Usa + Uk = Rip

[hist2004]

USA + UK = RIP

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 4/3/2007

Geopolitics: The "special relationship" linking America and Britain was key to defending the free world in the 20th century. Disturbing signs on both sides of the Atlantic suggest the alliance might soon end.

After serving as a lonely backbench voice who warned against appeasing Germany, Winston Churchill led Britons through the dark days of Nazi bombers and rockets showering London with death. But it was his longtime friendship with Franklin Roosevelt that, long before U.S. entry into World War II, provided Britain with the food, oil and military hardware that helped it survive the early years of that conflict.

Four decades later, Ronald Reagan insisted on treating the USSR as the Evil Empire it was, and more than 70 years of communist tyranny soon ended as a result. But without Margaret Thatcher allowing U.S. cruise missiles protecting Western Europe to be located in Britain, and helping Mikhail Gorbachev achieve power in the Soviet Union by declaring she could "do business with" him, history would have been much different.

Today, the philosophical common ground between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush has meant military cooperation and intelligence sharing vital to fighting the war on terror. The two governments worked closely, for instance, in foiling last summer's trans-Atlantic airline plot, which could have destroyed as many as 10 jets en route from London to the U.S.

Will this unique partnership in world affairs end before too much longer? The signals are not encouraging. As much as Blair's heir apparent chancellor, Gordon Brown, has given assurances of being a "Blairite," it's hard to imagine another Labor Party PM being as supportive of U.S. foreign policy as the current one.

A more disturbing omen is the current leadership of the British Conservative Party. Speaking at a party conference last year, Tory leader David Cameron promised not to be "slavish" to the U.S., spoke of his skepticism of Bush foreign policy, and declared "I'm not a neo-conservative. I'm a liberal conservative."

It's on this side of the water, however, where the worst portents for the future can be found. Before visiting Syria to meet with the president of that terrorist state, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to let the House vote on a resolution condemning Iran for holding 15 British sailors and marines hostage.

The Democratic majority in the Senate did pass a resolution supporting Britain against Iran last week. But as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted in an appearance on Fox News, we don't see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Pelosi or the "various Democratic presidential candidates speaking emphatically about their commitment to the British, their alliance on the side of civilization, their opposition to hostage taking."

With the possibility of a Democratic president taking office less than two years from now, will there continue to be a trans-Atlantic alliance in defense of freedom and the civilized world? Or will a "liberal conservative" or outright socialist in Westminster be paired with a U.S. commander in chief who believes diplomacy is the way to confront terrorist threats?

You can almost hear Churchill warning from the grave of the trouble ahead.

Source: (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=260492685288289&secure=1)

Hist2004

[Hydro]

Tory leader David Cameron promised not to be "slavish" to the U.S., spoke of his skepticism of Bush foreign policy, and declared "I'm not a neo-conservative. I'm a liberal conservative."



David Camerons anything from a liberal conservative to a flannel shirt wearing wearing lumberjack depending on his audience at the time.

[Dasein]

I don't suppose various comments from various conservatives critical of not only Britain's handling of the situation, but also of the sailors and marines themselves helped matters much?

It would seem both the British and the US Democrats believe in diplomacy, while it has bene US conservatives beating the drums for war.

[Lov3ll]

Why is it that every article relating to British affairs always ends in Churchill would be rolling in his grave etc. :|

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It would seem both the British and the US Democrats believe in diplomacy, while it has bene US conservatives beating the drums for war.

If we had actual conservative leadership, Iran would not dare to repeatedly seize our naval forces outside of their own territory for the sole purpose of conducting a propaganda coup de grâce.

[shocker1]

I don't suppose various comments from various conservatives critical of not only Britain's handling of the situation, but also of the sailors and marines themselves helped matters much?

It would seem both the British and the US Democrats believe in diplomacy, while it has bene US conservatives beating the drums for war.
Nice wide brush. You can quote me a true conservative several times on here supporting the quiet calm way the UK and Tony Blair handled this. I also pointed out how bad it would have gone if we were in the midst of it. Issues like this have no political lean, As Americans we should support whatever the UK wants to do in such a situation.

[Rictor]

If we had actual conservative leadership, Iran would not dare to repeatedly seize our naval forces outside of their own territory for the sole purpose of conducting a propaganda coup de grâce.

Interesting way of looking at it. In my mind, if you had actual conservative leadership you wouldn't have troops anywhere near where Iran could seize them. They would be on America's borders, keeping them safe.

...y'know, cause conservativism is supposedly against overseas adventurism and policing the world. Something about "entagling alliances".

[deagle]

personally, i dont like the fact that UK didn't respond to the "apology" of the troopers, thereby admitting fault. I hope that once sailors return home safe, they'll do some PR in the media to boost their image.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Interesting way of looking at it. In my mind, if you had actual conservative leadership you wouldn't have troops anywhere near where Iran could seize them. They would be on America's borders, keeping them safe.

...y'know, cause conservativism is supposedly against overseas adventurism and policing the world. Something about "entagling alliances".

Well if it was 1890 I'd agree with you. Unfortunately the world is a lot more complicated now. Then again, I suppose if they were űber conservative, we'd all be forced to sit in church 24/7 just waiting for God to fix things.

[Kitsune]

It is interesting that, when the close relationship between Britain and America is mentioned, almost invariably Churchills ghost is conjured up. After WWII, the Sovietunion had almost become all powerful in Eurasia - and this had been to quite some part because of Churchill's politics. This situation, and the need for constant US protection which resulted from it, meant the end of independence for the European nations and with it the end of British greatness. In the years that followed, the Empire fell apart and many of the former British dominions, like Canada and Australia, are now much closer to the US than they are to Britain.

But what this also meant, was a change of relations. America and Britain ceased to be partners on equal standing and became patron and client. And with this marginalization, Britain was also of lesser importance to the US than before, which meant an increasing readiness of America to act without regarding the interests of its partner.
In fact, the Special Relationship between the USA and Britain, which the author of the article above tries to conjure so vividly, has waned a long time since. Pessimists may even say that it is already dead. But the bottomline is: it started to fade since WWII, not despite but as a result of Winston Churchills politics.

It may be forgotten now, but there was a time when Britain and America were no friends, when the word "Special Relationship" had not yet been invented. Even in the early 19th century, when the power relations of both nations were reversed, the fledgling America did not follow every move of the British Empire (if the Americans had done that, their would be no USA in the first place). In most of the following century, the two nations did see each other more as enemies or rivals than as friends (both fought against each other in the War of 1812 and during the Secession War, the British openely sympathized with the Confederation) and only from the 1890ties on, a partnership started to develope. Even until as late as the thirties of the 20th century, the US armed forces saw a future war against Britain as one possible scenario. To sum it up: the Anglo-American partnership started in the late 19th century, had a first high during WWI, reduced somewhat in the 20ties and 30ties, surged again and had its apex in WWII and began to fade after it.

In other words: times change. With those changes, relationships change, at least they used to do so in the past. The partnership between Britain and America formed, changed to a patron/client relation half a century later and began to fade. Today it should be allowed to question wether the past must define the future and wether it really makes sense to declare it to be a sacred cow.

[Kilo]

It is interesting that, when the close relationship between Britain and America is mentioned, almost invariably Churchills ghost is conjured up. After WWII, the Sovietunion had almost become all powerful in Eurasia - and this had been to quite some part because of Churchill's politics. This situation, and the need for constant US protection which resulted from it, meant the end of independence for the European nations and with it British greatness. In the years that followed, the Empire fell apart and many of the former British dominions, like Canada and Australia, are now much closer to the US than they are to Britain.

But what this also meant, was a change of relations. America and Britain ceased to be partners on equal standing and became patron and client. And with this marginalization, Britain was also of lesser importance to the US than before, which meant an increasing readiness of America to act without regarding the interests of its partner.
In fact, the Special Relationship between the USA and Britain, which the author of the article above tries to conjure so vividly, has waned a long time since. Pessimists may even say that it is already dead. But the bottomline is: it started to fade since WWII, not despite but as a result of Winston Churchills politics.

It may be forgotten now, but there was a time when Britain and America were no friends, when the word "Special Relationship" had not yet been invented. Even in the early 19th century, when the power relations of both nations were reversed, the fledgling America did not follow every move of the British Empire (if the Americans had done that, their would be no USA in the first place). In most of the following century, the two nations did see each other more as enemies or rivals than as friends (both fought against each other in the War of 1812 and during the Secession War, the British openely sympathized with the Confederation) and only from the 1890ties on, a partnership started to develope. Even until as late as the thirties of the 20th century, the US armed forces saw a future war against Britain as one possible scenario. To sum it up: the Anglo-American partnership started in the late 19th century, had a first high during WWI, reduced somewhat in the 20ties and 30ties, surged again and had its apex in WWII and began to fade after it.

In other words: times change. With those changes, relationships change, at least they used to do so in the past. The partnership between Britain and America formed, changed to a patron/client relation half a century later and began to fade. Today it should be allowed to question wether the past must define the future and wether it really makes sense to declare it to be a holy cow.

interesting post

just remeber what happened during the Suez Crisis in 56....

[Laworkerbee]

The Anglo Alliance has always had its strains like any good relationship but our common interests bind us together.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It is interesting that, when the close relationship between Britain and America is mentioned, almost invariably Churchills ghost is conjured up. After WWII, the Sovietunion had almost become all powerful in Eurasia - and this had been to quite some part because of Churchill's politics.

Can you explain what you mean by this? IMHO Churchill was in no position to unilaterally dictate the terms of postwar Europe, so I find it odd to hold him responsible for it. I would hold the USSR responsible for the USSR's actions after WWII.



This situation, and the need for constant US protection which resulted from it, meant the end of independence for the European nations and with it the end of British greatness. In the years that followed, the Empire fell apart and many of the former British dominions, like Canada and Australia, are now much closer to the US than they are to Britain.

Again - I see misplaced blame here. Europe largely charted it's own course after WWII. They chose to spend lavishly on social programs instead of building and maintaining appropriately sized military organizations (a trend which has continued and accelerated). Is Churchill still to blame for their choices?



But what this also meant, was a change of relations. America and Britain ceased to be partners on equal standing and became patron and client. And with this marginalization, Britain was also of lesser importance to the US than before, which meant an increasing readiness of America to act without regarding the interests of its partner.

When? I can think of very few instances where our interests have come into conflict or when one has infringed upon the interests of the other. Certainly the US has more horsepower behind it - as our nation is newer & so experienced far more growth (which = money, which = power) and we have more people (300m vs. 60m) and land (3.8m sq mi vs 94k sq mi) - a lopsided relationship was/is inevitable. But considering these inequities, it is remarkable how close our nations are. It's nothing at all like the client/patron relationship of the USSR with it's former client states.



In fact, the Special Relationship between the USA and Britain, which the author of the article above tries to conjure so vividly, has waned a long time since. Pessimists may even say that it is already dead. But the bottomline is: it started to fade since WWII, not despite but as a result of Winston Churchills politics.

I'd say that if it's faded (which I agree it has, but not nearly to the degree you're saying) - it's simply because of reality, not Churchill. We're thousand of miles of ocean apart, our demographics are changing, the generation that fought alongside the UK in WWII is nearly gone - it's to be expected. Christ, they burned the White House to the ground - it's amazing that we're not committed to destroying each other like two rival Afghan tribes.



Today it should be allowed to question wether the past must define the future and wether it really makes sense to declare it to be a holy cow.

Heh heh, I think you mean "sacred cow". A "holy cow" is what you say when you see Scarlett Johanssens's ****s.

[Sergei]

USA + UK = RIP


Four decades later, Ronald Reagan insisted on treating the USSR as the Evil Empire it was, and more than 70 years of communist tyranny soon ended as a result. But without Margaret Thatcher allowing U.S. cruise missiles protecting Western Europe to be located in Britain, and helping Mikhail Gorbachev achieve power in the Soviet Union by declaring she could "do business with" him, history would have been much different.



Does this mean that Gorbachev was actually a CIA "mole"?

[Herrmannek]

Never forget Poland :)

[Breakfast in Vegas]

If I had to choose one ally, I'd want no other ally than the UK, and I think most other Americans feel the same.

Don't know what the British think of us yanks anymore though... :)

[Ed the bumbling fool]

The US UK relationship isn't quite a patron client one but is obviously not the same as when a United British empire was as powerful as the US on its own. American policy was effectively a dived and conquer operation by dissolving the empire they elevated there own position in the world.
With this I personally have no real problem except in some cases it lead to poor decisions being rushed through in the 44's and 50's which still haunt the world today, (The borders of Palestine and Israel , Indian and Pakistani independence, Indochina then Vietnam, and dare I say it the betrayal of Poland just to name a few). Most of these incidentally had little direct effect on the US.
To bring Churchill back into it he was not happy about these decisions but was either no longer in power or dealing with a nation that was broke and sick of war. The Americans were also sick of war even though there participation was shorter and to a greater extent profitable rather than costly. The US were gifted almost all UK technology as well as bleeding us dry of foreign assets.
So we opted for a compromise on many issues with peace in Europe and settled into rebuilding and paying our debts.This I believe was the correct thing to do.
The relationship then continued because of the common language, History and the fact that Britain was the link to Europe that the US needed.
Looking to now the EU or particularly the Nato EU members have filled the vacuum left by both the Warsaw pact and a weaker commonwealth.
This in turn leaves the UK wandering in the middle ground having to decide which way to go. I personally believe she will continue to wander but will drift across the Atlantic and back at will. Ie if the US seams out of order she will side with the Europeans, and if Europe gets dragged of line by Minor nation social politics she will drift back again.
This policy will probably ensure the UK gets a good deal in most situations and also has input above her fighting weight in most instances. You could call it a form of blackmail but most just call it politics.

[Rictor]

Well if it was 1890 I'd agree with you. Unfortunately the world is a lot more complicated now. Then again, I suppose if they were űber conservative, we'd all be forced to sit in church 24/7 just waiting for God to fix things.


Well, God and the hidden hand of the Market.;)

And you're right: it isn't 1890. Back then, the US wasn't the world's foremost economic, military and cultural power. Back then, there were a dozen potentially hostile empires who could wage large-scale war on the US if they desired. Back then, there were several credible threats to the America's national security which, if anything, warranted the kind of military largesse which today is unjustifiable.

How is it that with a mere wave of the wand, "the world is complicated", you can simply dispell centuries-old notions of national sovereignty? But putting aside such petty notions as justice, sovereignty and so on, it is in America's simply, practical best interest to practica non-interference. For $300 billion, you could have the most secure borders imaginable to man, have bribed Saddam and Mullah Omar into becoming your new best friends and still have money left over to keep the ever-present military industry happy as a pig in ****.

[Kitsune]

If I had to choose one ally, I'd want no other ally than the UK, and I think most other Americans feel the same.

Oh dear. With this statement you may have hurt the feelings of many people in Canada...
But no matter. There is an easy solution: If you don't want it, let us agree that Canada joins the EU and in return Britain becomes the 51th state of the USA. Deal? ;-)

[Laworkerbee]

I agree with a lot of what you said Rictor but I think you will have a tough time buying any religious zealots friendship.

Those men cherish their notion of God more than money and love the idea of romanticized death more then the dreary lives they leave behind.

There can be no peace with the likes of AQ

Saddam on the other hand...well I wish I could have gone back in time and just had five minutes with him to plead to him to pull his head from his ass and do business as usual....

[Laworkerbee]

Oh dear. With this statement you may have hurt the feelings of many people in Canada...
But no matter. There is an easy solution: If you don't want it, let us agree that Canada joins the EU and in return Britain becomes the 51th state of the USA. Deal? ;-)

No deal

Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are our own English speaking club.

The "Anglo-Alliance"

[sp2c]

Again - I see misplaced blame here. Europe largely charted it's own course after WWII. They chose to spend lavishly on social programs instead of building and maintaining appropriately sized military organizations (a trend which has continued and accelerated). Is Churchill still to blame for their choices?


Europe is not, has never been and will never be a single country

in fact the US forced us to spend less money on building and maintaining appropriately sized military organizations (twice actually ... while demanding we deploy to Korea in between!) and yes, unfortunatly the trend set in motion after the decolonisation period has indeed continued to this day

you can't say things are not black and white on one issue and then say it's all black on the other

[Laworkerbee]

Europe is not, has never been and will never be a single country

in fact the US forced us to spend less money on building and maintaining appropriately sized military organizations (twice actually ... while demanding we deploy to Korea in between!) and yes, unfortunatly the trend set in motion after the decolonisation period has indeed continued to this day

you can't say things are not black and white on one issue and then say it's all black on the other

OK I will bite...how were you "forced" to spend less on defense?

[AZRON]

No deal

Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are our own English speaking club.

The "Anglo-Alliance"

That's the way I see it.

Rightly or wrongly many 3rd world countries see this as an alliance of the Anglo-Saxons, Saddam said that the Anglo-Saxons ( Crusaders) have invaded Iraq in '03.

[juliuspret]

No deal

Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are our own English speaking club.

The "Anglo-Alliance"

I'll be happy as Ireland will have no part of this silly club of yours!

[Kitsune]

@2Sheds_Jackson




Can you explain what you mean by this? IMHO Churchill was in no position to unilaterally dictate the terms of postwar Europe, so I find it odd to hold him responsible for it. I would hold the USSR responsible for the USSR's actions after WWII.


Again - I see misplaced blame here. Europe largely charted it's own course after WWII. They chose to spend lavishly on social programs instead of building and maintaining appropriately sized military organizations (a trend which has continued and accelerated). Is Churchill still to blame for their choices?

I didn not say that Winston was all powerful. I am saying that his politics to some degree led to the world after WWII, and that seems not to daring an assertion. His strategy was to almost singlemindedly make war on Germany while being allied with Stalin at the same time. To his credit, one must say that he seemed to have gotten second thoughts regarding the Sovietunion towards the end of WWII.

Until then it was to late, however, since Roosevelt was even more singleminded in this and by then Britain had already become too dependent on the USA to be able to control matters. As a result, there was deliberately no attempt made by the Western powers to support the German resistance movement, to kill Hitler and to accept an ending of WWII that left Germany intact as a sovereign nation so that it could have, at least to a part, been a counterbalance to the Sovietunion.

Of course, something like this isn't contemplated today anymore, since everyone takes it for granted now that the Soviet Empire would collapse four decades later. But in the early fifties, when Stalin was still alive and Eurasia just had turned red except for some of its Western and Eastern fringes, many people, even Churchill to a part, saw things differently. From the perpective back then, there was no telling how long Soviet power would last - it could have been as well forty decades instead of four. Some even feared that the Communists could be ones who win the Cold War.

In that situation, with this ending of WWII, there was no way for a war ravaged Europe to defend itself alone against the Eastern threat. Not that this proved to be a problem for the US (quite the opposite, this situation became one of the cornerstones of the global supremacy of America), but for the nations of Europe, including Britain, it meant that they stopped being subjects of domination and became objects to be dominated by others.






When? I can think of very few instances where our interests have come into conflict or when one has infringed upon the interests of the other. Certainly the US has more horsepower behind it - as our nation is newer & so experienced far more growth (which = money, which = power) and we have more people (300m vs. 60m) and land (3.8m sq mi vs 94k sq mi) - a lopsided relationship was/is inevitable. But considering these inequities, it is remarkable how close our nations are. It's nothing at all like the client/patron relationship of the USSR with it's former client states.
The one example that comes to mind here has already been mentioned: the Suez crisis. Apart from that, Britain has indeed tried hard to adapt its interests to the ones of the US - the last time was very recently, by the way.





I'd say that if it's faded (which I agree it has, but not nearly to the degree you're saying) - it's simply because of reality, not Churchill. We're thousand of miles of ocean apart, our demographics are changing, the generation that fought alongside the UK in WWII is nearly gone - it's to be expected. Christ, they burned the White House to the ground - it's amazing that we're not committed to destroying each other like two rival Afghan tribes.
There are certainly different viewpoints about how the relationship is doing but many people seem to agree that it has begun to fade long before Gulfwar II. Even back in the sixites, Americas leadership was not as pro-British anymore as during WWII. Still, whatever the future might hold, no one is talking about starting a war between Britain and the USA again. So, don't worry, your President's home should be safe for the time being.





Heh heh, I think you mean "sacred cow". A "holy cow" is what you say when you see Scarlett Johanssens's ****s.
In fact, I said "Good Lord"...but thanks. I have corrected that.

[Kitsune]

No deal

Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States are our own English speaking club.

The "Anglo-Alliance"

Hmmm. There are some Canadians who speak French, you know. And most of the rest seem to speak Chinese these days...

[Laworkerbee]

Hmmm. There are some Canadians who speak French, you know. And most of the rest seem to speak Chinese these days...

Pure semantics....

[sp2c]

OK I will bite...how were you "forced" to spend less on defense?

spent less or no more marshal funds

[Ed the bumbling fool]

I'll be happy as Ireland will have no part of this silly club of yours!

This silly club has preserved the world in which you can peacefully prosper. It fed you during WW2 and has otherwise protected the rights of minor states like yourself . All this for a few counties of people who don't want to be your citizens seams a small price.
I have a great amount of time for Ireland and the Irish people but statements like this do stir my blood a little.

[Freibier]

This silly club has preserved the world in which you can peacefully prosper. It fed you during WW2 and has otherwise protected the rights of minor states like yourself . All this for a few counties of people who don't want to be your citizens seams a small price.
I have a great amount of time for Ireland and the Irish people but statements like this do stir my blood a little.
so what???

[FMolloy]

It fed you during WW2 and has otherwise protected the rights of minor states like yourself.

Ireland was more or less self-sufficient when it came to food in WW2, exporting a fair amount to the UK. Apart from that I'd agree with the spirit of your comment.

[Atlantic Friend]

You can almost hear Churchill warning from the grave of the trouble ahead.

These days invoking Winston Churchill and putting words in his ghost's mouth seems to be mandatory when writing about Great Britain. It's the great "oh, the great and mighty have gone, and only squabbling pygmies remain" that has been around for the last, what, ten thousands years or so ?

Anyone writing about the perceived decline of Great Britain in 1938 would probably have invoked Disraeli's ghost. And before that it would have been Wellington's, Richard Lionheart's, King Arthur's, Queen Boadicea's, and Great Bog Lord Hugga-Mugga's.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I don't know why people are saying Churuchill was a good PM. He was pretty crap in my opinion. It was his direct policies that lead to the eventual decline of the British Empire. He was a war mongering fool.

[number nine]

I don't know why people are saying Churuchill was a good PM. He was pretty crap in my opinion. It was his direct policies that lead to the eventual decline of the British Empire. He was a war mongering fool.

And what was an option? Dumb UK generals killed million of their own soldiers in WWI - though Germans and French did that error too. After WWI British Empire was beginning to collapse. After WWII, USA was so much stronger than British Isles, and able to exert pressure if UK was to try maintaining the integrity of the empire by military means. British Empire was destroyed in WWI trenches. Of course, USA wanted to be leading western nation, not second by power. For example, British military commitment to Canada or Australia could be met by USA even militarily, and don't ask who would win! Britain would become US state, in that scenario.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

Ireland was more or less self-sufficient when it came to food in WW2, exporting a fair amount to the UK. Apart from that I'd agree with the spirit of your comment.

Admittedly I'm sourcing this from Churchill's post war writings (the second world war not sure which volume) I Guess in afterthought it meant that the north Atlantic convoy system also made allowances for Irelands Needs , As far as I know they had no Gothenburg type agreement to allow essential trade so shipping and Goods that could have been used for British needs was in fact supporting Ireland. please correct me if Im wrong on this.

[oldsoak]

IIRC Rep of Ireland was self sufficient for foodstufts, but she was dependant on the rest of the world for industrial goods and oil. Some of these goods would have inevitably travelled on Allied shipping as most of Irish trade was with the UK. It was felt that Irish neutrality was worth looking after if only to keep them neutral. Remember that Irish independence had only recently been achieved, and the relationship with the UK was not the best. Having said that, had Ireland been an ally, the resources to bring her defences up to scratch would have been a serious drain on her economy and allied manufacturing capacity.