That Special Relationship

While I admit that most people in the US have not really heard of the 'special relationship' that we have with Britain, most Brits are aware of the term. I'm no expert on the subject but I'd venture a guess that the idea goes back to WWII, has a lot to do with the common histories and cultures of the two countries, and a lot more to do with Britain latching onto the rising superpower as its own star faded. That may explain why the British are more aware of it than we are. Nevertheless, it has been useful for the US. We used it to connive with our British counterparts to overthrow a government in Iran in the 1950s, we used it against the Brits to get them to move out of Egypt after they, along with the French and Israelis, invaded during the second Suez Crisis, and we've used it more recently with Britain as the strongest member of our 'coalition of the willing' that invaded Iraq. But, like I said, it seems only the Brits are really aware of what a friendship means and particularly this special one of ours.

You may be forgiven for having no idea about what I'm going to talk about. The story has, to my knowledge, made it into absolutely no major (and possibly minor) American news outlet in the country. That may be about to change, though, as the clamor in Britain is boiling and seething into a national umbrage if not outrage. At issue is the absolute refusal of America to cooperate in the investigations of British soldiers killed by Americans in friendly-fire incidents. I believe the number of Brits killed by Americans may outnumber the ones killed by Iraqis. At any rate, the issue has come up again recently because of a coroner's investigation into why, exactly, during the first days of the war that two American planes attacked a column of clearly marked British light tanks killing one and injuring several others.

It was only yesterday that the US finally released a copy of the cockpit video showing what the pilots saw on that day. They also provided a transcript, which appears to highlight the confusion and absolve the pilots (they were told that no 'friendlies' were in the area despite the pilots noting markings that would indicate that the vehicles were coalition forces). The problem is that this was released yesterday nearly 4 years after the incident. The US has failed to provide anything in any of the other inquests. The US has refused to not only turn over soldiers for questioning (most incidents are tragic accidents and not criminal in nature either through neglect or intent) but they have refused to turn over names and, in most cases, even transcripts or the results of their own inquiries. The US, in short, is not being very friendly with its closest ally.

Why bring it up here? Well, for one I'm absolutely pissed that this story is not in the American press. Why wouldn't it be? There is absolutely no interest being showed by the US media on this. But I also think that this issue highlights the degree to which the current administration truly gives not one shit about anyone. There is only a special friendship when it's in our interest. Indeed, it seems that refusing to involve themselves in the inquiries is really just a way for an arrogant power to demonstrate that it doesn't have to play by the rules (remember, we refused to involve ourselves in the Canadian inquiries into their friendly fire incidents or the deportation and torture of one of their citizens by our hands). This is more of the Bush administration's BS posturing about its power and authority and 'trust us' nonsense.

From what I can tell the pilots involved in the current incident felt greater remorse than the US government. That's a shame.

----Update: I checked the NY Times going back some days to be certain that there was nothing there but just a few minutes ago something about the story popped up. Hope it gains strength.