HolyCoast: The Next Falklands War

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The Next Falklands War

I recently saw The Iron Lady, the sort of biography of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  The best part of the movie was the section dealing with the Falklands War and the way Thatcher led the British to victory over the Argentinians.  I remember that crisis well and the tense weeks between the Argentine invasion and the eventual war once the British could get there forces down there.

It now looks like another Falklands war is on the horizon, thanks both to British cuts in their military and Obama's failure to support our traditional allies.  Nile Gardiner has more:
First, military weakness is provocative. Argentina ramped up its aggressive rhetoric and diplomatic efforts to reclaim the Falklands only after P.M. Cameron announced massive cuts to the Royal Navy and British ground forces. The decommissioning last December of the U.K.’s sole remaining aircraft carrier, Ark Royal, well before its service life ended, and the sale of Britain’s 50 G-9 Sea Harrier fighter jets to the U.S. Marine Corps, seems to have emboldened the Argentines. In 1982, the Royal Navy had approximately 90 warships from which it could assemble a task force. Today it has 30. Indeed, most experts believe that while it would be very difficult for the Argentine military to successfully invade the islands, it would be nearly impossible for the U.K. to retake them without an aircraft carrier in the event that Argentina was successful in overrunning Britain’s key air base at Mount Pleasant. …

Second, the Obama administration has made the United States an unreliable ally for our closest friends. Britain has been a stalwart ally of the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan, notwithstanding the tremendous domestic political pressure on Labour and Conservative governments not to participate in those unpopular wars. However, in 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for talks over the dispute and even appeared to side with Argentina during a press conference with President Kirchner in Buenos Aires. Last month, as the current situation developed, rather than send a clear message to Argentina that the United States supported its longtime ally, a State Department spokesman demurred: “[t]his is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom…We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands, but take no position regarding sovereignty.” Nile Gardiner, the Telegraph’s Washington correspondent, wrote in response that the “Obama administration knife[d] Britain in the back again over the Falklands.”

The shabby treatment meted out to America’s “special relationship” partner in this instance cannot be seen as a surprise. It is in line with the administration’s treatment of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (at least prior to Bob Turner winning Anthony Weiner’s Congressional seat in New York). Poland and the Czech Republic suffered similar slights after the Administration unilaterally cancelled ABM sites in those countries as part of its naïve and, so far, unsuccessful attempt to “reset” relations with Russia. And, there has been much criticism of the Administration for failing to provide Taiwan with the latest F-16 fighters that it has long requested to defend itself against a potential attack by China. There is no doubt that American allies such as Israel, Colombia, Georgia, Taiwan, the Gulf States and the Baltics, all of which live in dangerous neighborhoods, are watching the United States’ response to the Falklands row with concern.

Third, failing to promote the rule of law, democracy and self-determination in the Falklands will damage the United States’ ability to promote those goals in other nations. The 3,200 residents of the Falklands have been there for over 175 years. They descend from people who have inhabited the Islands for far longer than many Argentines have inhabited their own country. They are, apparently without exception, in favor of maintaining their local parliamentary government and association with Britain. There are no Argentines on the islands and there are no “displaced” Las Malvinas (as Argentina has labeled the islands) refugees in Argentina seeking a “right of return.” The current diplomatic crisis follows the nationalistic playbook that President Kirchner borrowed from the former military junta and that is promoted by her mentor in Caracas. The fact that there are large oil reserves off the Falklands is also fueling Argentine territorial ambitions as its government would love to get control of such resources.
Now that the Brits no longer have an aircraft carrier (by the way, you could have bought one on Amazon if you wanted), does anyone think Obama would be willing to provide some of our forces to help the British if they needed it? Nope. This could easily be the final act that destroys the long relationship between the two nations.

It has been rumored for some time that Obama hates the British because of what supposedly happened to his grandfather in a British-run prison. Why else would he give the Queen an iPod full of his speeches? He's returning the torture.

Things are going to get ugly.

3 comments:

John said...

One can only hope that sending HMS Dauntless, the Royal Navy type 45 destroyer, to the Falklands will be their saving grace.

The Falklanders deserve far better than Obama, Clinton, and that supreme idiot, Sean Penn.

Sam L. said...

The latest copy of FLIGHT JOURNAL has an article on the RAF's Vulcan airstrikes then.

veryluckyduck said...

I hope we will not forget who is our real ally is in the US.