The history of America is undoubtedly one filled with numerous events whether social, political or economical that helped to shape the country into what it is today. The most historic event of American history is perhaps the 2001 terrorist attack popularly known as 9/11 that saw four passenger planes hijacked and crashed into buildings in major cities, most notably the World trade center in New York City. At this point in time, the US government was being headed by President George W. Bush a veteran politician and citizen of the United States (Economist.com). This tragedy sent shock waves throughout the country as well as the entire world and after the attack America declared a War on Terror around the world (Lansford and Watson, 2009). With this turn of events America garnered support from various nations, most outstandingly Britain. The then Prime Minister Tony Blair (eb.com) who later resigned pledged full support for Americas declaration of zero tolerance.
Although their methods of government and administration were not similar, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair both agreed on one thing, international policy. They both saw that crimes of terror were best handled with similar or severe retaliation and together embarked on the war against Iraq to overthrow the tyrant President Saddam Hussein. Prime Minister Blair promised President Bush that the British army would prop up military feats by the United States to oust Saddam Hussein months before the attack. It was claimed that some information passed between bush and Blair that suggested that Mr. Hussein was in the business of manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that would be used to attack enemies of the tiny Muslim country Iraq. It is not clearly known but many claim that that particular dossier was fabricated in order to align Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair's ideas. All in all, it would be hard to imagine two men with views more similar. They united with different but related mandates. Mr. Blair had a mandate from the labor party to persuade the president to support a new push for peace between Israel and Palestine while President Bush had a directive from his voters to succeed the war on terror (Lansford and Watson, 2009). Each got what he wanted but not quite.
The liberal prime minister and the conservative president probably did not have the same opinion on how to fight crime or solve the health care requirements of their citizens, but when it came to alien terrorist activity they were almost one unit. Blair was certain that Britain's long-term interests were supported by a solid coalition with America while Bush believed it was beneficial for America to preserve the special relationship. But that alone is not what is driving this relationship. As Blair quoted in a speech in Chicago in the late 90's, he saw that it is Britain and America's responsibility to aid in diffusing western democracy and values around the globe, and saw that as the definitive defense in opposition to terrorism. He backed America in Iraq not only to preserve the Anglo-American alliance, but out of an idea that Bush is correct in endeavoring to create a western democracy in a country in which peace and equality is rare. Put these two determined, confident politicians together and you acquire a western regime that has been successful at drawing other states to their side.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
The alliance however fell short when a lot of negative press began to surround the Prime Minister and his support for one of the most memorable leaders of the US. His international policies were of course aimed at spreading the western gospel throughout the warring Middle Eastern countries but he ultimately failed and was forced to resign in 2007 (eb.com). Critics have lamented that he perhaps committed political suicide when he decided to join forces with the most controversial President Bush. US president at first of course at first started with a strong relationship with Britain with equality and mutual respect but it evidently fell short midway due to a number of political reasons. Prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001, Bush's foreign policies were mainly to increase economic and political ties with South America especially Mexico due to its long history with the South American country. In addition he was in favor of America pursuing a missile defense system incase of military attacks and also supported the enrolling of China into the much coveted World Trade Organization. While concentrating on this, his policy was interrupted with the terrorist attack and that is when it took a u-turn to concentrate on foreign military action. This is when he declared the War on Terror.
At the same point in time, the British labor party was mounting pressure on Mr. Blair to show competency on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (eb.com). Though Blair had deep affection for the Jewish country due to his religious beliefs, he still wanted to see British or rather western tentacles spread across the Middle East. When Mr. Bush made his intentions clear, Blair saw it as an opportunity to see the British- Middle East policies enforced. Hand in hand, President Bush and the Social democrat Blair embarked on attacks on the militant country Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban regime led by Osama bin Laden (Lansford and Watson, 2009). Following their terror attack, President Bush poured troops into Afghanistan to retaliate on their prior attack. Prime Minister Blair signed a treaty with the US which saw thousands of British troops also injected into Afghanistan. According to Lansford and Watson (2009) seeing his little triumph in controlling many parts of Afghanistan, bush decided that pre-emptive action would be taken on any Middle Eastern country seeking to show any terrorist activity i.e. Axis of evil.
Attacks on Iran, Iraq and North Korea were launched to try and make them submissive. These random yet completely unnecessary mass killings saw the creation of the "Bush Doctrine" that led to widespread shock and anger and ultimately the downfall of President Bush as a household name. Random citizens alleged to be terrorists from these countries were picked up and exiled into Guantanamo bay which was intended as a detention camp but turned out to be a torture facility. At the same time, Blair still thinking that he was helping to spread the western gospel throughout the Middle East kept assisting with troops. With President Bush's reputation dwindling at a high rate, Mr. Blair's was also in the same course as thousands of British troops were dying overseas for no tangible reason. Ignoring voters and media complaints, Blair continued to support American troops as of Bush's orders and this saw him commonly named Bush's poodle.
In addition in mid 2004, certain political veterans within Britain, including diplomats placed within the warring Middle Eastern countries, expressed their concern about the increasing involvement of Britain in the US-Iraqi war of 2003. They also disapproved of the Prime Minister's support for the Road map for peace which meant the maintenance of Israeli habitation on the West Bank. In 2006 Blair was again condemned for his failure to intervene in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon clash. The Observer newspaper expressed that at a legislative meeting before Blair and Bush attended a summit meeting abroad, considerable pressure had been placed on Blair to openly condemn Israel on the amount of death and damage in Lebanon in which he didn't. The Prime Minister was censured for his firm stance alongside Bush on the Middle East policy.
After the dossiers, failed at producing authentic information, and propaganda from spin doctors, people no longer believed him on the US-British alliance of Iraq. Consequently Britons no longer believed in Blair on other many other issues he backed such as poverty and the environment. They believed that his government was mostly of half truths and not enough essence. Fearing for his political career, Mr. Blair began a damage control endeavor that did not go well and ultimately led to his resignation. Similar to Blair, Bush saw his esteem nose-dive. As Blair's administration tried to work its way out of inquiries and worldwide speculation so did Bush's. Despite the day by day facts of bloodbath and prevalent certainty that Iraq is skidding into civil war because of them, the Bush government long attempted to dispute that the troubles in Iraq were those of negative publicity and not poor planning that led to a misconceived incursion. In later 2003, Bush alleged that the media's interpretation of events in Iraq was to blame for the exaggerated speculation.
After the combat, the country's public prosecutor who also doubled up as the head of Crown Prosecution service Ken McDonald declared that those who were responsible for fuelling or even took part in acts of terror, especially those involving the UK should and would be dealt with according to the state laws. He insisted that a tradition of Cabinet self-control was mandatory if terrorist legislations were laid and that a solid and unbiased remedial guiding principle was required if Britain was to be easily attracted by conflicts in other countries and cause them to easily discard their values as a sovereign state. Mr. McDonald quoted "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement"
Therefore two leaders, two dissimilar political ideologies, two different continents, but one political doom: a legacy of unsuccessful policies in the Middle Eastern region and of attempting to twist the war in Iraq. One year later there were rumors of a PR promotion to try and put out positive press on the terrible clash prior to the Presidential elections. President Bush returned to power but there was still a lot of bad publicity surrounding him and his campaign. He also attempted damage control by renewing ties with France and Germany who had previously supported the war on terror but stopped after a while (Economist.com). Mr. Blair on the other hand held on to the last of his political life until he resigned in 2007, a year before the end of Bush's term as President (eb.com). Prior to this, these two very unhappy political allies realized that they were the only political allies they each had so Blair no doubt supported Bush, as he has done repeatedly in the past. But attacking Iran was one precarious policy decision that many did not want the two leaders to execute. Instead both men were forced to resign shoulder to shoulder, as they had been for the past decade.
In conclusion Bush and Blair may have had their countries and parts of the Middle East regions in mind while supporting the terrible wars and attacks on the various countries but they did not completely fall short as their regime saw the downfall of the infamous President Saddam Hussein. Although efforts have been made to even close the notorious Guantanamo bay, it is indefinite when the Middle East, Britain and America will heal from the years of political unrest and ill will.