Jim Mattis's principled departure should make the US rethink

Send your letters in to letters@independent.co.uk

Did Mattis save us from the worst instincts of Donald Trump over the past two years? (Getty)

I am former Gurkha and a first Gulf War veteran and I still can’t justify what the British army has done in the Middle East in the past 20 years.

And now Donald Trump announces the pulling of US troops, creating another mess in Syria and refugee crisis, and repeating the same mistake created by his predecessors, while James Mattis announces his resignation.

The proverb tells us, “a stitch in time saves nine”. But this advice isn’t being heeded. The US and its cronies are creating more holes instead – holes like insecurity, debt, unemployment, pollution, poverty and division at home and abroad caused by a Make America Great Again attitude and Brexit.

I can only hope that 2019 will bring peace and harmony across the globe.

Yam Gurung

Address supplied

Thank you, Jim Mattis, for saving us from the worst instincts of Donald Trump these past two years.

I wish you could have stayed on as secretary of defence, but I guess President Trump’s unilateral decision to withdraw all American troops from Syria against your sound advice was the last straw.

Thank you for your democratic and humane values. Thank you for playing a major part in keeping our world safe.

Genevieve Maria Forde​

Aotearoa, New Zealand

How to find the Gatwick drone – and stop it coming back

Why has no one announced a reward for “information leading to prosecution” from Gatwick airport or the airlines? Or even a whip-round among affected passengers? Just £1 per passenger would yield tens of thousands of pounds which might encourage suspicious neighbours to forward useful intelligence. Can’t one of the bosses chip in, given that bonuses will surely be at risk?

John Bailey

Preston, Lancashire

Two news items have highlighted how easily our transport systems can easily be stopped. In the UK a drone has closed Gatwick airport, and in Melbourne, Australia the city train loop has been closed down because someone has entered the tunnel on foot. This combined with bad driving and bad weather shows how fragile our transport systems are, and with the usual Christmas travel it’s going to get even worse.

The real danger is that although these are minor “attacks”, a more determined person or group could easily disrupt the transport of food across a country and it wouldn’t take long for food to run out. Our politicians need to look at ways of making the transport system more efficient and reliable, not just bigger. There also needs to be more maintenance, security and even greater punishments for damages.

Keep the roads and airways open or Santa won’t be able to deliver coal to most politicians’ present sacks.

Dennis Fitzgerald

Melbourne, Australia

As Gatwick airport is clearly under attack I suggest that barrage balloons be placed over airports.

The prototype blimp which already exists – of Donald Trump and Sadiq Khan – could be hastily adapted to resemble the prime minister and leader of the opposition.

These blimps would have the desired effect of warding off drones in time for the festive season, with the added advantage that both leaders are already highly inflated.

Michael Collins

Kingston

Tell the truth about immigration, Theresa May

As reported in The Independent yesterday (May & Javid at odds over Brexit immigration targets), it was David Cameron who first started the “tens of thousands” nonsensical immigration policy in his desire to appeal to a certain faction of the electorate. He arguably knew this was unachievable, but would nonetheless appeal to an electorate more likely to vote for Ukip.

Was there ever any real intention to strive for this unachievable target? We will never know, but there are growing signs that Theresa May bought into this concept with particular zeal.

It is interesting to note that the traditional position for the Conservatives is to appeal first and foremost to business leaders, and secondly to the aspirational (those who can be persuaded their life chances are improved by a Tory government). Neither of these two groups are likely to be supportive of any immigration policy which either sets out to, or can be seen to bring about, a shortage of workers at all levels of income and skills to meet their and the nation’s needs.

Even the aspirational can likely see that immigration is no threat to them, and its mismanagement is likely to increase their cost of living.

If the PM thinks she is pursuing a policy with very wide public support, I would caution her to think again. There will only be one person the nation blames when the absence of sufficient agricultural workers results in spiralling food prices, when Great Aunt Mabel can’t find affordable home care, and when the NHS performance figures fall off the bottom of the charts for the want of doctors and nurses.

Of course, political parties have the right to pursue a range of policies they believe will support the aims and aspirations of the majority of the electorate, and gain support at the polls. But we must always expect all politicians to behave in a manner that puts the health and welfare of the nation first.

Telling lies, and keeping real intentions under wraps serve no valid purpose, and thus should have no place in UK politics. For the current prime minister to do either would be entirely unacceptable. My suspicion however, is that she may be guilty of both.

David Curran

Middlesex

When we say no deal...

Andrea Leadsom said yesterday, as reported by Lizzie Buchan: “A managed no deal does not necessarily mean there is no withdrawal agreement at all. This is all speculation, but what I am looking at is trying to find an alternative that, in the event we cannot agree to this deal, that there could be a further deal that looks at a more minimalist approach that allows us to leave with some kind of deal and some kind of implementation period that avoids a cliff edge, that avoids uncertainty for businesses and travellers and so on.”

Is this an example of a politician always being “perfectly clear” as they are often are wont to say – or is it the detailed and comprehensive scheme such arch-Brexiteers have managed to come up with following two years of planning by those who are supposed to be our leaders?

Geoff Forward

Stirling

We have learned that the EU will attempt to blackmail Britain if we opt for a no-deal departure.

However, the EU bloc and Britain are both members of the World Trade Organisation and, consequently, committed to the legal processes that govern it. Any sanctions against us would clearly be violating international law. And as a no deal is effectively a WTO system they are obliged to accept our decision with no detriment.

Professor David Collins, an authority on the WTO, insists that to do so Brussels would be transgressing the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreements section because it would be arbitrary against Britain only.

Therefore, our legal team should inform the arrogant federalists that if this ploy was tried, the resultant court ruling could cost them billions.

Jim Sokol

Somerset