Back in April 1999, midway through the Clinton administration and whilst British Forces were engaged in the Balkans War, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Chicago. He addressed the Chicago Economic Club with a speech in which he outlined what he called his "doctrine of the international community". On this side of the Atlantic, it has become known as the "Chicago doctrine" whilst it's better known as the "Blair doctrine" in the US. In his speech, Blair promoted the idea of using military might to intervene in a sovereign nation's domestic affairs and forge a state "in our own image". This doctrine formed the basis of Blair's discussions with Clinton's successor, George Bush Junior, and led to the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That same doctrine was employed, virtually unaltered, by Cameron and Obama in prosecuting the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader. In his doctrine, Blair laid out the conditions for going to war and they are these: Are we sure of our case? Have we exhausted all diplomatic options? Are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake? Are we prepared for the long term? Do we have national interests involved? According to Blair, if each of those five questions can be answered "yes", then a very strong case exists for going to war. However, not all those questions could honestly be answered with a "yes" for Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya and each of those countries are today hotbeds of Islamist terrorism whose presence can be directly attributed to Anglo-American interference. Speaking last night to an audience of American politicians in Philadelphia, Theresa May metaphorically tore-up the Blair doctrine stating that the UK would intervene only when the "threat is real" and it is in our interests to do so, no more 'wars of choice'. Hopefully this will translate to an end of our - and America's - 'failed' liberal interventionist foreign policy, no more dodgy dossiers, no more lies to Parliament and the British people, and an end to soldiers being repatriated in bodybags after being unnecessarily placed in harm's way by vanity-struck politicians - Hooray! Her speech chimes with Trump's long held view that the US is not the world's (unpaid) guardian and that the US may withdraw from NATO unless other countries - most notably France, Luxembourg, Germany and Poland make the required contributions to the organisation's budget. Her speech - and you can read the full text here - should be a pleasant reminder of the dawning of a new era when Maggie met Ronald and the Anglo-American 'Special Relationship' started to become truly special and rise to an all-time high. Her audience were initially gob-smacked and loved what she had to say, giving her an almost unprecedented three standing ovations. One Congressman, obviously delighted by what he'd heard wondered if May wasn't Trump's long lost sister. Cory Gardner, of Colorado, reportedly said Mrs May had "renewed the special relationship between our two great nations" but he's mistaken: May hasn't renewed that relationship, she has redefined it.