The virtues of poodledom

Andrew Sullivan wrote an interesting piece for The Sunday Times this weekend about the advantages to Blair, and Britain, of being "a poodle" to Bush:

Poodles have a good life - "Poodle owners are often passionate about their pets, catering to their every whim, manipulated by their guile and tolerating their sometimes snippy relationships with other dogs. In many cases – and this is not restricted to poodles, of course – it’s hard to tell, after a while, who controls whom. The master routinely finds his days wrapped around catering for the poodle: walking it, grooming it, pandering to it. If the tail often wags the dog, the dog can also wag the human."

British PMs accept that power comes with poodledom - "Most postwar British prime ministers have intuitively understood this, however strongly their publics have sometimes balked.  The global power of a British premier is nowhere near that of an American president, but the Brits’ leverage over such power is arguably greater than any other country’s – precisely because of their treasured, special, pampered poodle status."

It doesn't have to be an unquestioning relationship - "Recall Thatcher’s horrified response to what she saw as a breach of international law in the seizure of Grenada, a member of the Commonwealth, or her opposition to Reagan’s attack on nuclear deterrence theory at Reykjavik – and compare it with Tony Blair’s take on international law with respect to Iraq. Britain’s leaders – from Thatcher to Blair – do not seem to be moving away from the American orbit, but more firmly into it."

Making Blair an envoy to the Middle East suits everyone - "But what makes this perfect for Blair is the combination of almost certain failure, the patina of altruism and a sense of global self-importance... And that’s why, for all the pitfalls of such an appointment, it’s hard to see why it would be bad for Britain, or bad for Gordon Brown. It gets Blair out of the way and makes Britain seem more important on the world stage. Poodling is a much more powerful tool in global power politics than preening like the French or pouting like the Russians."

Sullivan's definition of poodledom has its appeal. The common jibe that Blair is a poodle for signing up for Iraq out of slavish obedience to Bush is nonsense - he was a liberal interventionist when Bush was still an isolationist.

Comments

[JF]

I never understood the British fixation with the nature of our relationship. Taking Kyoto, the NatWest Three, and Iraq as proof that the United States is abusing its main ally is bizarre. We just signed a new defense treaty that allows our defense contractors to work more closely together, we share intelligence and technology at a unique level with Britain, and our economies are increasingly interlocked.

If one wanted to make an argument that an ally of ours is a poodle, that argument would be much more fitting (even if incorrect) for Japan, not Britain.

[Adam]

What a shame - I usually like Andrew Sullivan. Ho hum.

I really don't see what is attractive about Sullivan's poodleism - he himself admits that Blair has had no influence whatsoever over policy in Iraq. Thatcher and Wilson offer a much better model for the relationship. Although both were fervent Atlanticists Thatcher hit the roof over Grenada, US shuttle diplomacy during the Falklands, and Reykjavik; whereas Wilson for his part famously refused to send British troops into Vietnam. They saw the relationship as one where US and British interests came together. Blair sees it as one where British interests are abandoned in favour of US ones. I know which model I prefer.

[Torben]

I just don't get this interest thing. As a Dane I strongly (and still do) support the Iraq War. Does that necessarily mean that I support something which is in the US interest and not in the Danish interest? How so?
And what about what is in the interest of the world?

[JF]

Torben, that's the challenge, isn't it? Even now, Democrats in the United States are starting to say that there is no "Global War on Terror." They fail to see that just as terrorists attacked the United States, Great Britain, Spain, Lebanon, Israel, and other countries around the world, our allies around the world must unite to fight them; the US cannot do it alone.

But isn't it easier to let the US and UK spend all the money and spill all the blood and become the prime targets of the terrorists, while the rest of the world sits on the sidelines and watches? Of course it's easier, which is why that is the way this is playing out. The charges of "poodledom" have made it increasingly likely that the UK will follow suit and drop out of the fight as well.

Europe especially has become adept at benefiting from the US defense umbrella while railing against the US for propaganda purposes. That's why the war is portrayed as an American war only, even if the rest of the Western world benefits from it.

[Denise]

According to this biography of Blair by Philip Stephens I have, Blair tried to get Clinton to invade Iraq. Why is this never mentioned? So I'm wondering was it really Blair who was the poodle? Or was it Bush?

[Joanna]

Why can't we just say neither was a poodle and both were following their countries' interests? Blair had wanted to deal with Iraq for some time; Bush had put Iraq on his "axis of evil" and needed to back up his words with action.

I have to say, I rather agree with JF on Europe.

[JF]

Joanna, case in point:

France Says Defense Budget To Stay Near 2 percent of its GDP

And I had such high hopes for Sarkozy.

[Joanna]

JF,

Do you know why Britain can't look for carriers in the U.S.? Are they too big or too expensive? Or is this a recent development?

[JF]

Joanna, I can't say for certain, not being intimately familiar with military matters. If I had to speculate, I would guess that it's either due to:

1) affordability. I remember reading that the British navy is looking to build some carriers with a displacement of 60,000 tonnes, while the United States has been building carriers with a displacement of 100,000+ tonnes (i.e. supercarriers)

2) politics. Britain has an open defense market, but in an attempt to meet its obligations as "good Europeans," wants to funnel some procurement largess on continental shipbuilders.

Just guesses, though.

[JF]

Sorry for the spelling. I meant tons.