George Bush had no shortage of epithets for the new partner in his special relationship. Gordon Brown was a humorous Scot, not a dour one, a problem solver with the same sense of morality. He was a principled man who wanted to get something done. He was a man who saw a glass half full, not half empty, and when it came to battling terrorism and providing leadership, "he gets it". Mr Brown was careful not to return the compliments, other than to express ritual courtesies. Whereas Mr Bush talked in grand sweeps about freedom and terrorism, the British prime minister kept his answers rooted to detail. He said nothing to Mr Bush in Camp David yesterday that he would not have been able to say to the House of Commons.
As presidential compliments rained down on Mr Brown's head, it began to emerge that the prime minister had got what he wanted. His ministerial frontrunners had established a useful sense of ambiguity, the possibility that a relationship that had been joined at the hip might eventually be severed. Mr Brown then arrives and secures a working relationship, free of sycophancy. The White House characterised the hints of a tougher British partner as "white noise", saying it was not what British ministers said that mattered, but what they did. But the overall effect of this carefully calibrated operation has been to pull the clothes over to Britain's side of the bed.
Neither leader had more difficulty than usual in talking about the war in Iraq. Mr Brown stuck to terra firma by saying that in three of the four provinces in the south-east of the country, British forces had handed over combat operations to Iraqi forces, 30,000 strong. What he did not say was how reliable the 30,000 Iraqi troops and policemen were and to whose militia they were ultimately loyal. Mr Bush, now under permanent domestic fire, kept to his promise to await the report that his commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, will deliver in September. But there was a hint from Mr Brown that decisions about overall troop levels could be made soon, based on the military advice from commanders on the ground - the same formula that Mr Bush used.
The reality in Iraq will not be finessed by cleverly worded answers at press conferences. The American command has already prepared a detailed plan to fight on for another two years. The only issue they face is how many troops they can withdraw in the process. The aim of the plan is to achieve "sustainable security" in Iraq by the summer of 2009, a telling phrase because, even with the limited achievements gained by the surge in US troops, the assumption is that whatever security is achieved at the moment is temporary and unsustainable. The date is even more important because its leaves the eventual pullout until after Mr Bush leaves office in January 2009. The US fear is that if Britain withdraws most of its remaining 5,500 troops from the south before that date, more US troops would be needed to protect supply lines to Kuwait. In Iraq, at least, the two nations will continue to act as if they are joined at the hip.
Even if the words come from a more pragmatic British prime minister, the gap between them and reality remains uncomfortably large. Around 8 million Iraqis, nearly one-third of the population, need emergency aid, according to a report published yesterday by Oxfam and the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq. There is more malnourishment than there was before the 2003 invasion, and more people without adequate access to electricity, sanitation and water supplies. There are still no signs of a political breakthrough. Nouri al-Maliki's government is hopelessly split, its two largest factions bitter rivals. Yesterday, with chaos around it, the Iraqi parliament adjourned for a summer recess. Iraq's institutions are not functioning. Until that truth is officially recognised, the same mistakes will keep on being repeated.