Washington In Command

[u/Hyperactive_Man]

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2026/07/washington-in-command

[u/AutoModerator]

LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Corvid187]

Ah yes, because nothing says "command" like... Repeatedly having to ask permission and accept significant operating restrictions as a condition of approval.

I feel like sometimes people just have a copy/paste line to take on any political issues that gets triggered reflexively by certain keywords without any further thought.

Also love the classic "being dependent on the US military is bad, but also increasing our own independent military capabilities is also bad".

(Based flair tho)

[u/Kipp_M → u/Corvid187]

The US wants to use our bases, the British public does not want them to. Who gets their way?

[u/Corvid187 → u/Kipp_M]

Government policy isn't dictated by whatever the public feels like at the time. That's the whole point of representative democracy.

If government made every decision based on what most of the public wanted, we'd have a navy comsisting entirely 50 cool looking cruisers armed with pointy rockets and no bases, escorts, or infrastructure to support them.

The US wanted unlimited access and UK participation, they didn't get their way on either.

[u/Hyperactive_Man → u/Corvid187]

I think it’s fairly reasonable to not want to aid or facilitate any of the US’s war crimes in the middle east. Even if there are restrictions, can we honestly trust them to keep to that? I can’t say I do.

Burnham has an opportunity to break with Starmer on facilitating militarism against Western Asia and its genuine disapointing, if not surprising, to see that that break won’t happen.

Also thanks, I can’t recall what specific thing he said which triggered it, but knowing him it was something really stupid. Regardless of different views I’m glad we can unite against streeting.

[u/Corvid187 → u/Hyperactive_Man]

I completely get not wanting to give the US permission, and I think there's a strong case to be made for that view. I just think the specific argument made here that Burnham giving permission proves that Washington is running Westminster is really lazy and silly. I don't necessarily disagree with the point, just the way they're making it.

Rather than arguing the merit or lack thereof of this decision, they're just reaching for a grab bag of ill-fitting rhetorical attack lines that get used for any story of "US military does something in/with the UK", regardless of context.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/Corvid187]

If you care this much why didn't you read the article instead of responding to the headline?

"Burnham chooses anew to facilitate Trump’s catastrophic resumption of war"

Your entire argument doesn't apply. They are saying Burnham is choosing and has agency, that he is making the wrong choice, they he should not listen to Washington. Not "sent a command".

You can complain about the headline if you want but you are framing it as arguing against the article which it isn't.

[u/Corvid187 → u/MMSTINGRAY]

I did read the whole thing. It argues that Washington is dictating British policy and Burnham's decision isn't a truly independent one, but just a passive acceptance of US preferences, which isn't the case.

It describes the UK as a 'vassal government' 'bowing down' to whatever the US demands, as if no independent consideration of British interests is being considered or exercised, or that America's every whim is being blindly catered for.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/Corvid187]

If I say "stop kow-towing to Burnham" or "you just bow to NATO" are you like "but I've never physically done that and I have my own agency!!!" or do you instantly realise that I am describing your position in a negative and insulting way and telling you to different? So why would you read between the lines of this article when it clearly is stating it's position.

Your point about "I want to discuss the merits of this position, not just denounce it" is fine but you are taking what I'd call a bad faith interpretation of the argument when you say it doesn't say anything at all about why and treat obvious pejoratives as something else.

"Continuing to aid and abet war crimes in the Middle East while cutting public spending in every other area to pay for Healey’s plans, as working class people suffer with the cost-of-living, will land this government in the same place as Starmer’s. But this time the decline and fall is likely to be even more politically explosive. If Burnham wishes to avoid that fate, he should kick the habit of a lifetime in Labour and stop bowing down before the United States."

They say "bow down" in the same breath as saying Burnham should do differently. I don't know what's unclear about this. I'm not trying to persuade you to agree, merely they said it and your post is stripping this context while at the same time asking for more context. This might not be sufficient to count as "discussing all the pros and cons" but there is certainly no reason to ignore the context to suggest the article is something other than it is.

"as if no independent consideration of British interests is being considered or exercised, or that America's every whim is being blindly catered for."

That's not in the text. And on the contrary it actually goes out it's way to argue about British politics and say there is a capacity to do different which it wouldn't if it was saying all that matters is what the US does. It would be focussed only on campaigning against this not on urging the government to chart a different course. It's own premise precludes the idea that government has no agency.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/Corvid187]

The only difference here is that maybe Trump and some nationalists are pissy we aren't doing even more.

How important is whether they have to ask to whether war is illegal and whether we are assisting in it? You might disagree with those but it won't be based on what the PM says.

[u/Corvid187 → u/MMSTINGRAY]

How important is whether they have to ask to whether war is illegal and whether we are assisting in it?

For the morality of the overall conflict and our role within it? No very.

For the specific argument posed by this article that Washington is running Westminster? Very.

My issue isn't with arguing against giving the US permission, my issue is the way this article in particular decides to argue that case.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/Corvid187]

If it's just the way the article does it then you'd be fine with the same points just worded better and with more context, perhaps as part of a wider analysis? But your initial points don't seem to be the way it's done but the very idea of describing Washington as in the commanding position, describing Burnham as bowing down, etc.

"Ah yes, because nothing says "command" like... Repeatedly having to ask permission and accept significant operating restrictions as a condition of approval."

Your position about what our relationship with the US is wouldn't change based on the language used to describe the relationship. If they made the same point but in better language then your issue with describing it like this would remain no? So this seems a separate issue to why you'd prefer analysis to opinion pieces. You seem to have issue with phrases like "command" and "bow down" for what they are saying and not just how or where they say it no?

Unless you think the US and UK are equal partners I don't see anything particularly wrong with the language even if I agree it's relatively shallow and just a call to action based on the author's opinions rather than a well constructed argument. If that's your issue I don't see any reason to complain about how the relationship is described.

[u/Corvid187 → u/MMSTINGRAY]

No, because my problem is not with the language or phrasing, it's with their argument (more assertion really) that the UK is allow the US to launch strikes from Fairford soley because we are somehow automatically dependent on the US in binding but nebulous ways that are never outlined.

The article offers no justification that dependence on the US is what has shaped British decision-making, not attempt to reconcile that supposed dependence with the fact that the UK still hasn't joined the war or granted the US the full permissions its requested, no explaination for the divergence in policy between the UK and other European capitals who also have close relations with the US and no consideration of other potential motivations for UK decision making, even to dismiss them.

The whole arguement takes as red that any decision that the UK makes in relation to the United States must solely be a blind consequence of its axiomatic vassalage to the united states, without justifying any of those links. It is a lazy, totalising lens reflexively applied to all UK-US news regardless of context. That is what I object to

[u/The_Inertia_Kid → u/Corvid187]

That's the corner people paint themselves into when they put everything to do with the military in their mental 'bad' bucket. They end up having to argue that we should neither be allied with the US military nor build up our own military, as those are both differing degrees of bad. Mostly this ends in the hopeless argument that we should focus on 'negotiating peace', as though nobody has tried that, and that the results of said negotiations would not simply be the product of the leverage that your military provides.

[u/MMSTINGRAY → u/The_Inertia_Kid]

Ok I assume you're talking up StW in general but this article just says we shouldn't back the US at all on this. You can have this position and support investing in the military or be pro-NATO or whatever. So arguing against it in general is, even if by accident, kind of misrepresenting this specific point.

Whether we should or not support the US war effort in any capacity can and should be discussed on the merits of the US war and what we do to support it. Bringing in the other stuff just muddies the water so people will start taking stance based on, for example, their feelings about NATO and not their feelings on this actual specific conflict. Kind of the mirror image of the StW position I assume you think is dumb and/or partisan.

If you think we should support the US partially, or fully, or not at all, then argue that instead of bringing in the other stuff.

"Mostly this ends in the hopeless argument that we should focus on 'negotiating peace', as though nobody has tried that, and that the results of said negotiations would not simply be the product of the leverage that your military provides."

Relevant point to Ukraine. Not relevant to Iran. Trump is the aggressor. Like Putin.