British policy in Iraq diverging from that of USA

Since Tony Blair stepped down as Prime Minister of the UK, his successor, Gordon Brown has seemed to drift away from the "shoulder-to-shoulder", publicly united front which characterised the Blair years.

There has been no formally announced policy shift; but rumblings continue that the USA thinks the UK has somehow been defeated or just given up trying in the the South of Iraq, while the British defend their way of operating (handing over to Iraqi forces then withdrawing) as the correct way, and are critical of the US forces on the ground and their Pentagon and White House commanders.

These rifts in policy have been rumours for perhaps two or three years, but are now becoming part of the public domain (as in Sir Michael Jackson's - the former chief of defence staff of the UK - book, soon to be published).

(How) Does this shift in British policy affect American plans?

(How) Does it affect the Bush administration?

Is this a distinct change in policy by the Brits to distance themselves from Iraq, or just exposure of differences that were there from the outset?

Who stands to gain most from this drifting apart of the two leading coalition members (or from this exposure of rifts that were always there, depending on your answer to the previous question)?

Watching the latest bushco press release from Iraq was amazing. At one point he talks of helping the Iraqis make more of iraq or be something other then what it was with the help of the American forces, but he finishes up the speech with talking about how the war in Iraq saves America from terrorism because the terrorist have to conduct war in Iraq. So to an Iraqi what would it be, saving out country or using it as a battlefield? Sort of a catch 22 but lets face it the person in question is not known for dazzling spectacles of intelligence, rather he supports the notion "so easy a caveman could do it!".

How does it affect the bushco regime? I have no idea, I doubt it will make a dent. I imagine some speech that will save face on why the British would leave but Americans need to stay all by ourselves for some reason, I am sure somewhere some crony or group of henchmen are hurriedly working on this. As to a distinct change, well, lets just hope the reality will sink in with our leadership that other intelligent adults have made such a decision. As for who stands to gain, probably the British, as they will not have causality wards full of the maimed and scared after a bit to constantly remind them of four years of iraqinam. Bushco wont care, don’t have to care, the war does not touch them in the slightest past a popularity contest akin to something you might see on MTV, its just reality T.V for them I would suggest. The British or the united kingdom is doing the intelligent thing as bushco in on the way out now, so politically they probably will not be treated as harshly as say France was. I would hope in the next presidency, the one that wins with the concept of bringing the troops home can manage to put the U.N back together if not the world community. I think the success the UK has with domestic counterterrorism will be highlighted, I mean after all its seems as if there presence in Iraq did not draw away possible terror attacks.