Paying Tribute to the New Emperor

One of the odder characteristics of a certain strain of British right-wing thinking is the terror that British Prime Ministers might ever disagree with the American president. It's almost as if there's a fear that if Britain takes an different view then Washington will chuck us overboard and find a new european friend with whom to play. (Sometimes that's the Germans, though at the moment the French might be thought the more likely rivals). Such fears are, I suspect, overdone. Still, here's Con Coughlin today:

But the quid pro quo for a bigger American military commitment to Afghanistan is that Washington's European allies - which includes Britain - step up to the plate and commit more resources of their own. But although Britain currently makes the most important contribution in terms of fighting the Taliban, Mr Brown seems strangely reluctant to support the proposed American surge, which could immediately put him on a collision course with the new American president.

It is very much in Britain's national interest to have a good relationship with the White House, and Mr Brown will sacrifice a lot of important political capital if he does not soon come up with a workable strategy for the future deployment of British forces in Afghanistan. 

Indeed, a good relationship with the White House is important, but is it everything? Coughlin's last paragraph has a whiff of antiquity about it: you can imagine such calculations being made by one of Rome's allied (ie, vassal) states or tribes, desperate to remain on good terms with the new emperor and, consequently, reviewing battleplans to impress the man in Rome with the zeal with which you're prepared to send your sons into battle alongside or on behalf of the Empire's own legions... Above all, a "collision course" with the new Emperor must be avoided at any cost...

This is in response to a Times piece claiming that the Americans are disatissfied with British military performance in Helmand province. Perhaps they are. And perhaps the public is increasingly of the view that if the Americans want Helmand province, they can bleedin' well have it...

Comments

[mb]

Sure, let the Americans have Helmand. So we scummy, skiving Brits can sit back and free-ride on the backs of the US. Probably just as well, given the feeble crappiness of the British armed forces these days - just remember those grinning idiot sailors who got captured by the iranian revolutionary guard navy and then were sent shuffling back each with their little goody bag of toys and sweets. Oh sorry, did I say freeriding? That's not right. We're rather more pro-active than that - on the other side - more akin to Pakistan, since we also export our own Pakistani terrorists all over the world.

[ndm]

I think British Prime Ministers are scared shitless about what the right-wing press will say about them if they diss the Americans too much and the Americans cause some grief with the Trident missiles. Is there any reason Britain deems it important to be nuclear armed when the entire arsenal is suppled by the United States and, almost certainly, under the ultimate control of the US President? Or does Gordon Brown really think he can pop one of them off without the explicit say-so of the US President? Not to pick on Gordon Brown because Tony Blair was in the same boat.

[SJD]

It's got nothing to do with the press and everything to do with the attitude expressed by mb, above. A lot of people still can't accept that the loss of the Empire means we are no longer a world power and so they cling to the idea of the "special relationship" as the last sign that Britain means something.

[Hal]

Something I've never understood is that Harold Wilson's government was able to defy the U.S. and stay out of the Vietnam War, at a time when Britain was in considerably worse shape than nowadays, yet Tony Blair felt he had to stick by Bush and help invade Iraq. If Britain could say No to Washington in 1965, it should be easier to do so once in a while now, shouldn't it? (Also, Canada manages to disagree from time to time.)