Larger Than Life

Article found HERE.

The New Falklands War

Why britain will lose to Argentina, or should, this time.
By Molly O’Toole | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 5, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 15, 2010


The dispute that in 1982 led to an improbable war over the remote Falkland Islands is back, only this time it is not likely to end so well for the Brits. The Falklands War began when a faltering Argentine military dictator tried to resurrect his popularity by sending troops to seize the islands, claimed by Argentina as the Malvinas. It ended when Margaret Thatcher sent the Royal Marines to reclaim these sparsely populated rocks and rescue the British sheepherders who lived there from the unprovoked invasion. Thatcher's popularity soared. Now, however, oil has been discovered off the Falklands, and the dispatch of a huge British oil rig has triggered near unanimous protest from a continent where democracy has overtaken dictatorship almost everywhere, including Argentina. Even if Britain finds what it is looking for, up to 60 billion barrels of oil, it is also digging its way to the wrong side of history.
SUBSCRIBE Click Here to subscribe to NEWSWEEK and save up to 85% >>

Neither side is threatening gunplay, but the battle for global sentiment is going badly for Britain. Thatcher's triumph in the small war (255 Britons dead, 649 Argentines) drew strong support from Ronald Reagan and relatively mild criticism from Latin America (Argentine leader Leopoldo Galtieri was not a beloved figure), and led to the resounding 1983 reelection victory that in many ways capped Britain's global resurgence during the Thatcher era. Now Britain is led by an increasingly unpopular prime minister, Gordon Brown, presiding over a nation in economic decline, and looks a bit desperate grabbing for Falklands oil, when even Britain's special friends in Washington won't back Brown up. Far from rallying to the P.M.'s side, the Obama administration has declared U.S. neutrality on the dispute, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has offered to mediate. Britain promptly rejected the offer, and the British press attacked Clinton for handing Argentina a "propaganda coup." But by this time Britain was looking alone and out of touch. The Latin leaders denouncing Britain for imperialist overreach ranged from Hugo Chávez, the brazen Venezuelan, to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the moderate who has made Brazil the China of Latin America—an emerging economic superpower that Britain can't afford to insult.

Meanwhile, Argentina's President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, of all people, is looking like the Iron Lady of this drama. Coming into this dispute, Kirchner was losing popularity due to economic stagnation. Now she has indeed been handed a coup—by Britain itself. Some 80 percent of Kirchner's countrymen believe the islands are part of Argentina, so she is pushing the issue hard. In February, Argentina responded to Britain's plans to drill by detaining a ship that Buenos Aires said was carrying tools for further British oil exploration, and announcing that any vessel crossing Argentine territorial waters must obtain a permit.

Britain rejected the decree, but Kirchner is winning allies. Two weeks ago she used a meeting of the Rio Group of 32 Latin American and Caribbean countries to elicit unanimous support for her position, including from Chile, which had covertly supported Britain in the 1980s dispute. A few days later, Argentina's Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana took this LatAm bloc backing to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and called for the U.N. to condemn Britain's actions as a violation of numerous resolutions and to pressure it to come to the table. The request is still under review, and like Argentina's previous attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands, it is likely to have no real effect. Argentina has routinely filed legal claims on the Malvinas, but U.N. resolutions on the matter would have no force of law without their adoption by the Security Council, where the United Kingdom is a permanent member with veto power.

This time, though, Argentina is receiving far more vocal support for its position from its neighbors than ever before. On Feb. 23, Brazil's Lula lashed out: "What is the geographic, the political, or economic explanation for the U.K. to be in Las Malvinas?" he asked. "Could it be because the U.K. is a permanent member of the U.N.'s Security Council, where they can do everything and the others nothing?" Somewhat predictably, Chávez has also come out to turn the Falklands dispute into a cause célèbre for Latin America. If it comes to armed conflict, he warned, Argentina would not be alone. "Queen of England, I'm talking to you," he addressed the British monarch from his television show, Aló, Presidente. "The time for empires is over, haven't you noticed?" Bluster aside, he may have a point.

The Brown government has stated that Britain will maintain land, air, and maritime forces as a deterrent to protect both its commercial vessels and the Falklands, where an active force of more than 1,000 British troops are still stationed. But the continued protection afforded to the isolated islands, not to mention the cost to supply them, has been an economic inefficiency for Britain for decades. As far back as 1980, British parliamentarian Nicholas Ridley, a Conservative minister of state, proposed a plan to release ownership of the islands to Argentina, which would then lease back the territories to Britain, allowing the 3,100 occupants to remain British citizens but providing Argentina with some of the benefits of sovereignty. Ridley's proposal was shouted down in the House of Commons. But now support for spending money on the islands is low in Britain, at least compared with 1982. A recent Guardian editorial urged the government to reconsider Ridley's plan, arguing that the Falklands can no longer remain Britain's "expensive nuisance," because "the world will insist on it."

Indeed, the world has come a long way since Britain's last war over the islands. Democracy has swept across Latin America, and many of the traditional tensions between countries on the continent have been tempered, allowing for greater regional cooperation and economic integration. The potential value of the Falklands oilfields to Britain is obvious at a time when its North Sea reserves are drying up. But there is no telling how much oil is really there until exploration begins, making this an extraordinarily risky business proposition. Good relations with the emerging Latin trade bloc, led by Brazil, may be worth more in the long run, so Britain would be wise to accept mediation offers. After all, the increasing interdependence of Latin interests has enabled Kirchner to achieve a unified front for her diplomatic war on Britain, which in turn has secured a level of legitimacy for the continent that Britain and the rest of the world should not—and can no longer—ignore.

© 2010


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Smersh and Apteryx - being our most GB related members, what are your feelings about this?

_________________
My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.. (F. Zappa)
"How ironic... You eat vegetarian and speak baloney" -- Bucky Catt
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

I have some "nits" about the article although I agree with it's overall gist.

The major "nit" is the headline. The UK would win Round 2 for the same reasons it won the first time. (BTW, one of the things not widely known outside of military geeks like me is that the first conflict would have been much costlier to the UK if the Argentinians had better bombs. More than a few of their planes made it through UK naval defenses and dropped bombs on British ships but they didn't explode.)

Another nit is that the article glosses over some things about the geo-political changes in South America since 1982. Right-wing military dictatorships have been replaced by more "democratic" governments in most cases, but regional differences involving territory, economics, and ideology remain.

Another thing the article didn't mention is that "officially" the US sat on the sidelines during the Falklands War despite Thatcher's attempts to pry public support from Reagan. That doesn't mean Reagan wasn't cheering for the Brits "off the record," but the article tries to imply a distinction between "official" US policy then and now that's not really there. The article said Obama would be "neutral" and I believe he would, but not in the unlikely event there was a multi-national South American military response.

Outside of the above "nits" I do think the UK would face stiffer regional and international diplomatic opposition than in 1982 but it would be a non-factor. Has "hot air" stopped the US from invading Iraq? Russia from invading Georgia? Genocide in Darfur? Israeli settlement building? Hamas rockets? Iranian "games" involving it's nuclear program? Etc, etc.

I read about this latest spat, which is exacerbated by the oil thing, but think things were less civil a few weeks ago than now. Both sides aren't ready for another war. Argentina isn't strong enough and the UK, while it is, has other things on it's plate. Ultimately the UK has to ask itself if this far-off relic of her colonial days is worth it. I don't think it is.

A war between the UK and Argentina can not be fought. Both countries regard themselves as being civilised, far more so than 30 years ago. The war that should be lost, however, is the ludicrous claim Britain lays on those islands, while they are clearly a part of Argentina. The sheer old age colonialism which the UK showing is nothing but be-shaming. The clear economic motive behind the claws the UK now puts deep in the Falklands' soil makes me feel ashamed of Europe.

_________________
My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.. (F. Zappa)
"How ironic... You eat vegetarian and speak baloney" -- Bucky Catt
Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

- Aside from which, The U.K. really doesn't need the Falklands as they've already retrieved their bloodoil (covered in last post HERE) -w- the release of Al-Megrahi.

Joe (Bigsky770)

_________________
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

- - Groucho Marx

The Empire strikes back? Not. Times have changed. This is not worth going to war over, IMO.

The New Falklands War

Why britain will lose to Argentina, or should, this time.
By Molly O’Toole | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 5, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 15, 2010
( my underlining/bolding )
Look no further than this, to see what this article is about. Notice also she has capitalised Argentina but not Britain.

Edit. the entire article is moonpie daydreaming. They are not "rocks" they are substantial islands with farms of a magnitude that you can get LOST on them. Argentines never lived there, even when Spain did own the islands. No one ever cared about them, till the oil booms.

They were never Argentine islands dutchie, they were Spanish. To say one European country can't claim them means neither could the other, which in turn means ARGENTINA can't say "Oh, they WERE Spanish, so now they are ours.

And the rule of continental shelf extension has nothing to do with sovereign lands, or else certain islands around Europe ( Denmark say ) would actually be German, right?. I mean, Indonesia would be Australian, or vice versa, because they are on the same plate.

British people live on those islands, and want to be considered British. And if later, they wanted to be independent, THAT wouldn't make them Argentines either.

GB would, again, whip the entire sub-continent, if it came to knives out. And New Zealand and Australia no doubt, would send help, because WE wouldn't be being the aggressors.

_________________
I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy

Me said it.

Winston Churchill once said: "History is written by the victor", facing facts here - appears all too true given the amount of contradictory account RE: who has proper claim the Falklands) - seem more a debate of the principals and their location(s) the heart of the matter.

That said, I don't think anyone doubts the United Kingdom's ability to provide a fierce fighting force against any adversary - Yet, it's more than a quarter of a century later and times are not now what they were than - The U.K., (like the U.S.) is laid a bit thin. The budgeting costs & logistical supply necessary to mount a campaign near an opposite pole in 1982 were horrendous, and this without the level of threat existing today by fundamentalist-extremists.

*IF* say - the British were distracted to the South, what better time?

(I think you can finish the above sentence)

So, does it come down to:


Joe (Bigsky770)

_________________
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”

- - Groucho Marx

My own feelings are mixed actually. When Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982, a British military task force was sent down there to boot them out. In my opinion, it was the right thing to do at the time because the islanders themselves had no wish to be invaded by Argentina.

A few weeks ago, when the Royal Navy sent the destroyer HMS York, the survey vessel HMS Scott and the oil supply ship RFA Wave Ruler to the islands, I saw a headline in The Sun in my local newsagents with the headline "Task Force 2." Hardly the same as the task force that went there in 1982 though, which consisted of a couple of aircraft carriers and a whole host of other warships and support vessels, together with units from the Army and the RAF. But well, that's The Sun for you I guess, which also published the following famous headline during the 1982 conflict when the cruiser Belgrano was sunk:



Geographically, the islands are much closer to Argentina than they are the UK, so I can understand Argentina's continuing displeasure about Britain's claims to the islands. It's a little like Argentina making a claim for the Isle of Wight, or (in the US) Long Island in New York State. (Those islands are considerably closer to their nearest mainland than the Falklands of course, but I hope everyone gets my drift!)

Now that oil has been discovered in the Falkands, who should have the rightful claim to it? Britain? Argentina? Spain? The Falkland Islanders themselves? I guess that last one would be the fairest, but would the islanders have the technology to get the oil out?

As far as I know by the way, the islanders still have no wish to be ruled by Argentina, so if that's the case then in my opinion they should not be ruled by them.

_________________
Pobody's nerfect

If the Isle of Wight had never ever ever had British or any other settlers on it, and then after a war that Britain started and lost to Argentina, in the third party arbitrated settling of the war Argentina was granted the Isle of Wight, and Argentines had gone and lived there unquestioned , had farms there, traded from there, for 150 years . . . .

Then yeah, it would be exactly like this instance. And guess what. Not only would Argentina never give it up, Great Britain wouldn't be so witless and weak as to start a war it didn't know it could win, it wouldn't lose to a bunch of blokes 8000 miles from home if it did start, and if it DID lose somehow, and oil was subsequently found, it wouldn't be so craven as to hurry about Europe asking for help to steal the oil.

they have not got a leg to stand on.
*In Righteous Anger, summons the spirit of defiance from Jen in the Thieves Teahouse*

And someone has forgot their history, if looking at the present situation, they think the British people are anything LIKE stretched. They are hardly even committed to Afghanistan at all, the Army is quite deliberately under strength and under armed, not one new factory has been needed to be brought into production, no private citizen has been detailed to serve the state, no conscription, all during a time of economic hardship, during which G.B.s economy has maintained its position in the world. Not economically, not socially, not industrially, in no way shape or form, is G.B. even slightly stretched.
And what is more telling, they are fighting, and winning EFFORTLESSLY, the Taliban never stand to fight without being destroyed utterly in consequence, they have been beaten into submission in the majority of the Afghan states, and all during the fighting, the uttermost effort is taken to avoid casualties, both army and civilian. If they were pressed, not one of these absolute facts would last a second.

A great terrible swathe would be torn from north to south in Afghanistan, just with the word of command, with every week tens of thousands of extra soldiers coming out of camp, weapons as if Mars had purchased a cornucopia, and the effort would actually be good for the economy too. G.B. would appeal to her allies, of which her children make up a near majority of the successful states in the world. All this would, WILL happen the moment it is necessary, and WHEN it happened, and she was victorious, she would then extend the hand of assistance yet again, to her defeated enemy, and rebuild the place.


When the time comes, the British people meet and shock the entire world in arms, if needs be. And if all the chips get thrown into the pot again, if you will fight the British Isles, you will find yet, that you fight the British race. And sadly for our enemies, because we have the light of virtue, the standard of righteousness, on our side, if and when we get into a scrap with some ratbags, eventually the USA's moral urge forces it to remember its spring, and come to the party too.

*beckons to contemptible nation adversaries*

"come, my tea grows cold"

Edit to add a rassberry , like so

_________________
I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy

Me said it.

Looks like we're getting serious now about defending the oil in the Falklands ...





Full story: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news79781.html

Of course, the fact there will be a General Election here in the UK very soon might have something to do with it I suppose ...

_________________
Pobody's nerfect

Or as U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt famously said "Walk softly and carry a big stick."