The bond between the US and the UK runs deep, especially when it comes to their economies.

In an historic speech before both houses of the British Parliament yesterday, President Obama reaffirmed the "special relationship" between Great Britain and the United States. He made reference to the joint sacrifices both countries have made on the battlefield in defense of freedom, taking special note of the wartime alliance and friendship between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt that helped give birth to the relationship as the two nations fought "side by side to free a continent from the march of tyranny."

References to the alliance between Great Britain and the United States in World War II are of course entirely appropriate, as the "special relationship" as we know it began in the dark days of 1939-40. But the President also made reference to the two countries' strong economic ties and the fact that today we "live in a global economy that is largely of our own making."

Here, too, the President is correct. Yet most Americans remain largely unaware of this economic aspect of the "special relationship." Much of the global economy we operate in today does indeed have its origins not in the 1980s or 90s, but the 1940s, as Great Britain and the United States struggled to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia.

To understand this, let's take a look at the link between the Great Depression and World War II -- especially from the American perspective. For Franklin Roosevelt and his Secretary of State Cordell Hull, this link was not only obvious, but tragic. The two men, in fact, were absolutely convinced that the cause of the Second World War lay in the economic depravity and dislocation of trade and commerce that were the hallmarks of the Great Depression. Near the end of the war, for example, in his State of the Union address of January 1944, FDR observed that we "had come to a clear realization...that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." And as early as the early 1930s, Cordell Hull was frequently quoted as saying, "If goods cannot cross borders, armies will."

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

As a consequence of these beliefs, the Roosevelt administration committed itself to the concept of freer trade, beginning with the passage of Hull's Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934 and continuing right up through the war. Hull's policies took the United States in a new direction away from the high tariff policies of the Hoover years, and in many respects laid the foundation for the opening up of the world's trade immediately after the end of the Second World War. This was best exemplified by the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) in 1947.

Ironically, in response to the high tariffs of the Hoover administration, the British had established an intra-Empire trading system called "Imperial Preference" in 1932 that allowed most goods within the British Commonwealth to be traded with little or no tariff while keeping US goods out. This was an anathema to Hull, and during the war he used the leverage of Lend-Lease aid to try to get the British to drop it. Hull was never able to get the sort of rock solid commitment to ending Imperial Preference he would have liked, but under Article VII of the 1942 Lend Lease Consideration Agreement (governing Lend-Lease aid), the British did agree to take "joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world."

By 1944, US military and economic preponderance was such that there was little doubt the Roosevelt administration had the upper hand in the "special relationship." As such, the agreements that were negotiated and signed at Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks that year (establishing the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and laying the groundwork for the United Nations) largely reflected the American, as opposed to the British, negotiating positions. The same was true a few years later when the GATT was signed in Geneva.

Viewed from this perspective, the Second World War was as much about the re-ordering of the world's economic system along American -- and away from British -- lines as it was about defeating fascism in Europe and Asia. Still, there is no question that during these years the United States considered British cooperation in this effort not only vital, but essential, for without it they doubted their plans for a new world order could succeed. While it may true that Great Britain has always been America's junior in the transatlantic partnership, President Obama is correct when he says that the Anglo-American relationship is not merely "special" but "essential" to the development of "a world that is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just."

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Even as a young person, I was more interested in the gray areas than in good versus evil.

In announcing Osama bin Laden's death, President Obama invoked a simpler time in our country when we all rallied together in the wake of national tragedy:

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family... [T]onight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11.

A New York Times article a few days later talked to young people who grew up in the shadow of that event and celebrated bin Laden's death in the streets. It describes some of the celebratory scenes that broke out that night:

In Washington, college students spilled in front of the White House chanting "U.S.A! U.S.A.!" and puffing cigars. In State College, Pa., 5,000 students waved flags, blew vuvuzelas, and sang the national anthem and the chorus to Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." Cheering students jumped into Mirror Lake at Ohio State -- as they do with big football games -- and swelled the Common in Boston.

The young people in the article say their jubilation at his death is due to the black and white outlook September 11th gave them. "The attacks were the first time they had considered that people in the rest of the world might harbor ill will toward Americans," the article says. "The experience established the world in polarities of black and white, with Bin Laden being the new emblem of evil." Neil Howe, a writer and historian, told the Times that for my generation, "Evil is evil, good is good. There are no antiheroes, there is no gray area. This is a Harry Potter vignette, and Voldemort is dead."

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

But my experience of that time and the years since has been significantly different. I was in my senior year high school English class when I was told that planes had hit the World Trade Center. What President Obama remembers fondly as unity, I remember as a time filled with blind uber-patriotism that was just barely covering deep grief and confusion. While the Times talked to students who felt the 9/11 attacks split the world into stark black and white relief, for me it became even grayer. It did indeed make me think about the fact that there were people in other parts of the world that hated Americans -- but that only prompted me to ask why. How could people so far away hate what America represented that they would want to kill so many of us? Hate us so much that they would give their lives to kill us? What had we done to create an image of ourselves in that part of the world that was so despicable? I lived in that gray area, trying to understand what it said about our country and our relationship with other countries, while everyone else I knew waved flags.

That was what felt so uncomfortable about the "unity," which translated into stars and stripes plastered along every surface, chants of "USA! USA!," and singing the national anthem. It was a way to not have to think about the complexities and tough questions that the event brought up. Chris Hayes saw this most clearly manifested in the huge rise in the use of the term "bad guys" after 9/11. "'Bad guys' was a phrase that channeled our rawest emotions in the wake of 9/11, emotions that we collectively mythologize," he wrote recently in The Nation.

To sing the national anthem, to put your hand on your heart, to fly the flag from your window, felt right and comforting, as if we could find collective refuge in this new and terrifying but refreshingly simple world we had suddenly come to inhabit -- a world in which we were attacked, a world in which we must defend ourselves, a world in which bad guys were out there and wanted to do us harm.

It was that thirst for a world in which we were good and the others were bad that led to our entrance into a war in Afghanistan to seek revenge, he writes. And it was a desire for things to be simpler than they really were.

I found myself feeling that discomfort once again as I watched people pour into the streets and proudly shout, "We got the bastard!" after the announcement of bin Laden's death. It furthers the "bad guyism," as Hayes puts it, that kept us from questioning ourselves as a nation in the aftermath of the attacks. There's no sense in telling people how they should feel in reaction to such an important event. Emotions rightly range from somber to relieved to joyful. But it's the way we talk about it in public, the way we come together as a nation to experience it, that says something about how we think of ourselves in relation to the world. We're still the good guys. And anyone who questions that is a bad guy.

Bryce Covert is Assistant Editor at New Deal 2.0.

FDR laid out the Four Freedoms and took the moral high ground against Hitler's aggression. Obama should follow suit and work to win hearts and minds.

In a prescient article written a few months following the September 11 attacks, noted British military historian Michael Howard argued that the Bush Administration's decision to label our struggle with Al Qaeda the "war on terror" may have been a mistake. Howard takes issue with the use of the term "war" in part out of his conviction that its use elevates the status of the terrorists who should be seen not as military opponents, but rather as international criminals. He writes that they are no better than murderous drug traffickers who should be ruthlessly pursued with all the tools at our disposal, including the use of the criminal justice system. This is not to say that the military should be excluded from our struggle against Al-Qaeda and related organizations. On the contrary, in some parts of the world, as evidenced by the recent killing of Osama bin Laden, they must remain a vital component of this effort. But as we have known for some time, it is impracticable and unfair to expect our armed forces to "win" a "war" against such an amorphous enemy, and doing so creates unrealistic expectations. Our struggle against terrorism will not end in a spectacular battle. It will take years of plodding effort, and as we know from hard experience, it may never end completely.

In light of this, and in light of the fact that we have finally brought the mastermind of the September 11 attacks to justice, a growing chorus is calling on President Obama to bring the "war on terror" to an end. To a certain extent, the President has already done so. He rarely uses the phrase "war on terror." In his first few months in office, he took care to differentiate himself from his predecessor by stressing his desire to close the base Guantanamo, bring an end to combat operations in Iraq, and shift his administration's emphasis back to the conflict in Afghanistan. But his decision to keep Guantanamo open and dramatically increase the number of US combat forces in Afghanistan has led some of his critics to charge that American foreign policy has changed little under his tenure. The President, in short, may not refer to the "war on terror" all that often, but his policies in South Asia and elsewhere remain highly militaristic and in many respects it continues in all but name.

This is unfortunate, for as Howard notes, using military force as the lead instrument in the struggle against terrorism is fraught with risks and often plays into the terrorists' hands. Why? Because the potential loss of innocent life in the use of overt force against the terrorists often renders greater support among the local population for the terrorists as opposed to the military units aligned against them. As such, military action can be counter-productive, as terrorists can successfully be destroyed "only if public opinion... supports the authorities in regarding them as criminals rather than heroes." Moreover, in the last analysis, as Howard points out, the struggle against terrorism is fundamentally a battle for hearts and minds. If we wish to isolate the terrorists and hence greatly reduce their potential to carry out attacks, then perhaps it is time for a shift in emphasis -- both rhetorical and actual -- from the use of military force to a much greater use of existing national and international criminal justice agencies, backed where necessary by the traditional military and intelligence services.

In the long-run, then, our goal must be to win the battle for hearts and minds. Seventy years ago, when the United States faced a much more formidable enemy, FDR came to the same conclusion. In January 1941, he responded to Adolf Hitler's declaration that he had established "a new order in Europe" by articulating a different set of guiding principles to shape the allied war effort and inspire the rest of the world to join in the struggle. As opposed to Hitler's "new order," Roosevelt said, we proposed a "moral order" based on four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR may not have succeeded in bringing the benefits of the Four Freedoms to every corner of the globe, but his articulation of these simple yet eloquent values made the distinction between fascism and democracy as powerful as any weapon, inspiring a generation to struggle on for years in the face of a monstrous evil.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

De-militarizing our struggle with terrorism also makes a good deal of sense in light of other recent events in the Middle East, where the Arab Spring is rapidly ushering in a new generation of potential leaders committed to a more open and democratic system of government. For too many Arabs, the United States is still viewed as an aggressor state, more interested in protecting American interests than promoting democratic reform. By ending the war on terror, branding terrorists as international criminals (as opposed to political/military actors), and shifting our efforts to the criminal justice system, we send a powerful message not only to the people of the Middle East, but to other potentially dangerous regions of the world. We show that the United States remains committed above all else to the rule of law. Indeed, sending out this message at this critical juncture in the history of the Middle East may prove as powerful a weapon in our struggle against terrorism as the massive array of military force we have assembled in the region.

President Obama has made some serious steps in this direction through his somewhat halting support for the pro-democracy movements in Egypt and Tunisia and in his decision to protect the Libyan people from the savagery on Muammar Gaddafi. He also made the right decision two years ago when he publicly disavowed the use of torture and in his recent decision not to release the photos of the deceased Osama bin Laden on both security and moral grounds. But if we wish to draw a sharp distinction between the values the United States and its allies aspire to and the hatred, bigotry, and fear that stands at the heart of Al-Qaeda's terrorist network, then we need to do more. We should bring the "war on terror" to an end, wind down our involvement in Afghanistan, and place a greater focus on bringing international terrorists to justice. If President Obama will take this opportunity to signal that our foremost goal in the struggle against terrorism is to render justice and uphold the rule of law -- as opposed to engaging in a "war" against an extremist ideology -- he will strengthen our hand, make it easier for states such as Pakistan to join in the effort, and do much to marginalize the terrorists within their own communities.

With the death of Osama bin Laden, it is time for a new approach in our struggle against terrorism. It is time for us -- as it was for FDR in 1941 -- to regain the moral high ground. We must shift our emphasis from the instruments of war to the instruments of justice and treat the terrorists not as belligerents, but as criminals, whose disrespect for the rule of law and basic human rights will ultimately be defeated. Not on the battlefield, but through the exercise of justice.

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

The light footprint and successful execution of the mission proves we can keep America safer by spending less.

My generation grew up with the War on Terror. On September 11, 2001, I was 19 years old, attending college and taking classes on international relations. Today I am 28 and we are remembering the victims of September 11th who have been served a measure of justice because Osama bin Laden has been laid to rest. As we reflect on how the events of the last decade have changed America's image abroad and domestic attitudes towards foreign policy, we can seize the moment. The successful mission to assassinate Osama bin Laden is the perfect example of a new, cost-effective approach to US national security. We can have a leaner, meaner fighting force to engage 21st century threats.

This month, the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network will present a ‘Budget for Millennial America' that outlines my generation's vision for the future of our country. We asked thousands of college students across the country to define their values and priorities for building a new America and convened working groups to develop comprehensive policy solutions based on those recommendations. The result is a budget that promotes social investment, public innovation, and fiscal sustainability. A key piece of this plan is a new approach to national security. The events of this past weekend illustrate the central theme of our national security plan: we can do more with less.

Last weekend, in a spectacular night-time raid, US Special Forces directed by the Joint Special Operations Command crossed over into Pakistan and assaulted bin Laden's compound. He was killed and transported out of the country. President Obama authorized the mission with instructions to kill bin Laden. US Special Forces, working closely with the CIA, used a small, rapid strike force to eliminate a high-value target. This mission is a powerful example of how effective the US military can be when it uses special operations to execute a clear plan of action; we can move fast, work cheaply, strike hard, and go home with a clear sense of mission accomplished.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

This operation stands in sharp contrast to the narrative of the Long War. The US occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 began as a manhunt for bin Laden. The following year, we began preparations for the unilateral invasion of Iraq to depose Sadam Hussein. The ‘War on Terror' mushroomed into multiple wars of occupation with no clear end goals that left the US military overburdened. To date, over 6,000 US soldiers have been killed and trillions of dollars spent on nation-building operations to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. By changing the way we engage similar threats, we can scale down our deployment of forces overseas, saving money and more effectively promoting our national security interests.

The bin Laden mission was not the first time that the US employed an effective, targeted military strategy in the War on Terror. Over the course of the past decade, the US has been engaged in highly successful counter-terrorism campaigns in North Africa, East Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Philippines. Small contingents of US Special Forces and CIA operatives train and conduct exercises with indigenous forces. In these regions, US soldiers operate with a "light footprint," keeping a low profile by living with, supplying, and training their allies to hunt down the leadership of local terrorist networks. These operations are quick, cheap, and effective, and demonstrate the potential for a new emphasis for the use of American military power.

Last year, CIA director Leon Panetta announced that there were fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan. The US mission in Afghanistan is to deny a safe haven to terrorists. Period. The US military can replicate the successful models of engagement that it uses in other conflicts, working with a light global footprint and using wolfpacks of Special Forces and CIA operatives to hunt and disrupt terrorist operations, gather intelligence, and train indigenous forces. These are the tactics that we used to assassinate Osama bin Laden and they can be incorporated into a broader 'Grand Strategy' for US foreign policy.

Although it feels good to know that the victims of September 11th have been granted a measure of justice, the Long War fought in their name has taken 10 years, thousands of US casualties, and trillions of dollars to kill one man. But it doesn't need to. The US has proven that it can keep America and the world safe without long, expensive engagements like the Iraq War.

My generation wants to keep America safe. And we recognize that we need new models of military strategy to address 21st century threats. We recognize the need to put America on a track towards fiscal sustainability. And we recognize that exercising a leaner, meaner US foreign policy geared towards future threats will help us achieve that goal. With the release of our ‘Budget for Millennial America', the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network supports this new vision for US Grand Strategy.

Reese Neader is the Roosevelt Campus Network’s Policy Director.