YOU may have missed it, but on Tuesday the Washington Post carried an article under a joint byline. Seeing the names at the top, my mind wandered to an imagined tussle in the newspaper’s office over who should receive top billing.

“This is a big one – I am going first...”

“But you always hog the limelight...”

Between the headline and above the first paragraph sat the words: “By Barack Obama and David Cameron”.

I stumbled on a link to this joint effort while skimming and dipping on the internet. It was not the raciest of reads. As that bright new morning broke in America people may well have dozed off into their waffles or whatever it is Americans eat for breakfast. Actually, I know what they eat because I have been there and it was very nice, if voluminous in calorific content.

Readability was hardly the point. Both men come with agendas trailing behind. President Obama has an election looming and so being nice to the British Prime Minister doesn’t cost much and looks, well, presidential. As for David Cameron, our premiers like to swan about in elevated international circles: it makes them feel important, while putting aside domestic annoyances for a few days.

To read what the two leaders had to say, it would be easy to believe that between us, our two countries had saved the world countless times over. There was much about history, tradition and values, while obligatory mention was made of the war and Winston.

And then there was this: “But what makes our relationship special – a unique and essential asset – is that we join hands across so many endeavours. Put simply, we count on each other and the world counts on our alliance.”

Now this statement raises a few observations. It could be said that parts of the world might have had cause to regret this alliance, for instance Iraq or, more recently, Afghanistan, where the international mission continues to cause concern. The reasons for such acts of intervention are complicated and often the certainty of intent ends up running into the mess of reality.

Many observers feel that is what has happened in Afghanistan; some of us struggle with the argument that fighting in that distant troubled land keeps us safe from terrorism at home.

Whatever the case, both occupying forces will eventually depart. The matter of exactly what they will leave behind cannot truly be known, although it is fair to assume the politicians who took part from a safe distance will claim a victory of sorts.

The other thought that struck me on reading that dual mission statement was that with a bit of tinkering it might almost have been a joint annual report from two not very exciting companies.

Perhaps the blame lay with that “unique and essential asset”. Sometimes language has to be so careful that it forgets to say anything much at all.

Anyway, this special relationship thing dances back to the Second World War. Occasionally the transatlantic waltz has been elegant enough, while at others toes have been trodden on.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan actually did dance, and there always was a bit of scary political chemistry between them. Edward Heath and Richard Nixon were a less comfortable pairing.

Harold Macmillan had a grandfatherly air in the presence of John F Kennedy, while Jim Callaghan and Jimmy Carter, according to the photographic evidence, exchanged the sunniest of smiles.

Bill Clinton had to ‘dance’ with first John Major and then with a shiny-faced Tony Blair. Later, Blair tangoed with George W Bush (that was the hands-trapped-in-jeans-pocket moment, guys) after which he began to lose his shine.

Most uncomfortable of all was Gordon Brown and Barack Obama. A telling photograph shows the soon-to-be deposed Brown leaning against a wall with Obama seemingly trapped like a man cornered by a bore at a party.

I guess this relationship will go on being special for as long as the consenting parties wish. And always there will be the suspicion that the British end in this long-distance affair feels the love just that bit more.