Many on the right have complained that the Obama administration's refusal to side with Britain over the Falklands, combined with other slights aimed at Britain and other European nations, are rookie mistakes. Perhaps they are or even calculated slights. But I'm not so sure. There might be more to it.
As President Washington noted long ago, the United States should not make "permanent alliances." The "special relationship" between the U.S. and Britain, is, in theory, a relationship of that sort. Beyond that NATO sometimes seems to be similar.
Given the state the many of the nations of Europe are in, it is not unreasonable for the U.S. to start looking elsewhere for aid and support abroad. Perhaps it's prudent for the U.S. to be more friendly to Argentina and less friendly to Britain.
The trouble with this line of thought, however, is that the very things which are weakening Europe, an extensive administrative and welfare state which is sapping the vitality of the nations of Europe, seems to be Obama's model for America's future too.
The London financial district's stake in America's ruling gang is the greatest obsticle to moving away from the British and friends.
I'm not so sure. It didn't work that way in the 19th century, when the importance of British bankers was greater than it is today.