What's happening to the monarch of the Sea?

Yesterday the British government launched Iraq Inquiry committee, just as the last troops were pulled back to Kuwait by today in compliance with the British-Iraqi SOFA, charged with”

…considering the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country…

The Inquiry is not a court of law and nobody is on trial. But I want to make something absolutely clear. This Committee will not shy away from making criticism. If we find that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, we will say so frankly.

The Washington Post is reporting that those called will be former Prime minister Tony Blair, and in contrast to what had previously been discussed sessions with be public whenever possible. The article also stated:

John Chilcot… said that "the Anglo-American relationship is one of the most central parts of this inquiry" and that the panel hoped to have "discussions" with Americans involved in the war.

I was reminded forcibly of Patrick Porter’s piece on Kings of War from earlier this week, discussing the role that the “special relationship” has played in continued British involvement in both wars:

For the UK, the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, is part of a grand strategic goal – to sustain a relationship with the United States.

In the debate over invading Iraq, Tony Blair was explicit on this point. The UK was not only supporting the US because it agreed with its case for removing Saddam. Britain was participating also to shape, lead and advise the American superpower – to promote British influence, to integrate America’s war effort within a multilateral (if not formally sanctioned and legal) coalition, to guard against a reversion back to American isolationism, and to align America’s war against terrorism within an internationalist and liberal framework…

At the level of defence policy and military capability, senior officers articulate a parallel desire to make Britain’s military power deliver the UK a seat at the top table, to help Britain ‘punch above its weight’...

For the Anglo-American relationship, there is a paradox in the war on terror. Though Britain participated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan partly to keep its credibility and pay a ‘blood price’ to sustain the relationship, the strain and difficulty of those wars effectively endangers that credibility. Britain’s political will, the muscle and effectiveness of its armed forces, and its capacity to translate highly-regarded military force into strategic success, all of this is placed on the line, and repeatedly. Undertaken to fortify the Atlantic alliance and Britain’s status as a heavyweight junior partner, the war instead jeopardises it, and the Brits feel forced to rescue it.

I think the specific note this early in the proceeding of the inquiry board that the “special relationship” is within the bounds of the investigation speaks, a least to some degree, to a more serious desire to question whether the relationship should remain as prominent in calculations of British Strategic interests in the future. Given the way the political climate is leaning in Britain, I think that decision is going to rest with David Cameron and the Tories, rather than the beleaguered Brown administration. If Obama wants to keep our strongest ally, this might be a good time to make nice.

Crossposted to http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/07/31/old-friends-sat-on-a-park-bench-like-book-ends/