THE ALLIES & THE INQUEST

Harsh words from The Spectator on the consequences of the friendly-fire incident:

It is demeaning for a nation such as Britain to commit its "hard power" — a euphemism for military force — to help another, mightier country when its reward for doing so is, in the eyes of the public, indifference and disdain. If America expects Britain to remain its principal ally, it cannot take its support for granted. It must deploy its own "soft power" — diplomacy, tact, the readiness to be flexible — much more generously.

There is little grasp in Washington of the resentment felt in this country by people who are instinctively pro-American but also rightly reluctant for Britain to be treated as the 51st State, a ploddingly dependable Delaware off the coast of mainland Europe... Each time America treats its most trusted ally in this way, the harder it becomes for Atlanticists to take a stand against those who, in increasing numbers, would like to see Britain put some distance between itself and the US. [My emphasis]

It is no accident that Gordon Brown and David Cameron are using cooler language than Mr Blair to describe the "special relationship". Neither is anti-American, but both are politicians. They see the way the wind is blowing. If America wants these gusts of resentment to subside, it must learn the lessons of this inquest, concede that it was wrong to treat L/Cpl Hull’s widow as it did, and recognise that a true relationship of partners is held together by respect and concession rather than by the expectation of unconditional obedience.

At which point I normally receive a comment from at least one reader along the lines of "Stop whining, you ungrateful Limeys..."

Comments

[Louise]

"...reluctant for Britain to be treated as the 51st State..." Actually that would be the 52nd State. Canada is the 51st State. Now you know how we feel.

[timmyhawk]

Sad but unfortunately a little true even for dedicated Atlanticist like myself. That said I do think everybody's getting a little out of it on this incident. Mistakes happen and in war they tend to be deadly.
What I also find a little odd is that practically nobody has asked why our forces always seem to be relying on US air power for cover. If we want to be a serious military power in our own right we would in fact need the combat aircraft to support ground forces in approriate numbers. Since we don't we are always going to rely on American fighters. I guess we're really going to be st****d the day we decide to fight without the US...
Ok, a little OT but I just thought I point that out.

[Clive]

Definitely a fair point...

[mikek]

Timmyhawk, it's a joint operation. British pilots fly over American soldiers and Marines and Americans fly over members of the U.K./Coalition forces. Everyone expects them to do their job and it didn't happen this time. The pilots who straffed the British convoy are from my small town and the local tapes I have heard didn't sound like the ones the Sun ran. The Marines on the ground were as sloppy as the pilots(who were beyond wrong).

Clive, do you think people writing about the incident are worried about relations between the U.K. and the U.S.? I don't mean this as a "stop whining" question, but don't the vast majority of people in the U.K. want a great deal of distance between their country and Washington? I understand why people would be upset about friendly fire, but I don't understand why it's an exception when you fight with Americans. It's an accident just like the J-Dam in Afghanistan or the straffing the U.S. Marines caught in Iraq.

[anon]

I think what has happened is that people in the UK are starting to ask: What do we get from this alliance, that we could not get without it?

If they do not get any good answers, the result is resentment, which comes out after incidents like this.

[mikek]

anon, that is a reasonable question. I don't know what the U.K. gains from the alliance and I don't see how the U.S. gains anything either. What are we doing?