- guardian.co.uk, Sunday 16 November 2003 01.21 GMT
Such a visit is an opportunity to take stock of our relationship with the most powerful democracy in the world. Iraq will loom large. Disagreements over trade, the International Criminal Court, conditions at Guantanamo Bay and global warming will all be high on the agenda. Protesters will make their feelings known.
Such a list might appear to back the argument that President Bush should not be accorded the pomp and ceremony of a visit hosted by the Queen and that Britain's interests lie elsewhere. The reverse is true. Mr Bush should be here precisely because we have our disagreements and precisely because so many of our interests coincide. That he will be accompanied by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, and John Snow, the US Treasury Secretary, is testimony to the importance the US places on the special relationship.
Yes, we want progress on issues that divide us. America should abandon steel tariffs, it should institute fair trials for the Guantanamo detainees and withdraw the threat of the death penalty. And Mr Bush should also signal that he will not simply park the Middle East peace process until his re-election is secure. But all these disagreements stand a better chance of resolution as a result of face-to-face meetings at Number 10.
Iraq will be central to Thursday's meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair. The announcement this weekend that the Iraqification process is to be accelerated should be given a cautious welcome. The sooner the Iraqi people are allowed to signal who they want to run their country and the sooner the occupation can be brought to a close, the better. But with security deteriorating and political institutions still nascent, pulling out a day too soon would be no better than leaving a day too late. If there is any hint that America no longer has the stomach for the necessarily lengthy commitment to a new Iraq, Mr Blair must persuade Mr Bush to be resolute. Reducing the Allied military presence can only work in tandem with an increase in trained Iraqi police officers and civil defence forces.
The daily horrors in beleaguered Iraq give everyone pause for thought, but they must be seen against a background of largely unnoted improvement - canals are being cleared, power and water supplies are largely restored and nearly all schools and hospitals are open.
Steady nerves are required now. The worst outcome for the West and for Iraq would be for the US to scuttle off, fearful of the impact of the mounting casualty list on the next presidential election. The stop-the-war campaigners here and the Republican strategists in the US, whose views unite on the merits of early exit, are wrong. Both countries have an obligation to see this through. To leave Iraq to the tender mercies of Islamic terrorists, Baathist thugs and internecine tension between Shia and Sunni extremists would be a betrayal. If Mr Blair can strengthen Mr Bush's resolve to finish the job, the visit will be more than justified.
