery arouses the ire of my children. "Why can't we stop them?" they ask.

Seeing the cover of Time magazine depicting a young woman's brutal punishment at the Taliban's hands prompts similar feelings in me that it would be great to be able to stop the torture.

Of course, these two pieces of barbarity happened recently, nine years after the American invasion, so perhaps point to the limits of "shock and awe".

It is, I think, a moral muddle which isn't debated enough. If you will excuse a slight, but not flippant, digression I have long been fascinated that the fiction of the greatest living sci-fi writer, Iain M Banks, revolves around a morally superior society, The Culture, clandestinely undermining its militaristic, sexist, brutal enemies, delighting in secretly dealing with the torturers.

Yet he is also a leading anti-war activist.

I've long thought about this but only recently seen a rather good essay by Alan Jacobs worrying away at the same problem.

I guess part of Banks's theme is the moral ambiguity that sustains his utopia and that he would say that America's wars were really about scarce resources (I am not sure about this) and George W Bush isn't a Mind (I am sure about this: he is not a morally superior super computer).

The bottom line, I suppose, is that while the Chelgrians are vile, the Taliban are real.

Fictional and philosophical reflections aside, has America lost its taste for intervention and if so, is the world a better, or worse, place as a result?

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

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Sun and the Times in the UK, Fox and the Wall Street Journal in the States, has given $1m to help Republicans in this year's mid-term elections.

It is raising eyebrows. But should it?

Mr Murdoch uses his wealth and media muscle to promote conservative free market ideas. He's just as well known for backing obvious winners, like Tony Blair in 1997 and Barack Obama in 2008, in hope of access and influence. It largely worked with Blair.

But it hasn't with Mr Obama. His powerful and widely watched Fox News Channel has had a rocky relationship with the White House.

For a time the White House limited Fox journalists' access on the grounds that the channel was more interested in unrelenting propaganda against the Obama administration than in reporting the news. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the organisation's self promotion constantly repeats the phrase "fair and balanced".

Now Mr Murdoch's News Corp has given $1m to the Republican Governors Association. Thirty-seven state governorships are up for election in November and more than half of them are hotly contested. The cash injection is much needed.

It is fairly routine for media organisations to give money to the US political parties, but the owners of CBS, ABC and NBC have been relatively even-handed, giving similar amounts to both main parties - and in the realm of thousands of dollars, not millions.

Perhaps Mr Murdoch has been more fair and balanced than appears at first sight. Certainly Democrats believe that he has handed them a gift: proof positive that Fox is biased. But I doubt that this interpretation will make much difference to the viewers of the most avidly watched cable news channel, who either know exactly what they are watching or believe that as it reflects their views it must be neutral.

In an excellent article, John B Judas argues that populism is a deep current in American politics and that it need not only be a tool of the right. But at the moment it is and Fox does popular outrage better than the competition.

By the way, while I've been writing this I have been watching Fox for the last hour and there is no mention so far of this story. But they are carrying an Obama speech and a question-and-answer session live and without interruption.

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

President Barack Obama's original comments on the New York mosque have forced other Democrats to distance themselves from him and allowed Republicans to take easy, cheap shots. No matter, for a few hours it looked to friends on the left as if he was providing bold and brave leadership.

Then he delivered some more remarks, in shirt sleeves and ready for his holiday, on airport tarmac but it could have been the middle of the road. You know - the place you get run over, especially in American politics.

He had enraged the right by saying at a White House dinner to mark the end of the day's fast during Ramadan that Muslims had the right to build a mosque close to Ground Zero in New York, two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers.

Within 24 hours he'd performed the trick that is beginning to frustrate and upset those who should be his most loyal supporters.

In that airport sound bite, he said that he was not commenting and would not comment on the wisdom of building the mosque, merely the right to do so. It may well be that this is "Professor Obama" to the fore again, making a distinction that would be obvious to anyone at Harvard Law School between what the constitution says and what is morally or culturally desirable.

But politicians live and die by crude sound bites and the even cruder caricatures that flow from them and would-be liberal supporters despair that this looks like taking fright and running away. They despair that he is holding too true to campaign promises to stand above petty party politics when the fray is at its height.

To be seen as moderate and judicious might be no bad thing for the president. The trouble is that in these febrile times, there is no chance of that: the right immediately leapt on his remarks and portrayed them as un-American. Those planning the mosque, within an Islamic cultural centre inside a tall building, say it is a monument to peace and they want a memorial to the victims of the attacks inside. No matter. Conservatives compare them to Nazis building near a concentration camp or the Japanese setting up a cultural centre at Pearl Harbour.

As one commentator has pointed out, that is just about saying that all Muslims are terrorists. It is only the fringes that accuse (yes, accuse) President Obama of secretly being a Muslim - as John McCain said during the campaign, he's not a Muslim, "he's a decent family man".

But the rest are happy to portray him as insensitively unpatriotic, caring about the feelings of Muslim, not American, victims. On the revitalised right, it is an unspoken assumption that "American" means conservative, white and Christian... You don't have to be all of these to belong, but you have to behave as though you were.

It works.

Several Democrats fighting for their seats in Congress in this election year, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, normally among the most liberal of liberals, have disowned the president's remarks and spoken out against the mosque.

The perception of Obama as standing slightly outside the mainstream, so helpful during the campaign, is now a weapon in the hands of his enemies in this election year.

To his enemies he's "the other", to the American left, neither one thing nor the other. The row over the mosque will probably fade but the politician who so carefully defined himself page by page in two books, who wrote his own script so carefully, no longer seems to control the plot.

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

Anyone who has ever been to a Tea Party rally or meeting will know that one of the fascinating things about the movement is the rich mixture of conservatives who attend, from Libertarians to Goldwater Republicans.

Groups in Washington like FreedomWorks which seek to herd these natural-born mavericks are insistent that they can all unite around a single principle, fiscal conservatism. They say Tea Partiers are united by their desire to keep the deficit down, government small and taxes low. Whatever individual members think about guns or gays, they say, stays outside the Tea Party.

Some think that is wrong, and should change. I've bumped into Greg Fettig a couple of times at rallies in Washington. He's a founder of the Hoosier Patriots and is deeply involved in the Tea Party movement. He's written to me to tell me about his movement, America Refocused. One of its founding principles is to connect what it calls the "grassroots' patriot movement" with the Church and it says "God's warriors" should aim at "promoting moral awareness - prayer, humility, worship and seeking God's direction".

Greg Fettig says the Church has been infiltrated by progressives who promote homosexuality, abortion, open borders "and other beliefs contrary to biblical teachings".

He is not a lone voice. I've just read a small book, entitled The Tea Party Manifesto, by Joseph Farah, who, according to the blurb on the back, "was a Tea Partier before there even was a Tea Party movement". He argues that the Tea Party is made up of "prayerful people" and that it is a mistake to divide economics from social and moral issues.

In a text filled with quotes from the Bible, he warns the US is becoming a fascist country, and fulminates against socialism, homosexuality, abortion and, a bit weirdly, turning Native Americans into heroes. It is a fairly familiar mixture: a heated, almost panicky, focus on evils that stalk the land without anything like solid policy prescriptions describing what "taking America back" (from the voters?) might mean.

But the point of interest is that he says that it is time for the Tea Party to connect with its Christian roots.

My suspicion is that the success of the Tea Party - and the reason Republicans find it difficult to harness - is that it focuses on one issue, while revelling in the expression of a whole host of other views. But is the Christian Right really at its heart, and on its way back?

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

Is the military preparing an assault on President Obama's position or laying down covering fire so he can do what he has promised?

The president has set a firm date. He'll start pulling troops out of Afghanistan next July. His new top general in the field has said he could advise against that. The White House spokesman has just said: "Obviously the scope and rate of withdrawal will be conditions-based, but the date is not negotiable" So are they at loggerheads?

It is worth quoting the exchange on NBC news between Gen David Petraeus and David Gregory at length:

GREGORY: Let me talk about US troops. I asked you before when we talked about this July deadline of next year, how stifling is the concept of this deadline and this Washington debate to what you are trying to do here?

PETRAEUS: I don't find it that stifling. I'm not bowed over by, you know, the knowledge that July 2011 is out there. In fact the President has been very clear, Vice-President Biden has been very clear as well more recently that this is a date when a process begins, that is conditions-based. And as the conditions permit we transition tasks to our Afghan counterparts and the security forces and in various governmental institutions and that enables a quote "responsible" drawdown of our forces.

GREGORY: Let me just stop you. I just want to clarify this: Could you reach that point and say I know that the process is supposed to begin but my assessment as the commander here is that it cannot begin now?

PETRAEUS: Certainly yeah, again, the president and I sat down in the Oval Office and he expressed very clearly that what he wants from me is my best professional military advice, where I understand the mission that has been assigned, we have recommend the strategy and the resources that will be required for that strategy and as there are changes in any of that, obviously I would communicate that to him, recognising that he has some issues with which he has to deal with that we don't have to worry about it. But that's real life and again that was the process that we worked through last fall, a process that I thought was very good, the outcome of which was something that we strongly supported.

Let me point out one other item about July 2011 if I could, because what I had often noted was that in the speech the president made at West Point there were two messages. One was a message of substantial additional commitment, an additional 30,000 troops, again more civilians, more funding for Afghan forces, authorisation of 100,000 more of them and so forth, but also a message of increased urgency and that's what July 2011 really connotes. It is a message to all the participants, those in Kabul, some of us in uniform, again our civilian counterparts, that we've got to get on with this, that this has been going on for some nine years or so, that there is understandable concern and some cases frustration and that therefore we have got to really put our shoulders to the wheel and show during the course of this year that progress can be achieved and again one manifestation of that is out there they have this date.

One test of the strength of a news story is imagining the consequences if someone said the opposite.

"No David, there is no way I would tell the President that the conditions were not right to begin withdrawal. He made it clear to me he would not tolerate that sort of advice, and it was way outside my pay grade."

Imagine the headlines then.

Instead, Gen Petraeus makes it clear that the president "has some issues" that he as a solider does not: the political consequences of going back on a clear promise. But he also defends the deadline as a way to stress the urgency of the task and to focus minds, particularly minds in the Presidential Palace in Kabul.

He also says that the president agrees any withdrawal should be based on the conditions on the ground, that is whether the Taliban are sufficiently beaten and the Afghan forces are sufficiently ready to take over.

There's no real problem about the president keeping the superficial promise. It can't be too difficult to withdraw a few troops from a quieter part of Afghanistan. The real test is the direction of travel, whether there is a token withdrawal in July 2011, or whether it is the beginning of a rolling and escalating process, month by month.

The real nightmare for the president would be Gen Petraeus telling him: "Just a few more months, just another year, and we can crack this." There are signs that some in the military think that they just need a little more time. That could be Gen Petraeus' message. But I think it is more likely that by making it clear that he will give tough-minded, independent advice, the president's top man in Afghanistan has made it easier for the president to keep his promise. Incidentally, that might make the timing just right for him to take over from Robert Gates, as defence secretary.

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

The first time I see Sue Krentz she's riding on a quad bike, a tool as indispensible to the modern rancher as a fleet-footed pony was to the cowboys who used to work the cattle in this part of southern Arizona.

Sue is short, compact, burnt by wind and sun, and looks as tough as they come. You have to be to run a huge ranch with around 600 head of cattle ranging over thousands of acres.

But this seemingly indomitable woman has become a lost spirit, bravely just about holding herself together.

She tells me: "My life has been broken and a piece is missing, Rob was the love of my life. We'd been married 33 years."

Rob Krentz was murdered on 28 March.

Police believe he unwittingly interrupted a gang smuggling drugs or people across the nearby border with Mexico.

Increasingly, those criminals guiding illegal immigrants across the border combine their trade in people with the trade in drugs. Increasingly, they are armed.

The police think Rob possibly came across a lone gang member returning home. This brutal murder was the last straw for many ranchers who have been increasingly worried about a new phase of illegal immigration.

Many see the governor's promotion of the new law aimed at harassing illegal immigrants out of the state as a direct result of this tragedy.

Sue tells me: "I am not bitter, I am frustrated." Then, correcting herself, says: "I am bitter. Yes I am. The violence is increasing and the individuals are becoming more aggressive and more desperate in some cases."

She repeatedly makes the point that her family and Rob's family and they themselves have helped many illegal immigrants over the year, whether by giving them water, or jobs, or helping them get paperwork to stay in the US.

"We have owned this ranch for 103 years we have probably helped a million people. Why this one? Why now? I just don't understand. This has ruined my safe haven, this has violated my family, this has changed my life forever. It's not fair."

Her cousin, standing beside her during the interview for moral support adds that he is 60 years old and he had not locked the front door until he was 40. The level of crime has been getting worse for 20 years and it's rising still.

Sue says the government must do more.

"Article four section four of the constiution says it is the duty of the government to protect us from invasion, foreign and domestic. All we are asking is to be safe and free and on our own land, on our own property.

"We have the right to demand that."

Given her husband's murder is widely thought to have prompted the desire for the new law in Arizona I ask her if she supports it. She says at the time it was first suggested "I couldn't get off the bed. I did not get off the bed. I did not vote for it, speak for it... but it's a tool to assist law enforcement".

She is angry that it is being portrayed as racist. It is clear she, Rob and many ranchers have long worked and lived alongside Mexicans and don't have any quarrel with them as such.

Her cousin tells a story of how Rob, when young, found an illegal immigrant in desperate straits and helped him. Over the years the man has become a prosperous ranch owner and respected neighbour.

She repeatedly breaks off, asking pleading questions. "What would you do?"

It's a genuine inquiry, not a rhetorical question, but I have no answer. How can anyone know? She asks: "What did we do? We did nothing wrong, we tried to be good."

Sue's main priority is to make sure that the government of the US uses all its might and technology to make the long border, nearly 2,000 miles, secure not just near the cities but along its length.

She has also thought deeply about all the issues that such immigration throws up.

Her cousin says: "It takes 10 to 15 years to get a green card. That doesn't let many through. So they are going to come across the fence. They should secure the border and then get a handle on that and make a system of immigration that is a lot simpler than we have today.

"It takes a college graduate and a lawyer to get citizenship papers or even a green card. That's why they are coming across the fence."

Sue blames the government of Mexico and other countries, as well.

"They should develop the economy, and provide jobs. No-one wants to leave their communities, their homelands. But they also want to be safe in their home and and their governments are failing to ensure that.

"And that is a sad part because they are forcing the people out of their country. But we can't sustain the damage that's been done to our family, the damage has been tremendous. It's here. It's real. And it's not fair."

As I leave she calls over her dog. But it won't come, and lurks close to the house. Its companion, Blue, was shot alongside Rob.

Sue looks at the animal with pity and says: "She just doesn't know what to do."

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

In the southern California countryside, Shellie Milne's children play on their two miniature ponies in their yard. She's just back from a Tea Party meeting: she's an enthusiastic organiser for the movement and she says her latest cause is immigration.

She's insistent that the organisation isn't about social conservatism but is purely about fiscal rectitude. How then does immigration fit into that?

She has six children and says her children's education is suffering directly because of illegal immigration. Many of the children don't speak English and even the children of illegal immigrants must, by law, be educated in the state system.

She adds that the health system is also over-burdened. Of course, there's no national health system here but hospitals do have to treat anyone who turns up in the emergency room. If they can't pay, the hospital foots the bill. Shellie says its like a party. If 30 people RSVP and you cater for that number and then 100 turn up, everybody goes short. It's not much of a party any more.

Her solution? Illegal immigrants should be deported or go to the back of the queue.

But the US needs immigrants who learn the language and are willing to fit in and there should be a much better system to turn them into Americans.

She says in opposing the Arizona law, President Barack Obama has behaved like a dictator, ignoring the will of the majority of people in the state and the country.

That you'd expect. But the president isn't popular with his own natural supporters either.

Angelica Salas, of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, says she's disappointed with President Barack Obama. She tells me that she expected it to be an uphill struggle to get the positive advances they wanted, but not to be on the defensive.

She says that the Obama administration will deport 400,000 illegal immigrants this year, much higher than the figure under George W Bush. She quotes Mr Obama's campaign promised not to rip a child from its mother and says he is now doing exactly that.

Immigrant rights' groups want a much more straightforward process of legal immigration, saying that America needs new workers from all over the world. More controversially, they want all 11 million illegal immigrants in the country to be allowed to turn into American citizens.

But, I ask, isn't it a problem having 11 million working in the States illegally? Angelica Salas agrees that it is, that is why she wants them to be legal. She says it creates all sort of problems, from people being the victims of bad bosses, to not reporting crimes against them. She says the best way to beat the criminals down at the border is to take away the heart of their trade, the smuggling of people across the border.

But the proposed new law, she says, is a threat to anyone who looks Mexican, even if they are, like her, naturalised American citizens.

But what really annoys her is that she believes politicians are busy using the issue to grab votes for the mid-term elections rather than trying to solve a real and knotty problem.

It strikes me there's more than a grain of truth to this. The two women I have spoken to today are poles apart politically. But both agree the current position is costly and wrong. Both think that there should be a simpler route to legal immigration.

There is no certainty that, if they were sat down in a room, they could reach any agreement. But it does seem sure the politicians on Capitol Hill have no interest in finding a workable compromise.

You can watch Mark's report from California on the BBC News at Ten on Thursday.

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

We've just driven through Tombstone, the town famous for one of the most notorious shoot-outs in the Wild West, the gunfight in the OK Corral.

The dusty streets and wooden buildings recall a time long past. But Arizona is gripped with the fear that this beautiful big country is returning to a state of lawlessness, where the bad guys and their guns threaten the law-abiding.

More on the reality behind that fear later in the week (I had suggested it would come today. Apologies: it's a matter of co-ordinating various BBC outlets).

There's been a lot of debate about how the proposed new Arizona immigration law will affect American citizens and foreigners who are here in the United States legally.

We were about to find out.

A few miles outside Tombstone, all traffic was diverted into a makeshift checkpoint across the highway, about 25 miles north of the Mexican border. The border patrol guard asked if we were American citizens. My producer Regan Morris is, and he accepted her word for this.

Camerawoman Maxine Collins and I replied that we were British. Maxine made to hand over her driving licence, which is accepted as ID by police and at airports. He said this wasn't good enough and asked to see our passports and the residence visas inside them.

"You'll be OK if you are carrying these," he said.

We were, and we were on our way.

Does this bother me? Not personally. I nearly always carry my passport, and always when I am working. I knew when I lived in Belgium that by law I always had to have my commune (council) ID or passport on me. No problem. But no-one has ever remotely suggested I must do this in the States.

So the border guard's action does raise questions about the proposed Arizona law and suggests that it just extends to the police what the border guards are already doing. For that, some will feel safer, but others harassed.

Immigration lawyers say US law requires foreign visitors to carry an "alien registration" document - but not a passport and visa. But I don't know of any foreign national who's aware of this requirement - and I certainly wasn't.

And it's worth noting that in Judge Susan Bolton's decision last week throwing out the most controversial parts of Arizona's new immigration law, she cited the federal government's thinking on the matter.

"The federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens' papers are routinely demanded and checked," she wrote.

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

Arizona-Mexico border

Sgt Chad Matthews of the Santa Cruz county sheriff's department insists that, new law or no new law, his job won't change.

We are driving along Arizona's border with Mexico. It seems pretty peaceful. Cattle graze among the squat mesquite trees, the scrub dotted with yucca and a kind of cactus with dramatic spidery leaves, the countryside fringed by distant mountains.

Through it all runs a rusty metal fence undulating up and down the ridges like the spikes on the back of some monstrous dinosaur. Even the most desperate illegal immigrant couldn't make it over these 20ft-high poles. But suddenly the fence runs out and is replaced by a half-hearted string of barbed wire that wouldn't challenge even the least agile of them.

Arizona has become the centre of the debate on immigration because of its proposed new law, which has been challenged by the federal government and the courts. The law would make police officers question the immigration status of people they detain for another reason and suspect of being in the country illegally.

Sgt Matthews doesn't want to express an opinion on the new law. That's all about politics, he says. But he suggests that one way or another it won't change the way he does his job and it isn't racial profiling.

I question this. Isn't it just common sense that on this border he is going to challenge people who look Mexican, rather than, say, black or white? Not at all, he says. He's picked up many Chinese along this border and he says, on hearing my accent, he'd want to see my papers too.

A former cowboy, he is in charge of the local police force's weapons training. He is a man with a taste for action - a naval reservist about to go on exercise in Korea. But he resents the way some in the media portray the police in Arizona as jackbooted thugs. I am here this week in part to find out what has changed, why the debate has grown so sharp.

After all, the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico isn't new, neither are migrant workers or the strong Hispanic influences in this and other border states. After all, it used to be Mexico. It used to be Indian country.

Sgt Matthews says that in the 10 years he has worked here, the drug-related violence in Mexico has grown as gangs fight over the rights for this smuggling corridor.

He says there has been a slight escalation of violence on the US side, but most of the crime associated with illegal immigration - apart from the act itself - is burglaries of isolated homes for food, water and clothes.

Mostly, he says, those responsible don't take valuables and have been known to leave notes of apology. He sympathises with people who are coming to better themselves, but the law is the law and it's his job to enforce it. He repeats that he and his colleagues will go on doing their jobs in the way they've been doing.

Others think crime has got worse and action must be taken.

More tomorrow.

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