Military and diplomatic sources in both Britain and the US are privately critical over the other side’s role in the action which has hit a damaging “stalemate” and left Colonel Muammar Gadaffi clinging to power.
Britain wants the US to take more of a defined role in the campaign, with UK military chiefs protesting that the effectiveness of bombing raids is being lessened by the absence of American leadership.
US diplomatic sources, meanwhile, have criticised Britain as a “skittish” and unpredictable ally which frequently issues a “red card” -- effectively vetoing a target, causing confusion and greatly hampering proper planning.
Mr Obama emphasised the differences between the two allies yesterday, describing the action against Libya as “limited” in a letter to US lawmakers.
Mr Cameron is expected to pass on the frustration over the lack of leadership from the US when he holds talks with Mr Obama at 10 Downing Street on Wednesday, although Downing Street sources last night denied there were tensions.
Both London and Washington are keen to proclaim a new era for the “special relationship” between the two nations on the eve of the trip, which will see the president and his wife, Michelle, spend two nights in Britain, with the programme including a state banquet at Buckingham Palace and a speech by Mr Obama to both houses of parliament.
It will also feature a barbecue in No 10’s rose garden on Wednesday, hosted jointly by Samantha Cameron and Mrs Obama, which both leaders are expected to take time out of their schedules to attend. » | Patrick Hennessy, Philip Sherwell and Andrew Gilligan | Saturday, May 21, 2011
My comment:
Has it come to this? That the UK can't wage an effective war against a country like Libya without 'Big Daddy' helping in the background? Only seventy years ago, we could put up a damn good fight against the military might of the Third Reich – alone. Now, we can't take on even Qadhafi alone!
But for Cameron's vanity, we wouldn't have started a war against Libya anyway. We have no business being there. It is wrong to interfere in an internal revolution. That's what revolutions are all about: upheaval in the internal affairs of a nation. And as for all the crap about protecting civilians – sheer nonsense! Nato, the UK, and France have inflicted more pain and suffering on civilians than Qadhafi ever did.
Qadhafi is an evil man. Of that there is no doubt. But should we really have gone in there to 'sort them out' when we turn a blind eye to equally unpalatable atrocities in Bahrain and Syria, to name but two examples? Indeed, it was only yesterday that Cameron gave us a photo shoot of himself with the Crown Prince of Bahrain, the man some are calling the "torturer-in-chief". And boy, didn't Cameron look weak! And such hypocrisy! One thing is for sure: This is not the UK's "finest hour".
Lastly, whilst I have every respect for the US, and even though I frequently visit that fine country, I find it rather unacceptable, rather nauseating, that we have to look for US approval for everything. We have to follow their lead all the time, and follow their trends. Isn't it about time that the UK grew a backbone? – © Mark
This comment also appears here
