Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'

    Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'

    A senior American official has spoken of "the myth of the special relationship" between the United States and Britain, arguing that Tony Blair got "nothing, no payback" for supporting President George W Bush in Iraq.


    Kendall Myers, a leading State Department adviser, suggested that Mr Blair should have been ditched by Labour but the party had lacked the "courage or audacity" to remove him.
    David Cameron, the Conservative leader, was "shrewd, astute" to have distanced himself from America.
    In candid comments that will embarrass Mr Bush and Mr Blair, the veteran official said America "ignored" Britain, and he urged Britain to decouple itself from the US.
    He asserted that the "special relationship", a term coined by Sir Winston Churchill in 1946, gave Britain little or nothing.
    advertisement

    "It has been, from the very beginning, very one-sided. There never really has been a special relationship, or at least not one we've noticed."
    The result of the Iraq war would be that any future British premier would be much less cosy with Washington than Mr Blair had been, and the Prime Minister's much vaunted view that Britain was "a transatlantic bridge" was now redundant.
    Mr Myers said Donald Rumsfeld's comment before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that America could go it alone without Britain had been a clarifying moment.
    "That was the giveaway. I felt a little ashamed and a certain sadness that we had treated him [Mr Blair] like that. And yet, here it was, there was nothing – no payback, no sense of a reciprocity of the relationship."
    During the Vietnam War, Harold Wilson had been "a great deal more clever than Tony Blair". Mr Wilson "managed to fool us on Vietnam" and "succeeded by sounding good but doing nothing".
    Mr Blair had done the opposite. "Blair got it the other way round and joined in this Iraq adventure."
    Mr Myers conceded that the Prime Minister had faced a difficult decision in 2003. "The way that Iraq developed, it would have been extremely difficult for Tony Blair to have done a Harold Wilson."
    The Bush administration took little account of what Britain said, Mr Myers said. "We typically ignore them and take no notice. We say, 'There are the Brits coming to tell us how to run our empire. Let's park them'. It is a sad business and I don't think it does them justice."
    Mr Blair, he said, was more articulate than Mr Bush, but the Prime Minister's ignorance of the British experience in Mesopotamia had led him to make a catastrophic error in backing the Iraq invasion. "Unfortunately, Tony Blair's background was as an actor and not an historian. If only he'd read a book on the 1920s he might have hesitated."
    Iraq became a nation state in 1920 after being carved out by the French and British from the remains of the Ottoman empire. It turned out to be a bloody affair that Churchill referred to as the "Mesopotamian entanglement".
    In the Middle East, America had "not only failed to do what we wanted in Iraq but we have greatly strained our relationships with others".
    Iraq was the single issue that now dominated transatlantic affairs, but Mr Blair had been unable to get anything in return from Mr Bush. "I can't think of anything he got on the asset side of the ledger."
    Mr Myers, a senior analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Analysis and Research, was speaking in a lecture in Washington at the School of Advanced International Studies, part of Johns Hopkins University.
    The public lecture was entitled: "How special is the United States-United Kingdom relationship after Iraq?"
    Mr Myers said Mr Blair's reputation was in tatters over Iraq. "One of the most brilliant prime ministerships of modern times was brought a cropper by the Iraq war."
    Mr Cameron had been cunning to say in September that Britain must be "not slavish in how we approach the special relationship".
    A State Department spokesman said: "The views expressed by Mr Myers in no way represent the views of the United States government."
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    special relationship

    The so called "special relationship" did not help the uk during the IRA war or during the falkands.

    Comment


    • #3
      Did in the Falklands - rather a great deal of US intel assets found their way to the UK.
      Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
      Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pdf27 View Post
        Did in the Falklands - rather a great deal of US intel assets found their way to the UK.
        Not to mention Sidewinders (L or M's IIRC) which gave the SHAR's the edge in air-to-air.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dabong1 View Post
          The so called "special relationship" did not help the uk during the IRA war or during the falkands.
          As for the Falklands, there was lots of intel-sharing, lots of diplomatic top cover, lots of LOTS of stuff you'll never hear about.

          Completely false.

          Comment


          • #6
            wow

            The americans give some intel and some missiles......wow
            What intel did give the americans give on the IRA?
            British soldiers die in iraq and afghanistan for american foreign policy when was the last time americans died for the british government other then the the world wars.
            Look at what the british have done for the america's compared to the argies and tell me have the american's really backed britian.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dabong1 View Post
              The americans give some intel and some missiles......wow
              What intel did give the americans give on the IRA?
              British soldiers die in iraq and afghanistan for american foreign policy when was the last time americans died for the british government other then the the world wars.
              Look at what the british have done for the america's compared to the argies and tell me have the american's really backed britian.
              Well, you're very welcome, I'm sure, you ungrateful punk.

              How 'bout keeping the Soviets out of your pubs and off the village green, then? Does that not count for anything by your reckoning?

              You know, I really have to find that old quote that goes something like, 'There's nothing so honorable as having opposed some long-forgotten heresy.'

              Well, we opposed the COMMUNISTS, THAT heresy, whom about half of Western Europe was on the verge of surrendering to after any given election, and do you think we'll ever get any credit for THAT? Nooooooo, but Monsiuer Crapaud and Fritz Cabbagewalloper and Limey McToffee all want to criticize every time we have to show the leadership that they won't, to solve a problem that vitally affects them or their postal code, but which they can't find the will or muscle to actually DO anything about.

              Such as BOSNIA, which had nothing to do with OUR national defense, but which we were begged to, you know, sort it out for the people that had taken charge initially...and run the project right into the ditch, as the killing got worse instead of better.

              Don't tell me we've not been there for the Brits, you idiot; or course we have, and if you think they're there for us now as some sort of charity work, perhaps it should be pointed out that Iraq vitally concerns the rest of the world that isn't interested in actually making things worse, such as our actual enemies. The rest of the world, however, either hasn't figured that out yet...or they're just going to shirk their responsibilities and let Americans - and Brits, I should acknowledge - die FOR THEM.

              Have the Americans really backed Britain? Dam' right, we have.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hang on, there; I think I jumped to a conclusion. dabong isn't a Brit, is he?

                Likely he is NOT, otherwise, he'd be more 'up' on the subject.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                  Well, you're very welcome, I'm sure, you ungrateful punk.

                  How 'bout keeping the Soviets out of your pubs and off the village green, then? Does that not count for anything by your reckoning?

                  How many american soldiers died fighting the soviets in western europe?



                  Well, we opposed the COMMUNISTS, THAT heresy, whom about half of Western Europe was on the verge of surrendering to after any given election, and do you think we'll ever get any credit for THAT? Nooooooo, but Monsiuer Crapaud and Fritz Cabbagewalloper and Limey McToffee all want to criticize every time we have to show the leadership that they won't, to solve a problem that vitally affects them or their postal code, but which they can't find the will or muscle to actually DO anything about.

                  How about using your brain to solve a problem.

                  Such as BOSNIA, which had nothing to do with OUR national defense, but which we were begged to, you know, sort it out for the people that had taken charge initially...and run the project right into the ditch, as the killing got worse instead of better.

                  Last i checked the americans where a member of nato.It's okay for you to call on nato's help when you need it but when europe want's nato's help the american's do want to know.

                  Don't tell me we've not been there for the Brits, you idiot; or course we have, and if you think they're there for us now as some sort of charity work, perhaps it should be pointed out that Iraq vitally concerns the rest of the world that isn't interested in actually making things worse, such as our actual enemies. The rest of the world, however, either hasn't figured that out yet...or they're just going to shirk their responsibilities and let Americans - and Brits, I should acknowledge - die FOR THEM.

                  The rest of the world is suffering from some sort of mass delusion and only the american's can see the threat. FREEDOM DEMOCRACY...... calm down and take a breath HUMAN RIGHTS...damn another one popped out.

                  Have the Americans really backed Britain? Dam' right, we have.
                  Suez War of 1956

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dabong1 View Post
                    Suez War of 1956
                    Suez doesnt count. Suez was an Imperial adventure at a time in history when imperial adventures should have been history.

                    The relationship between Britain and USA is not quite as some would view it in the UK - we are a junior partner, often ignored and sidelined. However, the strength of the alliance in times of real extremis should not be ignored. Both sides try to get something out the arrangement - the Americans are not in it for altruistic reasons ( and nor are we). We need US support in terms of intel, naval power etc. Likewise, we are sometimes very useful to them.

                    It would certainly be wrong to draw parallels or go too far into the past - the interwar years don't really have that much relevance today.

                    The UK gets it wrong sometimes - appearing to be too much of a "poodle" to the US, which reduces our ability to work with our European allies. Much of that is due to the personality of our current, glorious leader. No one ever accused Thatcher of being a poodle... well, not more than once ;)

                    One point that we perhaps did "get it right" was Vietnam, where we refused to help.
                    BTW - the USA was not asked to intervene directly in the Falklands by the UK.
                    Last edited by PubFather; 04 Dec 06,, 21:04.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by PubFather View Post
                      Suez doesnt count. Suez was an Imperial adventure at a time in history when imperial adventures should have been history.

                      Not the whole story though. Under the Suez Canal Company, ships of any nation had rights of passage through the canal. When Nasser nationalised it Israeli ships were not allowed to use it. Rights could have been withdrawn from other countries if they continued to trade with Israel. (France and Britain had guaranteed free passage to flags of all nations). This was clearly intolerable to Israel, France and Britain and we all know what happened next.

                      The relationship between Britain and USA is not quite as some would view it in the UK - we are a junior partner, often ignored and sidelined. However, the strength of the alliance in times of real extremis should not be ignored. Both sides try to get something out the arrangement - the Americans are not in it for altruistic reasons ( and nor are we). We need US support in terms of intel, naval power etc. Likewise, we are sometimes very useful to them.

                      We are mutually beneficial to each other. We each have strengths, in our different ways. The US Armed forces are huge, modern and well equipped. If you want big hitters, these are the boys to have onside. Ours are below optimum size, and only 'adequately' equipped with fairly modern toys. Our strength is in our training and professionalism. Another benefit is our experience all over the globe. The US Intelligence services are the worlds biggest. Their budget is immense. They are the equivalent to their military, fine en masse, but lacking the deft touch in those particulars that are often so important. Europe is pretty good in the Int world, in fact, and of course we are also in Europe.

                      It would certainly be wrong to draw parallels or go too far into the past - the interwar years don't really have that much relevance today.

                      I would agree, but useful lessons could be drawn, and hopefully by now learnt.

                      The UK gets it wrong sometimes - appearing to be too much of a "poodle" to the US, which reduces our ability to work with our European allies. Much of that is due to the personality of our current, glorious leader. No one ever accused Thatcher of being a poodle... well, not more than once ;)

                      I'd be amazed if anyone ever had!

                      One point that we perhaps did "get it right" was Vietnam, where we refused to help.
                      BTW - the USA was not asked to intervene directly in the Falklands by the UK.
                      My personal view, and it is one not shared by many, is that the US was wrong to pull the rug from under our feet over Suez. France still hasn't forgiven them.
                      Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        glyn,

                        My personal view, and it is one not shared by many, is that the US was wrong to pull the rug from under our feet over Suez. France still hasn't forgiven them.
                        from the US point of view, the brits do deserve consideration because they've worked beyond "mutual beneficiary" in terms of the US-British alliance. however, the french, even in alliance, has always wanted to keep the relationship at arms length (at best). so i say, whatever france does, we reciprocate.

                        for example, right after paris was liberated in WWII, de gaulle proposed a secret alliance to churchill to contain the americans. churchill laughed it off, of course, but de gaulle was quite serious about the matter...
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X