³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

The former cabinet minister who told me in very strong language that Gordon Brown would be "an absolute disaster" if he became prime minister and pledged, in equally strong terms, to "do anything in my power to stop him" has outed himself tonight with the help of a little gentle prodding by PM's Eddie Mair (you can listen live to the programme here).

On 7 September 2006, I reported on the angry fall-out from the Brownite attempt to force Tony Blair to name the date he would leave office. Labour's "moment of madness", :

"The madness may not yet be over. My notebook filled today with anger and bitterness from all sides - even after today's statements. One Blairite minister said something extraordinary to me today, so deep was his anger. 'It would be an absolute effing disaster if Gordon Brown was PM, and I'll do anything in my power to effing stop him.' And yes, he did want to be quoted."

I have never commented publicly or privately on who made the memorable phone call that produced that quote, but tonight the former Defence Secretary John Hutton outs himself as the caller. He goes on to say that he changed his mind.

This is more than mere historical trivia. Hutton resigned from Brown's cabinet on the same day as James Purnell walked out calling for a change of leadership. Had Hutton backed Purnell's view - or, indeed, publicly repeated any of his private views - we would now in all probability have a different man leading the country.

Incidentally, , in large part because he has blushed when asked about it and has refused to lie about it. There is another reason, though.

The man thought most likely to have that view and to express it that way was John Reid. He marched up to me in the bar of the TUC conference that year and declared to all within earshot:

"Its only because I swear too effing much that everyone effing thinks I was the effing source for your effing quote and you know I effing wasn't."

Transcript of Eddie Mair's interview with John Hutton:

Mair: You are credited with saying - perhaps that's not the right word - you are credited with saying previously that Gordon Brown would be "a fucking disaster" in the role of prime minister. Did you say that?
Ìý
Hutton: That's not my view, of course-
Ìý
Mair: Did you say it?
Ìý
Hutton: I am not going to, sort of, go into this... sort of, who said what to whom again here because, you know, I could say yes or no to that question.
Ìý
Mair: Well, you could just tell me the truth.
Ìý
Hutton: And it would... it would still continue to be, to be debated...
Ìý
Mair: You can tell me you thought it once and you don't think it now.
Ìý
Hutton: Gordon has not been a disaster as prime minister. He has put his heart and soul into the job, and he is doing everything he can for the country at a time of intense difficulty.
Ìý
Mair: But did you think he would be a disaster, and did you express it in those terms?
Ìý
Hutton: I wasn't one of the prime minister's cheerleaders, no, in a run-up to... [laughter]
Ìý
Mair: That's another way of putting it, isn't it?
Ìý
Hutton: Well, I wasn't - and I am not going to pretend otherwise, because that is, that would be silly. I know perfectly well whatever I say on that score, some people will say, 'Well, yes he said that', 'No, he didn't say that'.
Ìý
Mair: Well, hang on - but you are in a position to tell us whether you said it, then we can just get on with it.
Ìý
Hutton: Well, that is certainly true.
Ìý
Mair: My guess is you said it. You haven't denied saying it, and you... So, come on. Did you say it?
Ìý
Hutton: Well, there's no point in me denying that I didn't have very serious concerns about, er...
Ìý
Mair: You said it. Didn't you?
Ìý
Hutton: ...I did say it. Yes, I did. Yeah. Let's just get that over with.
Ìý
Mair: And what do you think of him now?
Ìý
Hutton: My opinion has changed of Gordon. I think he has - and certainly, in all of his dealings with me, showed nothing but, sort of, a great deal of support and help during my time as a minister. So I personally have no criticisms of Gordon's performance as prime minister at all. I think he has been a tremendously hard-working man, who has really put, as I said, his heart and soul into it.

Update 1746: I have only just listened to the whole of John Hutton's gripping interview. He says that those involved in trying to remove Tony Blair in 2006 should hang their heads in shame - and he clearly includes Gordon Brown in that group.

The truth will always out, he says. When, at the time, I reported divisions in the Cabinet, I was accused of speculating or exaggerating - in other words, the usual non-denial denials. Thanks to John Hutton, that truth has now been confirmed.

PS: The blog will return in the new year - Happy Christmas to you all.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"See you in court." That's the message coming from the nationalists in response to the deal between the three main UK parties and the three main broadcasters.

They complain that they are the victims of a metropolitan carve-up which ignores their status as major parties in Scotland and in Wales.

Alex Salmond is reminding all who'll listen of the time a Scottish court injuncted a Panorama interview with Prime Minister John Major in the run-up to local elections in 1995. The court deemed that the broadcast was unfair to other parties in Scotland.

I need no reminding since I was deputy editor of Panorama at the time and had to call Downing Street to tell them that the interview would not be seen in large parts of the UK - since TV transmitters do not neatly cover national borders, the courts blacked out coverage in parts of the north of England and Northern Ireland to be sure no Scot would see it.

This time the broadcasters are offering separate debates for the main parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in addition to the UK leaders' debates.

They will point out that the nationalists - unlike the Lib Dems - do not have even a theoretical chance of winning a UK-wide election or forming a government.

Alex Salmond is not even running at the next Westminster election. That won't, I suspect, stop him calling in the lawyers. Even if a court proves unwilling to overturn a deal done by the three main UK parties and three main broadcasters, he will hope to persuade the jury that is Scottish public opinion.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Who needs Simon Cowell? The creator of the X Factor was offering to enliven the next election with a political version of his talent show.

Now, though, the British electorate will get what it deserved - . The judging will not be by Cheryl Cole. The voting will not be by phone or text. The electorate as a whole will decide by casting votes in the ballot box.

Simply by taking place at all these debates will make history - helping to determine who occupies Number 10 and what policies they pursue.

The cynics will say that Gordon Brown had no choice but to agree, given how far behind he is in the polls. However, other prime ministers did just that - refusing to take the risk or, in John Major's case, agreeing so late as to be impossible.

The prime minister will now hope to demonstrate that whether or not he's loveable, he is the man with the substance and experience needed to carry on doing the job. His negotiating team demanded that the debates be themed by subject and continues to argue that they should be moved around the country rather than all staged in London.

David Cameron will believe that, head-to-head, he can demonstrate that it is time for a change not just from Brown the man - but from the whole New Labour era. His team resisted Labour's initial push for a long series of head-to-head debates involving two leaders at a time.

Nick Clegg will scarcely be able to believe his luck as the first leader of the third party to share top billing with his big two rivals. His team saw any debates as an unprecedented opportunity to invite the country to say "a plague on both your houses".

Tonight, and in the lead-up to these debates, clips will be played and memories trawled for those TV moments that changed the course of events - the moment Nixon looked shifty or Reagan joked that he wouldn't exploit his opponent's age. Of course, for every one of those, there were times when debates were pedestrian, over-rehearsed or, even, dull.

Who cares? This isn't showbusiness. It's democracy, and at long long last the British electorate is to enjoy what voters in countries all over the world take for granted - the chance to see and hear and judge those who would lead them and then to vote.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I reported on last night's Ten O'clock News that the Treasury had wanted a tougher approach to public spending in this week's pre-Budget report in order to lend credibility to its plan to cut the deficit in half within four years.

actually increased the spending plans the chancellor had previously set out in his Budget, despite the fact that Britain faces the worst peacetime deficit in its history.

One reason for this is an aggressive public and private campaign by Ed Balls for a real-terms increase in school spending. He wanted to create a political "dividing line" with the Conservatives, who have promised to increase spending on health in real terms but have made no similar pledge about education.

The prime minister sided with the man who was his Treasury adviser during his long period as chancellor. Although Mr Balls didn't get as much as he wanted, he did get agreement for a 0.7% increase in school spending.

What's more, he secured a larger increase in spending on 16-19-year-olds. This was to fund the "September guarantee" of a place at school, college, in training or an apprenticeship for every 16-year-old who wants it - another a programme he has always claimed that the Tories oppose.

Sure Start - the third front in Mr Balls' attack on the Conservatives - has seen its budget protected from cuts.

Compare this with the Health Secretary Andy Burnham, who is having to sell a real-terms freeze in health spending from 2011, which some NHS managers have warned could lead to job cuts.

The disagreement between the Treasury and No 10 was not about the speed at which the budget deficit should be reduced. It was certainly not about Alistair Darling siding with the Conservatives in arguing for the deficit to be cut sooner and faster. It was, instead, about how to ensure that the government appeared to have a credible and convincing plan to achieve its stated objective of cutting the deficit in four years.

For those who like the detail, the PBR stated that current government spending will increase by 0.8% on average from 2011, and not by 0.7% as set out in the Budget.

However, money raised by the increase in National Insurance will - the Treasury claims - keep the government on course to cut the deficit in half in four years.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that government plans imply £36bn of cuts in departmental spending ie over 19% from 2011-2014 in order to protect schools, hospitals and increase overseas aid. They say the police pledge is meaningless. They also say that defence, higher education, transport and housing are most likely to be hit.

The cost of paying back the debt over the next eight years is equivalent to £2,400 per family in taxes or cuts over that period.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

• Taxes up
• Spending slashed
• Pay rises limited or frozen

This was a package of measures that no occupant of Number 11 would want to unveil. As I noted earlier, Alistair Darling unveiled it in the low-key, no-nonsense, business-like manner of an undertaker striving not to add to an already distressing and painful experience.

The chancellor will hope that the markets and the electorate will regard this as a serious man doing the serious work of cutting the nation's budget deficit.

He insists that he is doing what is necessary to maintain spending now on government programmes designed to limit unemployment, home repossessions and business insolvencies.

He argues that it is only this way that cuts can be avoided to front-line services and to increase pensions and benefits.

But - still the politician - Alistair Darling promised gains now and pain later - after the election, to be precise.

What's more, much more pain remains hidden deep inside his budget calculations - which imply huge cuts in many government departments.

The chancellor's message to the electorate is: "if you don't like the sound of this, imagine what it would be like if the Conservatives got into power and cut the deficit faster and deeper."

The economic test of this Budget - for that's what it really was - will be whether the world's markets think enough's been done to tackle the deficit.

The political test will be whether it takes pressure off ministers to say what they'd do and increases it on their opponents to say how they could do more.

That, though, may only count if voters can be convinced that it could be a lot worse, instead of asking: how on earth did we end up in this mess?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Low-key, business-like with no Brownite flourishing of political dividing lines. This is the Budget (okay, ) in which which Alistair Darling has decided to be Alistair Darling.

As a result, he has made it harder for the Tories to mock him and his economic projections which confirm that Britain's recession was deeper and longer than expected and than in most other countries.

At the same time, he has spelled out his political aim by claiming that:

"The choices are between going for growth or putting the recovery at risk. To reduce the deficit while protecting front-line services or cuts which put these services in danger."

His hope will be that George Osborne does not tone down his reply, so that he can claim to be the serious man getting on with the serious and unglamorous job of running the economy, while portraying his opponent as inexperienced and untrustworthy.

It's amusing to think that it is precisely this low-key political style which led Gordon Brown to want to remove him from his job.

Update 1319: Alastair Darling is not announcing how every department's budget will be cut, or listing the programmes that will be cut.

He has, instead, just announced £5bn of savings as an example of what can be achieved.

He listed residential care for the elderly; pension personal accounts; IT savings; legal aid; prisons and regeneration budgets. It will be interesting to check the details.

And National Insurance is - as predicted - going up by 0.5%, raising £3bn per year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Stand by for a tax rise. All the signs are that it will be another increase in National Insurance, though no-one in the Treasury will confirm that.

It will be presented as necessary to protect spending on schools, hospitals and the police and to preserve spending on government programmes to limit the rises of unemployment and home repossessions.

So here's my guide to :

Fiscal stimulus: There isn't one next year and there won't be one after this PBR. The government has simply not got the money. Indeed, the chancellor will be clawing back money by reversing the cut in VAT, increasing top-rate tax and whatever other tax rise he announces today.

Cuts: The argument is no longer about whether to cut. It is about how fast and how deep cuts should be. The Tories say that whatever the chancellor announces today, he's sticking to his target of cutting the deficit in half over four years, which is not enough.

Taxes: They're going up, whoever's in power. The question is how fast and who pays. Labour will insist that its tax rises are fair while the Tories are focussed on the few not the many

Pay: It will be limited, whoever is in power.

And there ends the good news.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Spending cuts, pay restraint, tax rises.

These are hardly the sort of measures that any chancellor likes to unveil. But Alistair Darling has no choice, given the goals that he's set for his pre-Budget report.

He wants to demonstrate that the government is serious about cutting Britain's spiralling budget deficit by a half in four years, while at the same time preserving spending on programmes designed to support an economic recovery and front-line services.

To protect schools, hospitals, and the police from spending cuts, Mr Darling will concede that he has to make tough choices elsewhere - and he'll give us some examples.

He may not spell out, though, that this could mean cuts in all other areas of spending of well over 10% for the next three years.

The chancellor is also said to be ready to extend pay restraint in the public sector beyond the freeze already announced for senior public servants.

And sources say that Mr Darling will speak of the case for fairer taxes. He's already announced increases in the top rate of tax and national insurance and it is possible there may be a further rise today.

What appears certain is that the chancellor will unveil a temporary tax on the funds set aside by banks to pay bonuses to their staff.

Welcome to the era when Budget speeches are no longer about giving away but all about taking away.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Any death of a British soldier - let alone the 100th death this year - would make anyone sensible pause for thought about the value of the mission.

However, I am certain that this grim milestone will not have the same effect it would have had a few weeks or a few months ago.

Back then, the military was in pretty open conflict with the government about the scale of the resources dedicated to the war.

Back then, the opposition parties were echoing those criticisms and making their own about the failure to articulate a clear strategy.

Now the military leadership, and those of all three major UK parties, are singing from the same hymn sheet - agreeing with Gordon Brown and Barack Obama about the need to go in deeper in order to get out sooner.

who conceded that Gordon Brown had seemed finally to "get it" in the summer.

The military wants the British people to be less pessimistic and to focus on what is being achieved in Helmand province.

That's why David Cameron was taken to see a bazaar in Nad-e Ali only last Friday.

I went with him; we were, it turns out, just a few miles from where the 100th British soldier lost his life.

The army wanted to show the man who may be their next boss how they are engaged not simply in deadly firefights with the Taliban but in helping to secure and then hold towns and villages. Their aim is to show that life could return to somewhere near to normal if they turned their backs on the Taliban.

I am reminded again of words I posted on Friday from one officer in Nad-e Ali. He said: "We don't want people's sympathy. Sympathy is for losers. We are not losers. We want people's support not sympathy."

I am reminded too of the three hour delay to our flight to Afghanistan as an emergency medical team was brought on board to treat another soldier caught by yet another IED. He was not, thankfully, one of the 100 but there are many more victims of this fight than that number suggests. There will, inevitably, be more.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Good to see that our politicians are taking seriously talk of a crack-down on inefficiency.

Thus Labour is saving costs by stealing Tory measures, while the Tories are doing the same by stealing Labour men.

Thus every public sector salary above £150,000 would need ministerial approval - an idea at the Conservative party conference. Cutting consultancy costs, and publishing more data online were all also measures which were first called for by the Tories.

Meantime, the Conservatives are parading the scalps of Sir Peter Gershon, Dr Martin Read and Bernard Gray. All are one-time advisers to Labour who are now joining what is being called the shadow productivity advisory board. (Perhaps they should have thought of a snappier title?)

There will be a debate now over who is most credibly promising to reduce inefficiency but it won't a very efficient use of anyone's time.

The key to cutting the debt is cutting public spending overall, and the key to that is cuts to what the government actually does - not simply the cost of doing it.

It is worth noting that Gordon Brown previously claimed that any efficiency savings beyond those he last announced would lead to savage cuts in public services.

Will he be as keen as he was today to spell out exactly what a public spending squeeze will mean for all of us? Will David Cameron? Now that debate would be an efficient use of time.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It is like speeding down a rollercoaster while having to lay the tracks. That is how the British officer in charge of training the Afghan army describes the task he has been set by the politicians.

Today David Cameron visited Kabul's Military Training Centre - the place that holds the key to the withdrawal of British troops from this country. Here they've been set the task of training more than 5,000 Afghans each month to create an army of more than 130,000 men within a year - that's two years quicker than originally planned. That would be hard in any country but here only one in 10 "warrior recruits" can read or write.

The Tory leader says that's just one reason why British troops may not start coming home any time soon. Today he told me it was "pretty unlikely" that British troop numbers would be reduced next year.

The message from the military to their visitor on this two-day tour has been the same at stop after stop - help us counter the pessimism about the war at home and then let us get on with finishing the job. His message to them today was a promise to reward their efforts by doubling the £2,400 bonus they receive when they return home after a six- month tour of duty.

Today I watched Afghan recruits train amid stark reminders of the last time someone thought they could tame this country - burnt-out Soviet tanks and armoured vehicles. In the distance you could see a reminder of Britain's failure here - a fort abandoned after the second Afghan war.

The man who hopes to be leading Britain's war efforts soon leaves here having seen what can be achieved but having been reminded that foreigners rarely leave with their heads held high.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Kabul, Afghanistan: A million Afghans live in Helmand province. Nearly 100 British soldiers have died here this year alone. Raw painful facts but not enough to convince David Cameron that British troops should come home any time soon.

Speaking at the headquarters of Taskforce Helmand, Mr Cameron declared that he was "not interested in cutting and running nor setting an artificial timetable" for withdrawal. He added that whether he was in opposition or in government he wanted to help British forces come home with their heads held high.

What this marks is an end to a long period during which the military's frustrations with the government were taken up and amplified by the Conservatives. The Tory leader now says that he is happy with the strategy planned by General McChrystal and adopted by President Obama and Gordon Brown. He says he's happy too with the resources committed to it. His one concern is that talk of timelines has encouraged talk of "our boys coming home in 2010" which could encourage the Taliban to believe they can simply sit and wait for international forces to leave.

David Cameron was shown what success looks like in Afghanistan. At a wheat distribution centre he spoke to farmers queuing to collect seed sold to them at a massive discount in the hope that it will tempt them away from growing poppy and fuelling the opium trade which finances the Taliban.

Next, to a bazaar in Nad-e Ali where people dare to shop and the Taliban fear to tread - something unthinkable just a few months ago.

Each of these small steps will, it's argued, add to the people's sense that it is their government and the international forces, not the Taliban, which guarantees them prosperity and security.

All this comes at a cost, of course. That name - Nad-e Ali - may sound familiar. It's the place where five British soldiers were shot by a member of the Afghan National police. Their names are on a monument next to that of Guardsman Jamie Janes and others who gave their live trying to secure Afghan streets and, in the process it's hoped, British streets too.

Again and again today David Cameron was told by the soldiers he met that they didn't want sympathy. What they want is support. Sympathy, one told me, was for losers and the British army aren't losers. Similarly they are sick of the pessimism that has taken hold of the public and blame politicians and the media for spreading that gloom.One squaddie remarked ruefully - "I'll only get on TV if it's in a coffin".

I find it impossible to assess whether the army's confidence is misplaced but I was struck by their conviction that what they are doing is right.

There are, though, constant reminders of how far this country has to go, even eight years on from the war's beginning. Every journey we made today to witness the good news was made first in a Chinook helicopter which has to swoop first this way then that to minimise the chance of incoming fire and maximise churning stomachs. On the ground, trips are made in armoured cars, in full body armour accompanied by drivers whose radios crackle with warnings of "statics" or "slow moving from the left" - each a possible suicide bomber.

At a news conference with Governor Mangal of Helmand - the international community's model administrator - I met his son. He'd been attacked twice, had quit his university studies and complained that he was - in effect - a prisoner who, unlike his father, could not rely on armed protection and armoured cars. Another son who's based in the UK has applied for asylum.

On arriving at Kabul we were given a security briefing about five threats we faced - as well as suicide bombs there were roadside bombs, gunfire, kidnap and, well, the fifth one temporarily eludes me.

What's clear is that the political leaders of all three main parties have decided to throw their weight behind what David Cameron described today as a "last chance". Let's hope it works

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

you will have seen an unfamiliar sight - the prime minister seemed to be enjoying himself and, just as importantly, Labour MPs, seemed to be enjoying his performance.

The reason, I think, is that Gordon Brown is, at last, applying rule one of political strategy - tackle your own negatives whilst highlighting your opponents.

Coming out of the Conferences Team Brown knew that two things stood in the way of them even looking competitive at the next election - public doubts about the war in Afghanistan and public fears about the debt.

As I wrote in my post this morning Gordon Brown has now got a political strategy for the war which will, I suspect, close it down as an election issue.

He has agreed a joint strategy with President Obama which is easily communicated and understood; he has repaired his damaging rift with the military and his opponents have over reached themselves by outing General Dannatt as a Tory and by attacking the prime minister's letter of condolence to a grieving mother.

Next week he has the tougher task of neutralising the issue of debt in the pre-Budget report. His aim will be to produce a deficit reduction plan whilst opening up one of his famous "dividing lines" with the Tories. How about a tax rise on the rich to pay for a further fiscal stimulus?

Meantime, Team Brown has responded to the polling which tells them that although the public may think that that David Cameron is different they fear that his party are, in Labour's phrase, "the same old Tories".

With more than a little help from Lord Ashcroft and Zac Goldsmith and Tory Treasurer Michael Spencer Labour (and the Lib Dems) are presenting the Tories as still the party of and for the rich whose tax policy is "written on the playing fields of Eton".

The Conservatives have hardly helped themselves by "obsessing" - to use David Cameron's phrase - about Europe; making factual errors at last week's PMQs and rushing out hastily written speeches on subjects like the health and safety culture.

Alastair Campbell - who's now back at No 10 as a regular visitor - is back to his old tricks using his blog to criticise media coverage he doesn't like, to shape coverage he would prefer and to unnerve his opponents who still fear him. :

"Sensible Tories are asking themselves - why, when the economy has been battered, public spending is under threat, the expenses scandal engulfed politics, 'when 'time for a change' is such a potent force, when GB's personal ratings have been low, when support for the conflict in Afghanistan appears to have fallen, and the profile of the Iraq war has risen, they are not out of sight?
Ìý
"The answer is that nobody really understands what direction they want to take the country in. We hear their complaints about Labour. But we have no real sense of their own vision for the future. He has been there four years but we still don't really know. And that leaves people thinking he doesn't really know."

What Campbell ignores is the one thing keeping Tories cheerful. They believe that there is a third factor standing in the way of making Labour electorally competitive - it is Gordon Brown himself - smile or no smile.

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

We're going in deeper to get out sooner.

That was the core message of which earlier this week. It represents a balancing act between the military's request for more troops and increasing public demands to know when "our boys" will be coming home.

Cynics will note that the beginning of British withdrawal is timetabled for 2010 - election year - and that the start of the American withdrawal is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2011 - just before the long year of presidential campaigning starts in earnest.

Last weekend, Gordon Brown was rewarded with a politically valuable - albeit totally misleading - headline proclaiming which led David Cameron to warn that "we should never look like we won't see it through".

Both prime minister and president will insist that, strictly speaking, they have not set a timetable. Instead, they will argue they have set a series of "targets or milestones" which are "conditions-based" and are designed to force the pace of the handover to Afghan troops.

This morning, the head of the armed forces, Sir Jock Stirrup, made it clear that he could live with that while stressing that he didn't believe that Afghan forces would be able to take the lead right across the country until 2014. So, a more accurate headline might have read "Our boys maybe home for Christmas in five years' time (if everything goes to plan)".

There are clear parallels with the planned military surge and handover to home-grown forces in Iraq. There are clear difference too which have been pointed out to me by worried sources on both sides of the Atlantic. Unlike Iraq, they say, Afghanistan has no recent history of a strong central government, of an effective army or of a political infrastructure.

Both President Obama and Prime Minister Brown's hopes now rest on:
• the military's ability to halt Taliban momentum
• training up enough competent Afghan forces to begin taking over parts of the country next year
• the buying off of those not ideologically committed to the Taliban
• the strengthening of Afghan's central and local governance

Few doubt that the first is achievable. Many doubt how far the rest are.

Last night in America and the past few weeks in Britain have been largely about politics.

The president has seen off those - including, let's remember, his own vice president - who have warned that America should step back from a Vietnam-style quagmire.

The prime minister has successfully confronted the coalition of disaffected military leaders, the Sun and the Tories who demanded to know "Don't you know there's a bloody war on?".

Both will now hope they can emerge from the shadow of Afghanistan to fight their political opponents on other fronts. They have done so with a strategy which can best be summed up as "one more heave".

Below are key extracts of Obama's speech (with my headings) in case you've not had time to read it for yourself:

The mission

"We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001..."

"Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan."

The problem

"Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al-Qaeda has not re-emerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population."

The strategy

"[A]s Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan."

The objectives

"We must deny al-Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future."

"[T]hree core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan."

The timetable

"[T]he absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan."

The politics

"If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow."

"[T]here are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history."

"[O]ur troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?