For reasons best known to itself, Labour is sending 100 activists to the USA to campaign on behalf of Harris.
Seemingly this does not break USA electoral law and the cost of the junket is, apparently, being funded by the Democrats.
Quite why the Democrats think that 100 Brits rolling up and telling Americans how they should vote is a good idea is beyond me.
Disregarding that, the more serious issue is why on earth the Labour party think that this blatant interference in another country's election is a good idea. Harris is likely to lose, and when Trump becomes President he will not be very chummy with Starmer over this nonsense.
Thanks to a decision by Biden (that will go down in history as one of America's greatest foreign policy and strategic blunders of the last few decades) America is rerunning its humiliating evacuation from Saigon (this time from Kabul).
At the cost of countless lives, $1 trillion and a whole heap of equipment America has realised that the 20 year war in Afghanistan was unwinnable.
Whilst that may well be the case, what Biden failed to grasp when he made the decision to withdraw (although he will be grasping that now) is that the Taliban will takeover Afghanistan in a matter of weeks, and establish the country as the go to address for every terrorist group on the planet.
The war, in the form envisaged by America when it entered Afghanistan 20 years ago, was unwinnable. However, training a local army to hold out against insurgency takes more than air support and high tech equipment (especially when you withdraw that). Like it or not, if America wanted to keep the Taliban out, then it needed to maintain a presence there to stiffen the resolve of the local army and to ensure that they were properly trained.
"“If you are looking to rebuild an entire nation’s military capability to
withstand ever-evolving adversaries, such as ISIS or the Taliban, you
cannot do it in one or two decades. You can get the bulk of it done in
that time, but the technical expertise of learning skills like fighting
close combined arms battles or maturing a high-risk man-hunting special
forces capability — the bedrock of any counter-insurgency campaign —
takes a far greater period of time.
I know this, because that’s what I
did in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in Afghanistan. It’s technical; it’s
hard work; it requires a long-lasting commitment. But done properly, it
is absolutely worth it in terms of reducing an insurgency’s momentum,
building capability and, crucially, confidence in partnering forces, and
critically reducing civilian casualties while retaining Afghan
consent.”
On July 8th Biden said:
"“the likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.”
Biden has badly misjudged this, and the consequences of his misjudgement will be felt by the world for decades to come!
It would be really refreshing if for once, when there is a change of President in the USA, the British media and our MPs would stop wetting themselves over the "special" relationship.
This "special" relationship was forged between Churchill and Roosevelt, in the heat of war, for the convenience of:
1 Roosevelt, who needed an excuse to lend military assets (for a price) to the UK and an excuse to bring the USA into the war and
2 Churchill, who needed America in the war.
Post war the relationship quickly unravelled when America wanted its debts paid, and the US supported Nasser in the Suez crisis.
The relationship only becomes "special" when there is a close bond between the President and PM (eg Reagan and Thatcher) or when it is in America's interests for it to be "special" (eg the Iraq war).
Good luck to the good people of America, who vote for their new President today.
I cannot but help feel that had the Republicans chosen anyone other than Trump, they would win hands down. The same also applies to the Democrats, had they chosen anyone other than Clinton.
Those who are paranoid about the demise of the so called "special relationship" between the USA and the UK, especially in the light of last night's defeat of the British government's plans to launch punitive strikes with the US against Syria, should have no fears.
The "special relationship" is only ever invoked by the USA or UK when one or both governments wants something from the other or the people of those two nations (usually backing for a war). On other occasions, non military, it is rarely invoked or used for emotional blackmail.
The UK gave no direct military backing to the USA during Vietnam, and the US gave no support to the UK during Suez; yet the "special relationship", or rather the invocation of the "special relationship", has continued.
