'The special relationship unlikely to have much operational meaning in the medium-term'

The Daily Mail reports that President Bush is "furious" with Britain's Prime Minister following the decision to reduce British troops in Iraq to 2,500 by next spring.  There is particular annoyance that Mr Brown did not discuss his decision with General Petraeus, US Commander in Iraq, when they met last week.  The UK troop reductions may mean that American soldiers will have to be stationed in southern Iraq to secure vital supply routes with Kuwait.  Mr Brown has come under heavy criticism from the UK media for the way in which he has handled his troop reduction announcements.  Many have seen his announcements in the context of his plans to hold a snap General Election - plans that were abandoned at the weekend.  In angry exchanges in the House of Commons, Conservative leader David Cameron described Mr Brown's behaviour as "unacceptable":

"You promised a thousand of our troops would be brought back before Christmas - but isn't it the case that 500 of them had already been announced and 270 of them were already back in the country?  I have to say to the prime minister, this is of a different order of magnitude to what we've had from him over the last decade.  This is not double-counting of government spending, this is not just spinning the good bits of a Budget, this is about dealing with people's lives and the families of our servicemen.  And does he agree that this is just not an acceptable way for a prime minister to behave?"

Last Friday, Irwin Stelzer wrote for the Weekly Standard about the decline of the 'special relationship' during the first 100 days of the Brown administration:

"American foreign policy analysts will now have to work on a new policy in which Britain cannot be relied on to stick with America should the president decide to take military action against Iran, or in almost any other crisis involving the use of force. Indeed, the UK will be unable to do so even if it wants to: it has gutted its military to the point where British soldiers beg departing American troops for body armor and desert boots, must rely on American helicopters with which they often cannot communicate because their equipment is antiquated, and its fleet is so puny that Admiral Nelson is turning over in his grave.  The "special relationship" might survive, as it has before, but it certainly is not likely to have much operational meaning in the medium-term."

Comments

[keypointist]

Europe is trying to play the Canadian game. That is to say relying on the protection granted by the United States because it's security is one of America's strategic interests. Canada has the lucky situation of being at the border of the US so it's security is virtually guaranteed regardless. Europe, not so. Europe needs to increase it's military strength because it cannot depend indefinitely on America.

[Simon Newman]

"Europe needs to increase it's military strength because it cannot depend indefinitely on America. "

Europe suffers from the moral hazard of the Welfare State - America provides military 'welfare' to Europe in the form of NATO, which degrades European self-reliance and results in a childish, immature attitude to the world. The American defense blanket made sense during the Cold War to prevent Soviet conquest of all Europe, but to my mind is no longer in the interests of either Europe or the USA and should be phased out; the EU should pick up the tab for defending its eastern borders from Russia and its southern border from Islam. The USA may wish to maintain mutual defense guarantees with a few useful allies - possibly the UK, possibly the Baltic & Scandinavian nations - but should not be providing defense for the Franco-German axis.

[Simon Newman]

"The USA may wish to maintain mutual defense guarantees"

Which is not the same as saying that the USA should be able to call upon these countries for its own wars of choice (what are uncharitably called wars of aggression), merely that they should cooperate in defending against terrorism and against attacks on themselves from eg Russia. But the USA has no strategic interest in eg the Balkans and should not be involved there.

[Tony Makara]

A European defense strategy is flawed because enlargement and further enlargement makes EU consensus on geo-political issues ever more difficult. NATO has always had a common consensus and the Warsaw Pact had an enforced consensus but the EU is too culturally varied to ever set up a united front militarily.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Mr. Bush is said to be 'furious' over not being consulted by Mr. Brown about troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Mr. Brown maybe Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but he is not a diplomat, neither does he appear to understand what uses diplomacy has. He may be a politician, but he is more naturally a political activist - something he seemed to have been at Uni: and he hasn't changed since - basically.

Mr. Blair WAS a diplomat, and he persuaded many, many people to like him, which was invaluable in many ways, especially in foreign relations. I don't think that Mr. Brown understood or understands that.

[Anna]

The Daily Mail? Headlines meant to please would be my guess. Was Bush "seething"? I think it is more likely that he was dismayed and not at all surprised.

Simon makes good points in the above post. Most Yanks I know are ready to begin pulling the plug on the defense security blanket for Europe. We are at fault for continuing to provide security when Europe could and should carry more of the burden.

Canada will always benefit from its proximity to the US, and remember that it is one of our primary trading partners - particularly oil.

[Gavin Newton]

The tragedy in this situation is the way America was gulled into thinking the UK would back them to the hilt by Tony Blair's smooth talking. All whilst Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten years, was eviscerating our armed forces. Although our forces can defeat the insurgents face to face, they do not have the the men, the finance or the hardware to win in the long run. Irwin Stelzer is right in concluding that in the short and medium term the "special relationship" will have no material meaning. Gordon Brown's retreat from Basra is a serious strategic, diplomatic and political defeat for our nation and the U.S. is likely to have to pick up the pieces. Blair was too much of a coward to stand up to Brown and too much of a coward to make the decision to withdraw himself.

[Simon Newman]

Tony Makara:
"the EU is too culturally varied to ever set up a united front militarily."

If that's true then European integration is ultimately hopeless, there will never be a European federal State. My own view is that a viable European federation probably can be constructed around the France-Germany axis and their client states, including Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, Wallonia, Germany, Austria, Italy, and the other Catholic nations of central-eastern Europe. Sweden and Greece are possible but may be non-viable as EU members for religious and cultural reasons. Finland will follow Sweden, but is primarily interested in security vs Russia. Denmark, the UK and (non EU) Norway are definitely not suitable EU members.

[Andy]

Gavin Newton

"... Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten years, was eviscerating our armed forces."

Though to be fair our new Chancellor has recently announced rises in defence spending:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdi/jdi071010_1_n.shtml

I agree with your point about retreating from Basra. War is about psychology and this pullout sends out a powerful message that the UK lacks willpower.

[Simon Newman]

Andy:
"this pullout sends out a powerful message that the UK lacks willpower."

I think most Brits distinguish between showing willpower in the face of critical threats, like the Al Qaeda 7/7 bombings, and irrelevancies like occupying Shia Iraq. We'll defend our homeland, we're not interested in ruling somebody else's homeland.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Hear, hear Simon Newman @10.46.
Andy, irrespective of the £400 million extra money on Defence announced by Alastair Darling on Tuesday our defence spending as a total of GDP is sinking ever lower. At its current 2.3% it is the lowest since the early 1930's.

[Andy]

Simon

I still think its a cop-out. Given that we made the decision to go in we should stick it out. This makes us look half-hearted and weak. Winning 'hearts and minds' means convincing Iraqis that we're not the enemy, this premature pullout undermines this.

"We'll defend our homeland, we're not interested in ruling somebody else's homeland."

We're not ruling the Iraqis, they have their own elected government.

[Simon Newman]

Andy:
"Given that we made the decision to go in..."

It was a stupid decision. And even if throwing out Saddam had merit, sticking around to fight the Mahdi Army has none. The sooner we leave the better.

"We're not ruling the Iraqis, they have their own elected government."

*cough* er, yes, of course...

[Andy]

Simon

I don't think it was a stupid decision. Do you think that the ousting of Saddam and his Mukhabarat was of no merit? Trying to contain him didn't work and diplomacy does not work, it rather maintains the same unsatisfactory merry-go-round.

History repeatedly tells us we pay dearly for appeasement. I think of Neville Chamberlain, a very weak man who sacrificed Czechoslovakia in the name of "peace with honor".

[Simon Newman]

Andy:
"Do you think that the ousting of Saddam and his Mukhabarat was of no merit?"

In terms of Western interests, it has harmed them, so no merit. In terms of Iraqi interests it could still be of some benefit to the majority Shiites, but not so far.