Us politics

Russia and Nato are now allies, or birds of a feather at least. The Independent reports that the twentieth century’s opposed spheres will work together for stability in Afghanistan. The attendant irony is blissful. Two years ago, machismo raged between Nato and Russia over Georgia. Why the sudden accord? There are two schools of thought, both relating to the East’s inexorable rise. Russia can no longer determine Central Asia of its own accord: China co-opted the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a long-time pillar of Russian power in Asia, to condemn Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia – a sign, to Russian eyes at least, of China’s creeping influence in Central

Wikileaks is the story of the day. The Guardian has extensive coverage of unsubstantiated allegations made by unnamed Iraqis. That is not to prejudge the revelations, just to provide balance against the sensational headlines before proper investigations called for by the UN. In addition to the alleged atrocities and cover-ups, Wikileaks’ disclosures support what Blair and Bush said and maintain: Iran incited dissidence to exploit instability. In fact, it is still doing so, despite the Obama administration’s protests to the contrary. The New York Times has eviscerated Biden and Obama this morning. The Telegraph’s Toby Harnden has the best summary of the unfolding debate: ‘It seems to me that the

Bob Woodwood could write a cookbook and it would be a bestseller, but Obama’s Wars, his latest book, will wreak quiet havoc beyond bookshops because Afghanistan already lours over Obama’s presidency. 9 years into the conflict and the limits of victory have been re-defined in the Taliban’s favour. The spat between the White Hosue and Stanley McCrystal has been replaced by further controversy with Petraeus over the withdrawal strategy. Woodward’s book is impartial, but he has given an acidic interview to the Sunday Telegraph where he implies that, when it comes to war, Obama doesn’t have the ‘x-factor’. The inherent contradiction between America’s current full engagement and proclaimed imminent withdrawal

When President Obama asked General Petraeus to take over the Afghan command after General McChrystal’s Rolling Stone implosion, there was much speculation that the two men would clash over the date for America to begin withdrawing troops. Obama had set down July 2011 as the starting point but Petraeus was almost certainly going to want more time than that. In Petraeus’s Meet the Press interview on Sunday, Petraeus made clear he might argue that withdrawal cannot begin that quickly ‘MR. GREGORY:  I just want to clarify this.  Did — could you reach that point and say, “I know that the process is supposed to begin, but my assessment as the

Here’s one divergence between the US and the UK where we can all get behind our American brethren. Yesterday, Barack Obama signed into law a provision blocking his country’s thinkers and writers from foreign libel laws. The target is “libel tourism,” by which complainants skip around the First Amendment by taking their cases to less conscientious countries. And by “less conscientious countries,” I mean, erm, here.         As various organisations have documented, not least the Index on Censorship, the libel laws in this country are a joke – and a pernicious one at that. Various dodgy figures have exploited them to effectively silence publications and individuals who, regardless of the

Gordon Brown will be seething, and with some justification: he never got photo-ops like these with Barack Obama. Shots of a cosy chat in the Oval Office are usually reserved for Benjamin Netanyahu, following the latest impasse between Israel and America. The Obama administration has gone to great lengths to repair the damage it did to Anglo-American relations at the start of its term. The President was all sparkle and bonhomie during the joint press conference, and he was careful to name-check ‘The Truly Special Relationship’ twice. Obama may be faking it but he looks comfortable with Cameron. He has always given the impression of being a cold fish, short

I’ve spent the morning contending with the WSJ’s Heath Robinson-esque subscription service so you don’t have to. Inside the paper, David Cameron explains what the Special Relationship means to him. 1). The Special Relationship is close and robust because British and American values are essentially the same, which explains why our national interests are often aligned: ‘The U.S.-U.K. relationship is simple: It’s strong because it delivers for both of us. The alliance is not sustained by our historical ties or blind loyalty. This is a partnership of choice that serves our national interests.’ There may be differences in emphasis and application, but, Cameron argues, Britain and America stand together on Afghanistan, global