Is London's Bridge Falling Down?

I expect that a certain person will, in his usual ill-informed, unresearched manner, rush into print to claim that I sleep with George Bush. The truth, of course, is that I've never been a great believer in the "special relationship", although I did say as reported by my spoofster here: "I think every UK PM has to have a good working relationship with every US President", here: "Central to my politics is support for the alliance with the USA" and here: "I would not vote for any leadership candidate who was not an Atlanticist".

I've even been known to be almost dismissive of the "special relationship", as in this response to Paul Burgin for my nomination as fantasy blog Defence Secretary: "Thanks for the defence portfolio. Now we will be able to put a stop to the suggestions that Britain will not replace Trident and that the general run-down of our armed forces will be allowed to continue. I intend to maintain the special relationship, of course, but by the time I've finished we won't need it."

This latter comment shows the more intelligent observer precisely why I'm not the world's leading advocate of a "special relationship" between the UK and the USA. It's not because I don't trust Americans or because I don't think we all owe them a massive debt of thanks for rescuing us from the horrors of Nazism, even if the bastards did come here armed with chocolate bars and silk stockings and put so many of our young women in the pokey.

No, I want to see Britain restored to its former glory, armed to the teeth with a new generation of inter-continental ballistic missiles, modernised armed services and the balls to stand up to anyone who gets in our way. In other words - for the slower amongst you out there - I don't believe in the "special relationship" because I don't think we should need one.

That said, I was very shocked to read that one of Condie's senior analysts at the State Department has denied that there has ever been a "special relationship". Speaking recently at John Hopkins University, Kendall Myers made some very extreme and upsetting statements. He claimed that the "special relationship" had never existed, "or, at least, not one that we noticed". He went on to say that relations had been "altogether too one-sided" for a very long time. "The poodle factor did not begin with Tony Blair, it began, yes, with Winston Churchill."

Dr Myers cited Britain’s refusal to get embroiled in Vietnam during the 1960s as an example of what might have been done on Iraq. "Harold Wilson, who was a great deal more clever, in my opinion, than Tony Blair, managed to fool us all on Vietnam — where the deal was not one cent, not one Johnny, not one Bobby. He succeeded by sounding good but doing nothing. Blair got it the other way around... He will never recover, he has been ruined for all time . . . that is tragic."

"Unfortunately, Tony Blair’s background was as an actor, not as an historian. If only he had read a book on the 1920s [when Britain briefly occupied Iraq], he might have hesitated." The key factor in Mr Blair’s decision to go to war was based on a particular perception of the special relationship, which was "when America declares a major issue of national interest, the British will not oppose".

"The British have a kind of tough-minded strategic sense of things politically in the Middle East and the world as a whole. We typically ignore them and take no notice. We say, ‘There go the British telling us how to run the empire — let’s park them’. It’s a sad business."

In a brutal verdict on the cornerstone of Mr Blair’s diplomacy, he added: "Tony Blair could sound European on a good day, he could occasionally pronounce French well, and wear blue jeans with the best Americans. But the role of Britain acting as a bridge between Europe and America is disappearing before our eyes... London’s bridge is falling down." Asked whether Britain was always going to be taken for a ride by Mr Bush, Myers replied: "It was a done deal from the beginning — it was a one-sided relationship that was entered into, I think, with open eyes."

Now I was having enough trouble stomaching this rant, but my tolerance wore very thin when this political moron claimed that Tony’s relationship with Labour "increasingly resembled that of Ramsay MacDonald, who was never forgiven by his party for forming a national government with the Tories in the 1920s" and that "the Labour Party lacked the instinct to go for the jugular when it became clear their leader was a liability.

"They have not had the courage or the audacity to do what the Conservative Party did with Margaret Thatcher. She had to be removed and they did it."

These sound, of course, like the words of a bitter man who has been shoved aside politically or failed to achieve some promotional goal at work. But a little research this morning quickly revealed that Myers has held these views for a long time - prior to and during his service in the US State Department.

Records at The Library of Congress show that in 2004, in a seminar organised by Kissinger scholar Lanxin Xiang entitled "Global Geopolitical Trends: Is the Iraq War a Major Turning Point?," Kendall Myers strongly questioned the durability of long-standing global political relations, saying: "the Anglo-American relationship is very strong, but it faces significant challenges within Tony Blair's party".

So it's clear, then. The man is a sleeper who has always held these views and was planted in his positions of power in order to sow the seeds of dissent and confusion. Now he has exposed himself.

I say that Condoleezza Rice should act immediately and decisively and have this man removed from all positions of influence.

After all we are America's strongest and most important friend and ally, and a truly equal partner who is genuinely listened to by our American friends. So sack Myers, Condie.

If that's OK with you.