A special relationship in the making?

Nicholas

Refreshing? Rose-tinted and lacking substance more like.

Always the "junior partner"? Perhaps therein lies the problem. The reach of Cameron's historical understanding and personal associations in respect of the United States seem somewhat limited.

Cuffleyburgers

Britain has been junior partner since the second world war, and indeed a key war aim of the USA was to topple the Empire from top spot as a world player.

In this she has been aided and abetted at various times by the French (and latterly the EU, the same thing) and (mostly) by our own governments' inability to defend the national interest.

However the contrast between Cameron's rather grown-up exposition of his views, and his predecessors' is most welcome.

Tarka the Rotter

The impression given is that of a supplicant prostrating himself before the throne of an Imperial power. Not sure it IS in our best national interest to imply our fates lie entwined together and am not convinced our values are identical, even if many are the same. He got a nice poke at Labour over the Lockerbie bomber though, so it is not all bad!

EC

Good morning David,

It will be interesting to see how DC's world class old Etonian charm works on the charmless Barack Obama. One would have to have absolutely no class at all not to succumb just a tiny bit - wouldn't one?

Nicholas Hallam

"Teenagers in the U.S. play music by British bands and our kids listen to rap."

So let's party.

denis cooper

A lot of wishful thinking, at least as far as Cameron chooses to present his thinking in his article.

Anyway, give it a few more decades and the question of whether the UK has a "special relationship" with the USA will become meaningless, as all our relationships with countries outside the EU will be mediated through and managed by the EU.

As Cameron and Hague know, privately agreeing with what the then German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said back in 2007:

https://www.allianz.com/en/press/news/commitment_news/community/news_2007-01-15.html

"In his closing remarks, Steinmeier noted there is much work to be done, conceding that visions for Europe are projects that will take up the next 20 to 30 years and citing a future European army as an example. He also noted that this century could well see the disappearance of national foreign ministers, that the "German foreign minister" is probably a dying breed."

Still no commentary here on the Commons debate of July 14th:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100714/debtext/100714-0003.htm

when MPs voted 312 - 12 to approve the immediate establishment of the European External Action Service as an eventual replacement for the national diplomatic corps of the EU member states.

Andrew Savage

Thanks David - really appreciate the time taken to get behind the WSJ paywall to both summarise and provide excerpts from Cameron's article.

Occasional Ostrich

@Nicholas

Cameron's reach of history . . . yes, I spluttered a bit over that too, but look at it from an American perspective: For them, history starts the day they are born. Anything older that is either religion or mythology.

Chuck Unsworth

We should distinguish between 'values' and 'interests'. They are certainly not the same - although many do not understand the difference.

Regrettably, America has chosen to impose its interests upon Britain - as it does with so many other countries. It's time to call a halt to this encroachment. We must not continue to make the mistake of supporting America's (dubious) values whilst neglecting what is in our own interests.

America seems to believe that it is always right and that it will always 'win', if necessary by force of arms. That patently is not so - Vietnam being but one clear example.

Worse, other countries' disagreement with America has led to a new Colonialism in Washington. America simply cannot continue to impose its 'values' on the rest of the world. It cannot afford it, and the economic successes of China, India, Russia and so on have redressed the balance of power dramatically.

American foreign policy has continued to inhabit the immediate post-war era, whilst most others have simply moved on. For all its military and (diminishing) economic strength, America is dying. Obama is probably not the solution.

alexsandr

Why do politicians think the US is so important. Most of the electorate want nothing to do with them. If the americans want our respect they should earn it.

Frank P

The perfect answer to this persiflage was written before this was published - by Melanie Phillips of this parish, in her Daily Mail article yesterday.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=754

In effect - Britain's foreign policy in any relationship, special or otherwise, is being negated by the exponential expansion of EU power. Our representation in that game comprises what Melanie so amusing describes:

"And on top of this whole baroque edifice of extra-territorial excess sits Baroness Ashton, the living embodiment of Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pooh-Bah or Lady High Everything Else, whose epic expenditure appears to be matched in scale only by her incompetence."

Wonderful! Wish I could conjure up and pen such devastating clarity. I'd apply for the job Fraser Nelson advertised the other day, upon which he intends to dump his own duties when the hapless candidate is appointed, so that he can concentrate on his extra-murals.

TrevorsDen

The 'special relationship' is 'special' because it involves sharing intelligence. Such a relationship requires ultimate trust. It was born out of the Second World war and
a) the sharing of Emigma intelligence.
and
b) the building and deployment of the atom bomb.

Its much overused and misunderstood, it does not mean mutual admiration and there has always been strains within what is a broad strategic understanding.

Edward Sutherland

Here we go again: British PM goes to Washington to pay tribute; the press over here works itself into paroxysms of excitement, whilst 99.9% of the US will remain ignorant and unconcerned by the visit. Isn't it time we in the UK grew up and realised that so far as the US is concerned there is absolutely nothing special about the relationship; just another foreign PM in town for a few hours. America will always, first and last, look after its own interests, and if the UK's don't align with these, don't expect any consideration or favours.

Vulture

Those who argue that the Special relationship is a one-way street have it right.

It is not quite correct, however, that Britain is 'just another foreign country' to America.

For instance, I am currently writing a history book for two publishers - one in London, one in New York. But its the same book.

No European publisher would commission an original book from an English author. So our linguistic/historical ties count for more than kneejerk anti-Americans claim.

Why else has Christopher Hitchens, Tina Browne, Harold Evans et al made lucrative careers from simply being Englishmen(and women) in Noo Yawk?

The Anglo-Saxon worldview - rugged individualism; rule of law; democracy; Protestant bloody-mindedness - is very different from that of continental Europe. Which is why we will never fit comfortably into the EU.

yank

Well, the roots of today's strategic relationship probably go back to the Monroe Doctrine, which the Royal Navy back-boned (no pipsqueak yank navy was going to make that one stick, and even Ray Charles can see that), for reasons of Empire and Continental maneuver.

To be sure, the roles began to reverse 120 or so years ago, when the RN ceased armed patrols in the Carribean, and the lords removed war with the US from their military's strategic instruction, but today's relationship is fully in line with the past's, and is of same structure. That's how we know it's well thought out... and has survived the centuries... because it's rooted in something more than military power.

What that "something more" is, well, that's open to discussion... call it special... call it a banana if you want.

Trafalgar

I wish we could all stop using the "special relationship" phrase. It's patronising to the UK and we should pursue our own interests, regardless of whether they benefit the USA - and that includes our involvement in Afghanistan.

The US has only one special relationship and that is with Israel.

Ahmed Khan

I totally agree with Cuffleyburgers – We don’t want any special relationship with the Yanks. We should never forgive them for ‘sitching’ us up during the Suez crisis!

Chuck Unsworth

@ Vulture

"Which is why we will never fit comfortably into the EU"

Maybe, but do you suppose we will fit comfortably into the USA? We are not some quaint far off part of the States - much as many Americans might believe.

Ahmed Khan

@Yank

Would be interesting to read your opinions on this or are you just happy to hide in Shame?

Noa

"There may be differences in emphasis and application, but, Cameron argues, Britain and America stand together on Afghanistan, global terror, free trade and tackling poverty and climate change...".
Really?
On Afghanistan the majority of the UK oppose the UK presence this futile campaign which serves no clear British interest.
Global terror - the US strategic direction conveniently ignores the hydra headed nature of Islamic terrorism; in Pakistan, Somalia and the middle east. and fails, like the UK, to address the growing problem of 'the enemy within', except in thev growth of state repression.
Free trade? The US operates, as always, substantive protection and trade discrimination policies against the UK and Europe.
Tackling poverty. As in the UK the leftist nature of Obama's government is no doubt increasing US welfare dependency and US foreign aid is similarly subject to increasing wastefulness and self deception, at the expense of traditional interests and allies such as Israel.

Climate change- The US is indeed subject to the same deceptions of its electorate by its politicians and scientists. Possibly they may recover from it before we do, but I doubt it.

So the two leaders do indeed seem to be united presently in a political agenda of self harm and self-deception at the expense of their respective best interests.
One will no doubt become a secondary state in a larger locally based federatiion. But the UK may yet see sense and pull back from full EU absorbtion and domination.

yank

Mr. Khan,

Yes, re the Suez business, the children required a good hard spanking, and sending to bed without supper. That's what you do when children, or supposed allies, overstep, misbehave and sneak around, while being defended by hundreds of thousands of occupiers, who have only recently provided their salvation.

David Bouvier

TrevorsDen - exactly. I try to make this point everytime the issue comes up but there seems to be no appetite for the facts!

Verity

Dave would take to Obama because Obama is a Bullingon in his heart, except rather than trash a few bars and restaurants, Obama intends to trash the entire West. Dave doesn't have the intellectual capacity to deduce this, despite all the neon-lit evidence.

Verity

What Nicholas said in the first post on this thread.

Verity

Occasion Ostrich - what provincial, ignorant rubbish! Americans are great students of history - mainly their own history, admittedly, because that's all that's taught in school, but many of them develop an interest in British history later, when they begin to research their British family trees. Your statement was absurd.

Ahmed Khan

@ Yank

So you agree that we were ‘stitched’ up during the Suez Crisis. Believe me this was the most treacherous
back-stabbing act in history. Only American would be capable of implementing. Even Judas would have drawn the line.

How can we even think of a special relationship with the Yanks when history proves that all they want is to be masters to all and friends with none!

The Americans blackmailed us into retreating from the Suez (by threatening to block our IMF request) and they should never be trusted.

Adro

Hmm, this thread seems to have brought up some interesting points.

1) To all those moaning about Americans/Cameron's 'lack of historical knowledge', it might be worth learning some history yourselves. The 'Special Relationship' as it is known arguably dates from the end of the Second World War, so Cameron's assertion that Britain is the junior partner is correct. Pre World War II, the US mainly followed an isolationist foreign policy, particulalry in relation to Europe. They may have eventually got involved in the First World War, but even in the aftermath and the following decades, the majority of US opinion stood against involvement in European and world affairs. Though the US and UK got along, there was certainly not the kind of 'special relationship' that has evolved since the end of WWII. I agree with Verity that Occasional Ostrich's assertion that Americans do not know about history pre-1775 is absurd. Not only do Americans know about history, but most ordinary people in this country can have the accusation they know little or nothing about the past justifiably levelled at them.

2) Mr Khan, the American's actions over Suez may offend you, but the illegal invasion, based on a lie and a set up (sound familiar?), of Egypt was wrong, despite the actions of Nasser.

3) Verity, in what way is Obama 'trying to destroy the west'? Seems you've been listening to the nuttier end of the Tea Party movement. Tell me you aren't a 'birth truther' as well.

Adro

@Denis -

Is it actually possible for you to write a comment on here or ConHome without actually attempting (however poorly) to link it to the EU?

The UK's relationship with the US will never be 'controlled' by Europe, primarily because of our historical and strategic ties being on a completely different level to that of the US and any other individual or group of European countries. You also seem to forget that the US is getting extremely fed up with the EUs inability to actually do good things within the area of its control. The fact most people in Europe find it irritating and bureaucratic also influences the US's increasingly sceptical view of the Union.

On the subject of your posts though, please, carry on. Its entertaining. A bit like the dad in 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'. He believes that all words, from all world languages, are greek in origin. You seem to believe that every problem is somehow the fault of the EU.

Occasional Ostrich

@Verity

Were I to have intended it as a serious comment, I might now be blushing with shame.
I'm well aware that, both in the US and the UK, the spectrum of knowledge ranges from the erudite to the pig ignorant. I would infer from your rebuke that, in the USA, you move in more exalted circles than I.

porkbelly

The "shared values" seem to go out the window when national interests are at stake such as in the case of the miraculous al-Megrahi. The whole Special relationship thing was chiefly the construct of British politicians who thought that shriveled post-Imperial Britain could somehow maintain its influence by whispering in the ear of the brutish Yanks (whom they held in a mixture of fear, admiration and contempt). Not really the recipe for a lasting bond. At least Cameron and Obama - neither of whom trusts the other an inch - will be unlikely to perpetuate the sham except perhaps when interviewed by the WSJ.

yank

Mr. Khan,

Re Suez, the lords, like some washed-up cowboys practically tripping over their beards, saddled up their swaybacked old nags, strapped their rusty six-guns to their belts, and rode off for one last imperial round-up.

As you mention, they got stopped by a memo.

A frickin' memo.

A scrap of paper... sent them lumbering back to the corral.

Now, aside from the facts that the lords' geriatric rodeo pursuits were geostrategically ill advised and contra the wishes of a very important ally, their plan obviously had no self-executing component, leaving the lords no chance of success, after the senior citizens' caregivers found out they'd rode off madly from the retirement home, and Ike ordered them sedated and returned.

As you Brits say, this was a cock-up. It hurt matters in the ME then, and it has had lasting repurcussions.

TomTom

"The 'Special Relationship' as it is known arguably dates from the end of the Second World War,"

The McMahon Act 1946; the ending of Lend-Lease Sept 1945; were hardly friendly considering the US had received all Rolls-Royce jet engine technology at no cost in 1943 and the full British scientific input to The Manhattan Project leaving Britain to develop its own H-Bomb under Penney.

The "Special Relationship" was what was left after an orange has been squeezed of juice - Britain stupidly destroyed itself to fight Germany twice and left the USA and USSR as global victors

Edward Sutherland

Yank and Adro: Though it pains me to admit it, your comments on Suez are pretty much spot on. Eden was insane to go along with the plan dreamed up by the French and Israelis. It was a personal tragedy for him and a national humiliation for Britain.I prefer to recall Eden as the undoubtedly heroic young officer in the hell of the WW1 trenches and the principled opponent of appeasement pre-WW2.Interestingly, though, Eisenhower came to regret the very public humiliation he visited on Britain. Who knows, maybe there would have been no Six Days' War in 1967 if Nasser had been toppled in 1956 post a successful Suez operation. Despite Eden's undoubted complicity, it has to be said that Dulles was less than helpful in the build-up.

porkbelly

@TomTom - wasn't the British contribution to the Manhattan Project spearheaded by those well-known Americophiles Klaus Fuchs and Kim Philby?

yank

Mr. Sutherland,

Yes, Ike was a great and wise man, but here he may have acted a bit rashly. The weight of the world and Sov nukes were upon him to be sure, but there was likely a truer path home than he chose. Good to hear that he regretted some of it, it brings him up in my eyes.

Good lessons for today. No need to splash disagreements into the headlines, something Mr. Obama with his "British Petroleum" and constant bleating about the Libyan might take notice of. Mention discretely, if even that, and then move on.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Trevorsden

Sharing of Intelligence? Sorry but anyone who knows about these things will tell you that there's 'sharing' and then there's 'sharing'. Let's not be too silly, eh? As but one example, look at the software issues.

America chooses what it will share - as do we.

Mycroft

'A scrap of paper... sent them lumbering back to the corral.' A shame no one was able to send your lot a scrap of paper, yank, to go lumbering back to the corral from your imperial adventures in SE Asia; had to wait until you got a good spanking from the natives. And by the way, Britain is not run by a bunch of 'lords'.

Victor Southern

Porkbelly - the Yanks had more than enough American-born spies giving atomic secrets to the USA.

Most of them were Communists, many were Jews of Russian origin. One must remember that group considered their enemy's enemy to be their friend and they had enough cause to wish to see the Germans defeated.

TomTom

NO it was not and that reflects your ignorance of Physics. If you knew how much of the team actually worked in London before the Manhattan Project commenced you would not appear so smug.

Read up on Frisch and Peierls - German Physicists in Britain and then on The Quebec Agreement 1943 how Churchill turned over the Tube Alloys Project to the USA only to find 3 years later Britain cut off from technology and having the Labour Government of 1945 having to develop Britain's atomic weapons alone, the US being uncooperative

yank

Well actually, no, Mr. Mycroft, the US never received a good spanking in SE Asia, and in fact won every battle fought there, and signed a peace agreement whereby those who did lose all those battles were to stick to their side of the fence.

Not that the US was there for imperialist reasons, unlike the lords as regards Suez.

We tend to fight wars to liberate people, or keep them liberated. You know, like those over there on the pile of rocks.

porkbelly

No, TomTom, I'm afraid that the Manhattan Project was not a British creation (the name might give you a clue). It drew on research from many sources, and scientists from many nations (most of whom seem to have had Hungarian names), but it was not simply a scientific effort but an enormous industrial undertaking which only the United States was capable of at the time. Read up on it. Oh yes - Klaus Fuchs was a British citizen as well as a Soviet spy, and while we will never know how critical the information he passed on was, one has to weigh the fact that the British government was riddled with Soviet spies along with any putative contributions made by German scientists who passed through London on their way to Los Alamos.

Fergus Pickering

Occasional Ostrich, AMERICAN perspective? What you speak of is the perspective of everybody is this country under the age of fifty. Or haven't you noticed?

TomTom

Tube Alloys was the British Project transferred to the USA under The Quebec Agreement of 1943 into The Manhattan Project. Stop getting confused.

GRU and NKVD had huge assets throughout the USA including in The White House - Harry Dexter White, the Rosenbergs, and a myriad of VENONA agents. Klaus Fuchs was one, recruited 1941 and given British Citizenship 1942.

Perhaps you should look at Cambridge and Manchester Universities and stop pretending Britain's contribution was all from British-born Physicists. It was from German Physicists in England and Italian and Hungarian Physicists in England, and French Physicists in England

TomTom

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKOrigin.html

Read up on MAUD

"Britain was the first country to seriously study the feasibility of nuclear weapons, and made a number of critical conceptual breakthroughs. The first theoretically sound critical mass calculation was made in England by Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls in Feb. 1940. Inspired by this finding the MAUD Committee (a code name chosen from the first name of one member's nanny) was founded. Headed by Sir Henry Tizard, from 10 April 1940 to 15 July 1941, this committee worked out the basic principles of both fission bomb design and uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion. The work done by the MAUD Committee was instrumental in alerting the U.S. (and through espionage, the USSR) to the feasibility of fission weapons in WWII. A high level of cooperation between Britain, the U.S., and Canada continued through the war, formalized by the 1943 Quebec Agreement. Britain sent the "British Mission", a team of first rank scientists to work at Los Alamos. Among the scientists who made this journey were the pioneer of shock wave physics Geoffrey I. Taylor and a protege - William G. Penney. The mission made major contributions to the Manhattan Project, and provided the nucleus for British post-war atomic weapons development effort."

Nicholas

"Suez - dashed bad show that, what, what? There we were, damn our eyes, periwigs askew an' thrashin' bazzi-bazooks when, stap me, along comes Yankee Doodle an' bold as you please insists we desist. 'Pon my soul." (takes pinch of snuff and flaps handkerchief angrily)

The Lords at Suez. Another History Cartoon brought to you by Yank.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Yank

Let's recognise the difference between 'battle' and 'war', shall we?

What's your view of 'winning' the Vietnamese War, the Korean War, indeed the War against Japan. Who has ultimately lost and who has ultimately gained?

See, 'battles' are but one part of war. Richard Holmes' Oxford Companion to Military History is a jolly good start.

And your definition of 'Liberty' is what, exactly? Invading Panama? Liberating Iraq? Freeing Afghanistan? Why has America 'Liberated' these countries?

Mycroft

So, yank, America really won the Vietnam war; no one can say that it isn't worth coming here, one learns something every day.

Occasional Ostrich

@Fergus Pickering, you could, perhaps, have reviewed my later posting before commenting.

Nicholas

On Vietnam I have to agree with yank. Leaving aside the politics of South Vietnam the US eventually got its act together and defeated the North Vietnamese conclusively on the battlefield. However, the war was lost on the campuses and in the editorial offices of the USA, brought about by the great anti-war betrayal personified by scheming "patriots" like Jane Fonda posing wearing a North Vietnamese helmet on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun whilst her compatriots rotted in North Vietnamese prisons, God rot her socks. With friends like that who needs enemies?

The war was also lost in the post-war mythology of the Left which attributed superhuman powers, right and might to the Viet Cong. The true military picture was quite different.

When the US pulled out, having fought North Vietnam to the peace table and wresting guarantees of non-violation of South Vietnam's sovereignty, both sides knew it was only a matter of time before the North waged another war of aggression against the South. And for political reasons this time the South was on its own.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Nicholas

In which case, exactly who won the war?

Mycroft

Chuck Unsworth, a nice example of a rhetorical question!

The fact is that political factors cannot be completely dissociated from political factors in a war. The North Vietnamese may not actually have defeated the Americans, but they pretty effectively prevented them from being able to win, until irresistable pressure built up at home to call an end to the war. A face-saving treaty, and then the North Vietnamese took over the South notwithstanding. By any standards that is a North Vietnamese victory, and one brought about by military pressure too.

yank

Well, now you enter into a philosophical discussion, Mr. Unsworth. Each of those wars was different, as I’m sure we’d agree. Different enough that I’m sure we’d also agree that the total war as practiced against Japan was not practiced against North Korea, China and the North Vietnamese.

Vietnam was not total war, but Korean War extrapolated. Further, the prosecution of those conflicts represented a break with many decades of the US policy of never landing an army in Asia. Japan was blockaded, remember, following the decades long strategy (yes, there were some ground efforts in Burma and some airshows in China, but let’s ignore the sideshow stuff). The blockade strategists lobbied fiercely against a land invasion of Japan, and were ultimately proven out, albeit with the brutality of napalm and mushroom clouds.

I think then that you’ll find that most here view Vietnam as a mistake of involvement, compounded by initial hamhanded political, diplomatic and military execution, as opposed to a military defeat, and thus my post to Mr. Mycroft.

Speaking of Ike, I don’t believe he ever envisioned mounting a force in Vietnam, and FDR didn’t even want the French to go back… Ho’s compatriots would be given the whole show (and since FDR gave Stalin all of Eastern Europe, we can assume he meant this.). Unfortunately, FDR died, and matters snowballed, and around the globe, the lords and the frogs got frisky, as we’ve discussed above. The US followed their mistakes with even more of their own, as their Vietnam involvement showed.

No matter what is mistaken, the people of this country are intolerant of protracted war, and it’s not just Jane Fonda that thinks this, however abhorrent her actions (and they were). Obama is feeling the heat right now, deservedly so, with his talk of sending another 30,000 to the illiterates’ killing field in Afghanistan, with no clear understanding of what is to come. Politics comes first, and no sense fantasizing otherwise. If you put it to a vote, Vietnam or Afghanistan or otherwise, the majority here will not support protracted military actions, and never even cottoned to the hundreds of thousands of Euro babysitters they've had to pay for this past 1/2 century.

Not sure America can “liberate” anybody. Those to be liberated have to do much if not most of the work themselves, although smashing those who want to steal liberty can be easy enough: Panama and Iraq seem to demonstrate this. But the follow through requires more than smashing, and Afghanistan seems to demonstrate this. If there’s nothing there to fill the void, no amount of smashing will do. Ho was to fill the void in Vietnam of 1945, it seems clear, so he should have been allowed to do so, imo. Any major US military action taken beyond that recognition point was unfounded in strategic considerations, then decades old.

And by the way, landing an army in France in 1917 was just such a mistake. The traditional Euro killfest is little different in kind to that in Asia.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Mycroft

I'd contend that wars are fought on battlefields and in the hearts and minds of the protagonists - and that includes the civilian population and politicians. So it's not just military might, but morale and resolution which usually determine the outcome. Time and again small, outnumbered and outgunned units and nations have overcome great odds - at all levels. Thus it may easily be argued that the PAVN did indeed triumph. Few can forget the sight of the T54s driving down the boulevards towards the Presidential Palace, and the last desperate attempts of refugees to cling onto the skids of the Hueys as Operation Frequent Wind drew to a close. Not exactly a 'victory' for America and its allies in my book.

Nicholas

Yes, Chuck Unsworth, North Vietnam won, but they did so after the United States had already withdrawn from South Vietnam. They beat the South Vietnamese not the Americans and they did so in a war of aggression and sponsored insurgency. The same strategy that the Americans had contained and eventually defeated. The analogy is the weed. The US left when the root had still not been killed.

The American withdrawal from Vietnam and the implications for the Vietnamese was down to the US anti-war movement.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Yank

I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion as to the nature of various wars. 'Total War' is now an entirely discredited and meaningless term, anyway. The simple and so far unanswered (by you) question is who has won these wars? I'm not talking about military prowess, I'm asking about trade and economic benefit - the value to the nation as a whole.

Has America actually benefited from its military involvements? And at what cost?

It was your position that Americans tend to fight wars to liberate - or keep liberated. I'd ask which of these wars did this - and who exactly gained what from such interventions? You see, 'Liberty' is not an absolute - it is a relative term.

I'd contend that almost every post-WWII American intervention (and/or invasion) has been ultimately futile. Indeed, it seems that America has made many enemies by its actions. That in itself is no bad thing, just as long as America (and its allies) do actually get something out of it. Can an American life be valued? How much is one dead British soldier worth - in real terms? That is the grim calculation.

I think the American public's distaste for protracted warfare is based on several factors. One is the sheer emotional trauma, of course, another may be the more hard-headed realisation that national blood and treasure is being squandered - for precious little visible return.

Let's not kid ourselves. For sovereign nations military warfare is failure. But economic warfare is another matter altogether...

yank

Mr. Unsworth,

I'll bow to your likely more learned understandings of total war, but I think the term has validity as a descriptive of what's gone on since we started making war on civilians. Yes, that always happened, but over these past 150 years or so, and particularly in the Second WW, their killing came in volume.

The great powers seem to have backed off that stance, so there's something there, whatever you think that "something" is. If they hadn't, Hanoi would have been flattened/flooded, dissenters would have been shot, and there'd likely be a representative government thieving their way through democracy even as we post. It worked with the Nazis and bushido coded fanatics.

Liberty may not be an absolute, but neither is it absolutely relative. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Germany... these are not relative cases of liberty... and they involved war or the firm threat of war (and what of Greece and some of the South American nations?).

I think I agree with much of your point, however. Vietnam for sure was ultimately a mistake (although it's been said that Indonesia and some others view it as a firewall event), and an abandonment of principle and reasoned approach. Others also of the conflicts I can take issue with. I did not at all like the Wonderful War of 1991. That was trouble from the gitgo. The allies were wrong. The outcome was wrong (yes, there was liberation, but to prove your point, that may not be enough to justify matters). Jellifying 100,000 illiterate Shiite conscripts via B-52 in Kuwait was wrong. Allowing Sadaam to butcher 200,000 other Shiites afterwards was wrong.

But, if you show me a group that wants to make it better at home, and needs a little push, I believe all of us need to give it to them. And when some bully looks to stomp that group, I believe he needs to be parried. None of us likes war, certainly not protracted war, but targeted actions? I think there's a place for them. Rare to be sure, and I'm not sure the current Iraq War was one of them. Geostrategically, yes, it fit the bill. Liberation requirement? Check. And with an educated populace, I believed it would come around, even when it looked bad. I'm still not certain it was a good idea. I guess our grandchildren will have to sort it it, just as we view the Great War's contributions to its cause. The whole damn world went to hell in 1914-18 and following, it seems.

I presume then, that you want out of Afghanistan?

Chuck Unsworth

@ Yank

Your presumption is right. Afghanistan has been a graveyard for external and colonial powers for centuries. Nothing has changed.

The British have fought many Afghan Wars. Some have been 'successful' in that they have subdued the local populace, but this was never a permanent outcome. The Afghans do not concern themselves with time, so it is always on their side.

I was one of the many who objected right from the outset to British involvement in this, the latest Anglo-American adventure. At that time I said, here and elsewhere, that the war was unwinnable. So it has proved. Afghanistan is not a region (advisedly!) that can be ruled by a centralised, deeply corrupt, government, sheltering in the fleshpots of Kabul. It has entirely porous borders, and the Afghans have only a sense of tribal identity.

I suppose one might even question what 'winning' looks like, given the above.

yank

Well, you're onto it, Mr. Unsworth, and the smart ones here seem to be as well, as they know that "winning" will not be of the ticker tape parade variety. That's at least a start, that they're not claiming there to be a laser-guided sure solution. But it's only the start of the discussion.

I'd note that Iraq is tribal as well. Matters there only finally improved when the Coalition recognized this, and put aside the Bush/Blair notions of building a modern Baghdad-centered welfare state, and focused out in the hinterlands more, and respected their autonomy, and worked with them. Not sure the Afghans are ready for even that, however.

With the tools and means at hand, and the constraints of modern warfare, a deal has to be cut, and it's all about tabling the necessary deal cutters, imo.