Keeping the relationship special

A recent poll for The Spectator finds that 65 percent of Brits say British foreign policy should change because of the threat of terrorism. But by a margin of 53 percent to 12 they want it to become "more aggressive" not "more conciliatory." (Interestingly, women are substantially more hawkish than men, 57 percent to 49.) Furthermore, 73 percent of the public agree that "[w]e are in a World War against Islamic terrorists who threaten the West's way of life."

The poll also reveals that the public has little sympathy for civil libertarian objections to stronger anti-terror laws. A whopping 69 percent support Tony Blair's plan to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge. When the government tried to introduce this plan in the wake of the 7/7 bombing last year, its suffered its first ever Commons defeat. Fifty-five percent also support passenger profiling.

But there's a paradox in the public's attitude to the war on terror, as Allister Heath points out. Despite the fact that the public seems to be echoing much of the Blair/Bush diagnosis, only 14 percent think that "Britain should continue to align herself closely with the USA." A large part of the explanation for this is the phenomenal, verging on hysterical, dislike for George W. Bush in Britain. But there is another huge contributing factor: The feeling that Britain has been reduced to being America's poodle.  

A lot of the poodle abuse thrown at Blair is unfair and it's the price he has to pay for what Peter Riddell, the dean of British political journalism, describes as his hug them close strategy. But, as the pollster Stephan Shakespeare notes, the rhetoric that wins Blair ovations in Congress produces groans back home. When Blair waxes lyrical about how Britain's "job is to be there with you", he bolsters this harmful stereotype.

But there are also things that America can do to reverse this impression. For instance, Congress should deal with the iniquitous extradition arrangements—hardly a big political issue over here, but the cause of much resentment back home. Also Henry Hyde should stop blocking the transfer of defense technology to Britain—thankfully he's retiring at the end of the year.

Another priority for the Americans should be improving their public diplomacy across the pond so it is not left up to British ministers to make the case for American policies and defend them when they come under attack. Going more than a year without an ambassador in London—as the two countries fought side by side in two wars—was one of the dumbest diplomatic moves the Bush administration has made. The Americans should also be careful about the face they put forward to Britain. When I'm in London, it never ceases to amaze me how often John Bolton is on TV. Now, if John Bolton was the man put forward to explain U.S. foreign policy to Americans, I'd bet support for the Bush administration would drop even further. So, why inflict him on the Brits?