India among London's fastest growing tourism markets: Report

Feb 4: Americans on Monday kicked off the first vote of the 2020 presidential race as the midwestern state of Iowa began its caucuses, the closely-watched first step in deciding which Democrat will face incumbent Donald Trump in November's election.

The two frontrunners, left-wing Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden face a key test in the sparsely populated state, with a handful of others looking to make their mark to give their campaigns momentum.

The Iowa vote is a critical early look at the viability of the 11 Democratic candidates still in the race - even though just 41 Iowa delegates are up for grabs, a fraction of the 1,991 needed to secure the party nomination in July.

Iowa Democrats filed into nearly 1,700 caucus sites - schools, libraries, churches, mosques and meeting halls with Sanders and Biden in the lead in the state, followed by former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is also on the left of the party.

But polling has fluctuated and Iowa's quirky caucus system - where voting is not by secret ballot but by public declaration for a candidate - makes the night hard to predict.

Luke Elzinga, a volunteer for Sanders, appeared early at Lincoln High School in Des Moines which was converted into a caucus location.

"I think he really inspires a lot of young people, a lot of disaffected voters who might not otherwise turn out," Elzinga, 28, told AFP news agency shortly before the caucusing began.

"And so I think he's the best candidate to beat Trump."

Three candidates - Sanders, Warren and Amy Klobuchar - have faced the unprecedented scenario of spending much of the past two weeks tethered to Washington for the impeachment trial of Trump instead of on the campaign trail in Iowa.

Even as candidates sought to make 11th-hour impressions on undecided voters, the senators were obligated to return to Washington for the trial's closing arguments on Monday.

Defeating Trump

In a vote scheduled for Wednesday, Trump is almost certain to be acquitted by the Republican-led upper house on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

For Democrats, second-tier hopefuls Klobuchar and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang look to outpace expectations and seize momentum heading into the next contest in New Hampshire on February 11.

Earlier on Monday Biden - who still holds the lead in national polls - brought pizza to a field office in a strip mall near Des Moines to thank volunteers.

"I'm feeling good about today," he said.

Like many candidates, Biden spent the weekend crisscrossing Iowa in a final push to convince undecided voters he is best placed to accomplish Democrats' number one goal: defeating Trump.

The president has not stood idly by. On Sunday he branded Biden "Sleepy Joe" and described Sanders as "a communist," previewing a likely line of attack were Sanders to win the nomination.

Unlike secret ballot voting, caucus-goers publicly declare their presidential choice by standing together with other supporters of a candidate.

Candidates who reach 15 percent support earn delegates for the nomination race while supporters of candidates who fall short can shift their allegiance to others.

Turnout is critical, and candidates and their representatives will seek to persuade voters on issues including healthcare, taxes and ending Washington corruption.

One key candidate who has opted not to contest in Iowa is billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg, who entered the race in November but has surged into fourth place in RealClearPolitics' national polling average.

The former New York mayor, who has spent more than $300m on advertising, according to Advertising Analytics, is focused on running a national campaign with particular emphasis on states that vote on "Super Tuesday," on March 3.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.