It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The First of Fifty One

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:37 AM
The title of this post may seem confusing at first, but it is to invoke thought about a peculiar situation I think slips the minds of most if not almost all Americans. The first of fifty-one suggests this: The first state out of fifty-one states.

Which state am I referring to?


The reason I bring it up is it is impactful on the US in many ways, not only in the structure of US intelligence gathering but even the arguments of our vague constitution on the matter of foreign policy fit models of British foreign policy for centuries. Most easily observed in Intelligence gathering where MI6 has very limited over sight by their Parliament - sound familiar?

The reason I even think it worthy of discussion is an internal question can be asked: "where did Neoconservatism come from?"

As far as we know we are taught disillusioned democrats joined "the dark side" in an effort to hate Soviets...(yes I'm being semi-sarcastic).

It's not easy to untie the knot but the truth is more likely somewhere between that and the fact that Britain had a resurgence of Imperialism around the same time that is actually growing stronger (or did until Iraq blew-up in their face) which was expressed by the idea of more "interventionist Britain to spread Democracy to the world".

Neoconservatives in the US morphed more slowly - hiding first behind the concept of taking down the Soviet Union and Reagan is said to be the "first greatest Neoconservative" or whatever. It's no confusion he was closely tied to that Iron Prime Mistress and Britain.

Conspiracy? Not so much, merely it makes sense that the US and Britain formed tight security ties since WWI and especially since WWII where the US gained experience in Intelligence gathering from an already experienced Intelligence Service from the British Empire.

Before the Iraq War, I remember clearly that Bush met privately with Tony Blaire to get the British on board, what was discussed was not made public but it turned Tony Blaire completely around. The argument is made in the book the "Rise of the Vulcans" that Bush's administration if not him himself are "neocons".

Being such, is it simply possible that a neconservative ideology - loosely expressed as bringing liberalism to the illiberal at the point of a sword if need-be is creeping into both US and British politics?

And if so...who started it or who controls it is moot it could quite possibly be that each actor is in the same boat sometimes rowing together and at others not.

But it raises the last question and the one to truly discuss.

Is Britain a "first of fifty-one". Do certain Americans take British and certain British take Americans more seriously ... enough that the effect on foreign policy making could very well have created the Iraq war - an intervention in the illiberal wrought by the only two nations that have a growing ideology to do such a thing.

Since we're only concerned with the United State foreign policy - the question can be simplified to what effects if any is Britain having on US foreign policy today? Are they limited to actual policies, do they include policy options, do they go as high as affecting the US's entire Grand Strategy? And furthermore does Britain affect part of the US foreign policy making institutions such as the intelligence services as I suggested?


log in