October 4, 2013

FINEST HOUR 102, SPRING 1999

BY THE HON. CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, GBE

A former U.S. Secretary of Defense, Mr. Weinberger is Chairman of Forbes, a Trustee of The Churchill Center and an honorary member of the Center and International Churchill Societies. Reprinted by kind permission of Forbes Magazine^© Forbes Inc., 1999. English Speaking Peoples, which began in Finest Hour 66, is a periodic opinion series on themes of interest to the English-Speaking Community. Comment pro and con is always welcomed.

===================

2025 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 42nd International Churchill Conference. Washington, DC | October 9-11, 2025

2025 International Churchill Conference

Watching Winston S. Churchill, America’s newest guided missile destroyer, glide down the ways to be launched at the Bath Iron Works in Maine (see page 10) inevitably led to reflections on the US relationship with the UK, past and present. The Winston S. Churchill is a technological marvel, outfitted with state-of-the-art offensive weapons and the Aegis system, the world’s foremost defense against aerial attack. Indeed, this Aegis system, which is on our cruisers and destroyers, could be the foundation of a mobile missile defense program were it not for Mr. Clinton’s implacable opposition to any effective missile defense.

While watching this ship and thinking about her namesake, I was asked by a young reporter: “Do you think it is appropriate to name one of our destroyers after a foreigner?” I was almost too surprised to answer. I told my interrogator that I thought it entirely appropriate and that this was a fine tribute to a man who was, perhaps, this century’s most important and valuable person. As an afterthought, I added that in any event Mr. Churchill was an American citizen (honorary, 1963) The reporter’s surprise at this led me to wonder if it was not time—for the benefit of latecomers—for a brief essay on the Anglo-American relationship.

Since the end of our Civil War, the American relationship with the UK has been closer and of a different nature from that which we have had with any other country. We have fought in two world wars together, as well as in Korea and the Persian Gulf. Britain has been the ally on whom we could always count—even in smaller actions, such as the air attack on Libya. That is why it was so important for the United States to support Britain in the Falklands in 1982. Britain has stood beside the United States not only in war but also in the difficult periods following war. It has been a staunch supporter of NATO and of our bilateral activities. And now in Kosovo, the UK is once again Americas strongest and surest ally.

Of course, there have been differences: the Suez crisis in the 1950s, compounded by the dynamics of the 1956 presidential election; and the intervention in Grenada in 1983, after which, for a short time, there were diplomatic tensions between the US and the UK. Nevertheless, our militaries have always worked closely together, sharing training, intelligence and other vital information.

Our official relationship has been greatly bolstered by close personal friendships at all levels. The most legendary of these were between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Personal friendships flourished across the Atlantic between members of both countries’ governments during the Reagan and Bush administrations. And President Clinton seems to work well with Prime Minister Tony Blair.

At the launching of the Winston S. Churchill, it was evident that William Cohen and George Robertson, defense chiefs for the US and the UK, respectively, have formed a similar and valuable friendship. Janet Langhart Cohen and Lady Soames (Winston Churchill’s daughter and a celebrated author in her own right) also get along splendidly. It is close personal friendships such as these that are the real glue of alliances. It is always much harder to disagree with or follow different paths from your close friends. In today’s world of shifting alliances and bewilderingly fast changes in governments, policies and people, it is enormously important for both countries to have sheet anchors in each other.

And so, both because of our relationships and because of who he was, it is appropriate for us to honor Winston Churchill, who, almost alone, made it possible for America to enter the war for the world’s freedom while it still could be won;

I asked that young reporter to try to imagine what our world would be like today if Winston Churchill had not been Prime Minister throughout World War II. Indeed, we all might ask ourselves that. Any answer is almost beyond imagining.