The shared hegemony of Britain & the USAwith a shared past & the future Anglospherewith morality and values for peace& progress …

People need to understand the firm, unshifting schist upon which the alliance between the UK and the USA sits and why little short of culture-obliterating events could change that. There are likely no two nations on Earth (certainly, none of any relevant power) that compare to the closeness of the United States and the United Kingdom. The only other alliances that compare are —and with a overlapping culture and concerns— those between the two concerned in this answer and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

But what about that history? The US and the UK have stood back to back in battle against enemies in the two greatest wars in human history. They share a common language and a quaint cultural enmity towards the other; the kind of faux abrasiveness one observes between close paternal cousins who jostle about and compare sexual prowess or athletic achievement. Every barb, every insult, every smug rejoinder confirms the unique closeness and unspoken love rather than an indicator of any actual enmity.

The Second World War cemented that. It hasn’t changed since.

Churchill was never loved in Parliament anything like he was by the public or the press; to his peers he was a necessary evil of focused anger and pinpoint aggressiveness to counter the Nazi threat. The First Lord of the Admiralty took far too much pleasure in beating the drums of war for those in Parliament. Even after Hitler invaded Poland, Lord Halifax was the preferred candidate. But Halifax never showed interest in it (nor was it in fashion for a Lord to assume the head of government). Churchill practically begged for it to the chagrin of his fellow parliamentarians, who saw such garish campaigning as positively American, and therefore gauche (and apropos, given Churchill’s near ancestry).

Churchill’s open contempt (indeed, hostility) for Chamberlain cost him politically, nearly to the point of ensuring he’d never be elevated. But as history demonstrated, there was no cost Churchill would not incur to achieve victory against the Nazis. Brutality, it was determined, should be countered by a type of brutality that only England could fashion and had repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to engineer on the rare occasions history called for it. But only when history demanded; and quickly disposed of afterwards. Churchill was not Parliament’s first choice, but events selected the man more than Parliament and more than England (and yes, I mean “England”).

The Empire won; the Germans, Italians and Japanese lost. It came at great cost.

At the conclusion of World War II, the British Empire was hocked to the Americans. As mentioned, there was nothing that Churchill –thus the Empire– would not to do remain in the war and defeat the Nazis. But after the war, that was another story. The Lend-Lease Act put Great Britain into deep debt with the United States. In a parallel universe, the massive, crumbling Empire that the United Kingdom administered, with which she enjoyed a super-special trading agreement that lined her coffers (and made lazy her industries) would be able to pay back the debt within a generation. But the US pounded the final nail into the coffin of the Empire (and the French one to boot): the Atlantic Charter. To get money, both empires had to open the floodgates to American-style capitalism and competition.

In 1945, nothing could compete on the open market with American industry. Nothing could compete in numbers; nothing could compete in quality; nothing could compete in technology. The Atlantic Charter opened the doors of Europe to American cinema that quickly destroyed their local markets. Their stores were flooded with American fashion, TVs, radios, cars and everything in between. That wasn’t to last either, but the point is, Britain’s one and only way to remain a viable global power was its special relationship with the nations in the Commonwealth-Empire. After that ended, Britain had no choice but to fall into the arms of America.

It wasn’t that easy though. Until the Suez Canal incident, the Brits were under two delusions that quickly ended: that they could write checks (in any denomination) that Uncle Sam would happily cash and that Britain still had the mettle to meddle. It didn’t. The propinquity (in perfidy, display, function and time) of the Suez Canal incident to uprisings in Hungary, gave the Soviets political cover to crush that nascent plea for freedom. And how could Europe or America protest!? Eisenhower was incredibly displeased and he showed that displeasure with the greatest threat possible: he threatened to destroy the Pound Sterling.

The Brits acquiesced. The invasion collapsed. The Israelis withdrew. The French (oh how they fumed) remade its entire military and foreign policy after that. A 20-year rift in relations between France and the UK ensued. The UK was offered a special deal on nuclear missiles. The French fumed. The US put nukes in Germany. The French fumed. The French counterpunched by keeping the UK out of the EEC until de Gaulle was dead. They remained allies, but it wasn’t until Thatcher and Mitterrand that the breach was closed.

But Britain thought more pragmatically on the matter of its place and its relationship with America. Knowing that the UK would never again be a superpower, it was decided from that point on (i.e. post licking of Suez wounds), British foreign policy would be to (a) fashion a relationship of such cordiality between the US and the UK that when the needs of the UK arose, the US would want to acquiesce; (b) that Britain would never again act outside of Washington’s expressed interest; and (c) that Britain would forever inform the US of all its policy initiatives.

It has largely worked. Britain, far from being the US’s lackey, has fashioned itself into the only tail in history with the potential to wag the whole goddamned dog. And while there are still festering wounds from Iraq, the fact remains that the US never pushed the UK to act and Blair –no one’s pushover– happened to believe both in the mission and British committment to the alliance with the US.

But the alliance remains strong, despite (well deserved) upset by the British people (and far too little on behalf of the American people). The US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only multiple nations that share their entire intelligence network, indeed, to the point where there is absolutely no distinction between where the technical ownership of one begins and the other ends. While there are clear distinctions in Human Intelligence, there simply is none with Signals Intelligence.

Post 9/11, the US and UK (+3) are the two closest allies on the planet. That there are differing perspectives and mutual annoyances (Bush and Blair were further apart politically but closer than can be understood; Obama and Cameron are nearly identical politically speaking, yet are known to not share any friendship), is of little concern. The US shares everything (except the F-22: You dodged a bullet limeys!) and the same is given in return. Expect the relationship to continue that way for the remainder of our lives.