There has been a debate in Britain these last few years over whether or not the “special relationship” that has existed for more than 100 years between England and the United States has any real advantages in a post-cold war world. Some of Great Britain’s best thinkers on the left feel that the country’s close identification with the United States has not only been inimical to Britain’s need to integrate their economy, currency, and domestic policies into the greater European whole but also that the Anglo-American alliance has actually made England less safe, largely as a result of what they see as the Bush Administration’s aggressive policies in fighting terror and the War in Iraq.

This “anti-Americanism by default” position is shared by a broad spectrum of the left including Old Labour, Liberal Democrats, and even many of New Labour’s social democrats. In fact, it could fairly be said that only the dominant personality of Tony Blair has kept the “special relationship” intact and as strong as ever over the last 3 years despite enormous domestic political pressures on the PM to pull back from his steadfast support of President Bush and carve out a more independent road in foreign policy.

There have been few British Prime Ministers since the end of World War II who have been as loyal a friend to the United States and supportive of its interests as Tony Blair. At great personal and political cost, he has continued the deployment of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan while deflecting charges that he is President Bush’s “lapdog.” For Blair’s part, his actions are hardly altruistic nor are they based on the kind of close, personal connection with Bush as was enjoyed by Lady Thatcher with President Reagan. Those two twentieth century titans bonded at an emotional level rare for leaders of great nations. Blair and Bush on the other hand seem to have developed an excellent working relationship based on trust and and genuine friendship. This has held both in good stead as the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved to be fitful and at times, ephemeral.

In truth, while Bush could be considered the “senior partner” in the alliance, it is Blair who has often given the best defense of the coalition’s decision to go to war in Iraq and stay until the job of securing democracy is achieved. Where Bush’s speeches can sometimes be dry recitations of progress made in securing and rebuilding the country with clear, logical justifications for going to war, Blair’s talks always seem to strike just the right rhetorical notes of Churchillian denunciations of evil and a Thatcheresque optimism about the future that seems to elevate the cause to the level of a crusade.

And Blair has also spoken forcefully about the importance of the Anglo-American alliance to the future of not only Europe but the rest of the world as well. He has consistently warned against the unreasoning anti-Americanism that threatens to turn the world away from the United States at a critical juncture in world history.

Speaking before the Australian parliament yesterday, Blair issued a rhetorical slap to those in Europe and around the world whose casual hatred of the United States threatens the future of the world on a wide variety of issues:

“I do not always agree with the United States – sometimes they can be difficult friends to have,” he said.

“But the strain of frankly anti-American feeling in parts of European and world politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in,” he said.

[...]

“The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved, the danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged,” he said.

“The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them. Our task is to ensure that with them we do not limit this agenda to security.”

Blair’s warnings are directed toward his European counterparts who too often use the rhetoric of anti-Americanism as a cheap way to garner votes. Blair’s point – that this attitude does damage to the domestic political consensus in America for international engagement – is spot on. The strain of isolationism, never far below the surface in American politics, could re-emerge with a vengeance in either 2006 or, more likely, 2008 as voters in the United States react to the virulent anti-American rhetoric of France, Germany, and others with a “to hell with them” attitude and turn their attentions to concerns more domestic in nature.

Blair’s recognition of this danger is one of the reasons he is the indispensable man in the alliance of English speaking nations that includes Australia’s John Howard. Blair’s longevity has earned him respect around the world as he has been a leading spokesman for taking action on global warming as well as issues as diverse as third world debt relief and nuclear non-proliferation. But since his announcement that he plans to leave before the end of his third term in 2010, the questions about what will become of this alliance once he is gone have occupied the State Department and our military planners.

The prospect of Blair’s resignation coming sooner rather than later was given a boost last November when the Prime Minister’s comprehensive anti-terrorism bill went down to an ignominious defeat. Oddsmakers put his staying in office past 2006 at 5-2 against although Blair himself has recently said that he regrets saying that he would stand down before the next election. But the clock is definitely ticking on the Tony Blair era and the implications for the alliance are already being assessed.

As a practical matter and for the sake of his party, Blair will have to decide within the next 2 years when he should exit the stage. That’s because he will want to give his almost certain successor Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown time to get settled into 10 Downing Street before the election in 2010. So the question is, what kind of fellow is this Gordon Brown and how will the ascension of this life-long left wing activist affect the “special relationship” between England and America?

First, it should be noted that Blair has taken steps to tie Chancellor Brown more firmly to his policies by making him the front man in Parliament on a variety of issues. While it is whispered that Brown resents this role somewhat, he sees this kind of loyalty as his ticket to the top. But how the Chancellor would deal with America is the real question and for that, it may be helpful to examine his background for clues.

Asked during the General Election of 2005 what Britain would look like under a Brown Premiership, the Chancellor replied ‘more like America’. Brown is a passionate Americanist, having studied economics at MIT and regularly vacationing on the East Coast. American business practice is held in reverence by him. A consistent theme has emerged in Brown’s key economic speeches; he wants the British and European economy to become more like the United States. More competitive, entrepreneurial and dynamic, but combining free-market capitalism with social justice. The Chancellor’s first foray into foreign policy, last autumn, with a EU/G8 trip to Palestine, gives us an insight of Brown’s approach to international policy. Brown intends to bring his economic expertise to the aid of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by attempting to reduce the poverty and unemployment experienced by Palestinians, which makes them ripe for transforming into Jihadists.

Mr. Brown has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and has praised America’s ‘courageous leadership’ in the fight against Islamist terrorism. There has never been a hint from his camp that he would have done things differently, and on several tense occasions when Mr. Blair has been under fire over Iraq, Mr. Brown has intervened to offer his backing.

Clearly, Brown is positioned to maintain British commitments in Iraq and elsewhere for the near future which is good news. What is unknown is how resistant Mr. Brown will be to calls from his own party to reduce those commitments the closer to 2010 we get. It seems probable that a large troop presence will be absolutely necessary beyond 2008 and perhaps even beyond 2010 although it is doubtful that the domestic political situation in either Great Britain or the United States would allow for that kind of commitment. What is more likely is that Brown’s Labour party will be forced by electoral necessity to drastically reduce England’s commitment of troops in Iraq prior to the election even if events on the ground do not warrant it.

There is hope that those events on the ground will begin to turn in the coalition’s favor as more and more Iraqi troops and police demonstrate competence in dealing with the insurgency and domestic unrest. This may allow for more than token drawdowns of forces even before 2008 which would be good news for both Brown and Republicans here in the United States. But at present, with sectarian violence simmering at high levels and threatening to burst out into full scale street fighting, there is little talk of reducing the presence of coalition troops.

Which brings us back to Mr. Blair. While Chancellor Brown will continue his policies, the question always asked when evaluating this “special relationship” between the two great nations is how well do the two leaders get on personally? Brown was accused in the past of being something of a cold fish with a single minded determination to become Prime Minister that rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way. But he appears to have softened considerably since his marriage in 2000 at the age of 49 to his longtime sweetheart Sarah MacCauley and then the tragic loss of his 10 day old child in 2002. He has since settled into a happy domestic situation with his 3 year old son John and wife which most observers agree has done wonders for his public face.

It appears that Brown would probably be personally comfortable with either a Democrat or Republican in the White House given his admiration for Republican free market principles and his commitment to Democratic social justice issues. How that would translate into forging a working relationship on the alliance’s continuing efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere is the mystery. Much depends on how the situation in Iraq resolves itself over the next 2 years. A bad outcome there could make both countries pull back from engaging other nations in the region like Egypt and Saudi Arabia in building more free and open societies. And in the background, looming ever more dangerous, is the specter of Iran and its quest for nuclear weapons. It is hard to imagine that the alliance would not agree that Iran cannot be allowed a nuclear option. For that reason, American-British cooperation there will be of paramount importance.

I have a feeling that once he is gone from the scene, we will greatly miss Tony Blair’s clarity of thought on the War in Iraq as well as his personal commitment to maintaining the “special relationship” that Great Britain and America have enjoyed for so long. He has left his mark on all of us and I personally will be saddened to see him go.