[For the
United States, a less reliable Britain would be undeniably damaging. British
military involvement was key to U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, with
troops from these isles making up the single largest foreign force on the
ground after that of the United States. In addition, Britain’s decision to sign
on to U.S. operations lent them international legitimacy.]
LONDON — Lap
dogs no more!
After
Parliament’s decision to reject taking part in any
U.S.-led strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, that
victory cry rang out Friday from many quarters in Britain. For those who
smarted at the memory of former prime minister Tony Blair — lampooned in the
British press as President George W. Bush’s “poodle’’ — Friday marked the first
day of a sweet new independence.
But
Britons of another stripe awoke in a daze.
How had
the Churchillian spirit of a nation suddenly turned into a Chamberlain moment,
appeasing a tyrant? At great risk, they argued, was Britain’s outsize role in
the world, a role it has earned since World War II by playing global deputy to
America’s sheriff.
Despite
official assurances on both sides of the Atlantic that the “special
relationship” remained intact, these Yankophiles sensed that a bellwether
moment had arrived.
“In 50
years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed/ashamed,” tweeted
veteran British politician and diplomat Paddy Ashdown. “Britain’s answer to the
Syrian horrors? none of our business!”
In
Britain, prime ministers, and not Parliament, have traditionally been the
deciders on military intervention. But the extraordinary events Thursday night
appeared to signal a change.
It left
Britons engaged in a bout of national soul-searching, with top officials saying
the political earthquake in Parliament had raised a fundamental question about
what kind of nation Britain ought to be. Would it remain a global force or
begin to drift, as some suggested Friday, into a diminished state of splendid
isolation?
Britain,
a U.S. ally in the war in Iraq, might watch from the sidelines if Washington
launches a Syrian strike and turns to France for a European stamp of approval.
(Could we see the debut of “liberty muffins’’ a decade after the derisory
“freedom fries”?)
For the
United States, a less reliable Britain would be undeniably damaging. British
military involvement was key to U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, with
troops from these isles making up the single largest foreign force on the
ground after that of the United States. In addition, Britain’s decision to sign
on to U.S. operations lent them international legitimacy.
Yet
Britain might have even more to lose. Its close relationship with the United
States gave it a global footprint decades after Britain shed superpower status
on its own. The relationship afforded not only diplomatic clout but also
boosted British trade and industry around the world.
“I think
this is more than a one-off decision. I think Parliament has set a precedent
with the intention that it, not the prime minister, is going to decide whether
or not we go to war in the future,” said Richard Kemp, the former commander of
British forces in Afghanistan. “I think the British people, the many who say we
have been America’s poodles for far too long, will now get much more used to
this idea of saying no.”
During
Thursday’s marathon debate, resistance appeared to be rooted less in
straightforward anti-Americanism than in fatigue, distrust and frustration over
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But also
loud and clear was a newly pragmatic view that has only seemed to grow here
since Parliament agreed to join Washington in launching a strike in Libya two
years ago. The British military, skeptical lawmakers argued, should be reserved
for action clearly and unquestionably in the national interest.
Although
the Syrian opposition is viewed by many here as filled with elements just as
bad as Assad’s forces, many British lawmakers thought it best to sit this one
out.
The
decision “has the potential to mark a very substantial alteration in the
alliance between two countries, which call themselves their closest allies,”
said Menzies Campbell, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the junior
partners in the Conservative-led coalition government.
But
others laid Thursday’s debacle squarely at the feet of Prime Minister David
Cameron — a Syria hawk who has long argued for a tougher stance on Assad.
Cameron
failed, lawmakers said, to offer a clear mission statement, with few accepting
his argument that bombing regime targets amounted to “not taking sides.” He
also failed, the critics said, to learn the lessons of Iraq by appearing too
eager to meet a rapid U.S. timetable for action, and he offered what several
called flimsy evidence to back up claims of Assad’s hand in an alleged Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus.
Should
Thursday’s decision herald a new day for a somehow dimimished Britain, not
everyone here would be disappointed.
“I would
be absolutely delighted that we really can relieve ourselves of some of this
imperial pretension, that a country of our size can seek to be involved in
every conceivable conflict that’s going on around the world,” Crispin Blunt,
one of Cameron’s Conservatives who reject military action, told the BBC.
Karla
Adam contributed to this report.
