Patterico's Pontifications

3/1/2010

Britain vs the Falklands, Again

Filed under: International,Obama — DRJ @ 1:21 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Obama Administration may have finally found a crisis it can mediate — Britain vs the Falklands:

“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is offering to help Argentina and Britain resolve a festering dispute over a vast swath of the southern Atlantic Ocean where Britain has begun drilling for oil.

Clinton said Monday the two countries should agree themselves over the sovereignty of the British-administered Falkland Islands that are claimed by Argentina, which refers to them as Las Malvinas.

But she said the U.S. was willing to facilitate such an effort.”

Recently, the Obama Administration stunned Britain by refusing to take sides in the debate. This follows early Obama Administration snubs of Britain when it returned Churchill’s bust, gave useless DVDs to PM Gordon Brown and refused to hold a press conference for the British press.

Obama doesn’t seem to like Britain so if I were a British leader, I’d tell the Americans “No thanks.”

— DRJ

60 Responses to “Britain vs the Falklands, Again”

  1. > Recently, the Obama Administration stunned Britain by refusing to take sides in the debate.

    I recall the previous time around, we had good relations with the Argentine government. They were actually surprised, somehow, that we mostly, if not completely, sided with the UK against them in the whole thing.

    A very odd expectation on their part. We have a common language and heritage. It would be like siding with a good friend against your brother. Might happen, but your brother would have to be a major dick.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  2. The Argentine Government is just so close to “going Greece” that the prospect of oil revenues will drive them – again – to start a war over these mostly frozen rocks.

    AD - RtR/OS! (aa95b5)

  3. “Where have you gone, Baroness Margaret? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you. . .”

    M. Scott Eiland (c552ec)

  4. “I recall the previous time around, we had good relations with the Argentine government. They were actually surprised, somehow, that we mostly, if not completely, sided with the UK against them in the whole thing. ”

    Senator Jesse Helms actually sided with Argentina. I think he was the only one.

    imdw (017d51)

  5. Seeing the sense of priorities the one had with Honduras, I meet your “no thanks” and raise you to “you’ve got to be joking”.

    MD in Philly (e347b2)

  6. IgotBupkis, indeed for a brief time after the initial invasion of the Falklands by the Argentine army, the US tried to stand as a neutral in the conflict. My possibly-incorrect recollection was that it was Alexander Haig who was pushing that position within the Reagan administration. However, once it was clear that diplomacy would not move the Argentinians off the islands, Reagan more strongly supported the British. There was little overt military support for the British. Covert support has been subject to some speculation about possible satellite surveillance assistance, etc., and some speculation about assistance in early warning of air raids.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  7. “IgotBupkis, indeed for a brief time after the initial invasion of the Falklands by the Argentine army, the US tried to stand as a neutral in the conflict. My possibly-incorrect recollection was that it was Alexander Haig who was pushing that position within the Reagan administration. ”

    Haig was trying to broker a peace between the two. In that context, being neutral on the conflict / invasion makes some sense. I don’t know if we ever took a position on actual sovereignty. My guess would be it probably wouldn’t be necessary — just oppose the use of force.

    imdw (e6c812)

  8. I think the military support went a bit farther. The Argentine attack planes were on the verge of driving out the British ships. The British fighters had rear aspect sidewinders and could not attack the planes until they had launched or dropped on the British ships. I believe we sent an emergency shipment of the latest LM9 sidewinders with all aspect seeker heads to them down there. These could home on the heat at the leading edge of the wings and allowed the British fighters to attack the incoming planes head on, before weapons release. I guess this could be called a business deal rather than military assistance but that stretches things.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  9. imdw, our position was that the Falkland Islanders were entitled to self-determination.

    That the Obama administration cannot now support the staunchest ally the United States has ever had in the world is baffling. It is difficult to tell if this is the result of some whacky ideological nonsense or personal pique on the part of Obama himself.

    Either way, it is of a kind of the inept foreign policy of the Obama administration. When its not merely stupidly naive, it is destructive of the interests of the US.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  10. Machinist, my recollection was that Britain already had AIM 9-L Sidewinders at the time, but I’ll double check. The AIM 9L was, as you point out, a transformative air-to-air weapon, with its all-aspect engagement envelope.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  11. SPQR,
    it was long ago and I’m no expert. I thought they had that problem and we helped them. The Harriers did not carry radar missiles and their SAMs were inferior and could not deal with fast moving low fliers. They were mounting old 20mm guns to the ships in desperation. I will be interested in what you find. Thank you.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  12. Machinist, a quick look about suggests you are correct. The British were not yet receiving operational shipments of the AIM 9L from the manufacturer at the time, although they were programmed to do so and had already undergone test fits and had upgraded the Harrier’s avionics for the 9L.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. The British missiles were OK against incoming targets but were command to line of sight and were ill suited to intercepting planes attacking other ships. This made them poor at defending troop and supply ships or concentrating against attacks on high value targets like the carriers unless the escorts were in line with the attack.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  14. Thank you for the update, Sir. I am thinking these were rather new at the time.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  15. That was fast research!

    Machinist (9780ec)

  16. Hey, when cataloging the chintzy gifts, don’t forget the iPod he gave to the Queen, preloaded with clips of his own speeches!

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  17. my recollection is that we covered their use of NATO war stocks, allowing the use of the Sidewinders….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  18. Hey, when cataloging the chintzy gifts, don’t forget the iPod he gave to the Queen, preloaded with clips of his own speeches!

    Can you imagine giving something like that to someone who actually had met and knew Winston Churchill?

    Walsingham (0f0f46)

  19. redc1c4,
    That sounds like a plausible excuse.

    #16 and 18,
    I really wish I could forget that. What a national embarrassment! The snub could just be malice but the iPod was such arrogance. It still makes me cringe in shame.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  20. #16,18,19

    Had that been a story in the Onion I wouldn’t have found it credible.

    Maybe when somebody writes his biography in the future it will be simply titled, “The Audacity”.

    MD in Philly (e347b2)

  21. “Had that been a story in the Onion I wouldn’t have found it credible. ”

    You are right!

    Machinist (9780ec)

  22. “Our Dumb World” is an excellent book by the folks at The Onion.

    JD (c754d7)

  23. The snub could just be malice but the iPod was such arrogance. It still makes me cringe in shame.

    You mean like the snub the rest of the world gave Bush?

    Comment by imadouchebag

    (sorry, couldn’t resist)

    Dmac (799abd)

  24. We had a Cold War going on in Reagan’s time and that cold little island in the North Pacific would have made a useful aircraft carrier.

    But in the overall scheme of things, we need friends and allies, and not colonialists, in our backyard. Monroe Doctrine?

    I detest Obama but he’s doing the right thing on this.

    nk (db4a41)

  25. If the Argentinians had any brains, they would embrace the idea of developing the Falklands petroleum fields ( if they pan out ) by entering into a deal with the British. A deal would have them promising not to rock the boat and start a new conflict, promise stability of the area, and in exchange the Argentinians would get a share in the work developing the fields and supporting extraction operations.

    They could use the jobs; it would be more expensive to exploit the fields from logistics bases outside of Argentina and no one is going to invest in exploration if they think the Argies will blow it up again.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. I don’t think the British are invading the islands and taking them from Argentina. They would seem to have as much right their as we do to Gitmo. Should the Russians be able to say they want Alaska back?

    What is the basis for Britain’s claim of the Falklands?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  27. I hadn’t thought about the oil, SPQR. If the Brits could make a deal with Libya, to free the Lockerbie murderer over oil, they can certainly make a deal with Argentina.

    nk (db4a41)

  28. “We had a Cold War going on in Reagan’s time and that cold little island in the North Pacific would have made a useful aircraft carrier.”

    Are you referring to Britain as “the cold little island”? Because the falklands are in the south atlantic.

    Though, the cold war was actually the reason helms gave for siding with argentina(!).

    imdw (2aa2bf)

  29. The Russians would probably be very glad to try to take Alaska back. And take the other 49 states as well. And my grandmother would have liked to have dated Rudoph Valentino as well.

    nk (db4a41)

  30. Yes, imdw, I am referring to “where Great Britain used to be”, the United Kingdom, England, Wales and Scotland, as that “cold little island in the North Pacific”.

    I know where the the Falklands are and that’s why I said “colonialists” and “Monroe Doctrine”.

    nk (db4a41)

  31. “North Atlantic”

    nk (db4a41)

  32. Machinist – going by memory, the UK found the Falklands uninhabited back when such islands made great places for Coaling Stations and supply bases … a number of Brit familes and a whole bunch of sheep were settled there … the locals basically raise sheep, fish, and grow root vegetables, as I recall – essentially subsistence agriculture …

    During the time of the Iron Maiden, when Argentina was going through yet another political crisis domestically, the Argentinian government decided to try to take locals’ minds off their own governmental incompetence by invading the Falklands …

    The folk who had lived on the Falklands (and are still there) have no interest in becoming part of Argentina (even though, under Gordon Brown and NuLabour, the UK economy has come more and more to resemble that of Argentina) …

    Argentina claiming the Falklands is akin to Mexico claiming the State of Arizona based upon prior Aztec ownership of Arizona … (Hint: Tenochtitlan never owned Arizona) …

    It is managing to amaze even me how our current Administration is succeeding in failing to meet *my* expectations for them, since my expectations for them was remarkably low in the first place …

    President Obama is managing to make former President Carter look like a wise and respected Elder Statesman by comparison …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  33. And what does the Monroe Doctrine have to do with your Grandmother?

    I should not have bothered responding to you. My mistake.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  34. There’s a difference or two between Arizona and the Falklands, I think.

    nk (db4a41)

  35. One good non-sequitor deserves another.

    nk (db4a41)

  36. Alasdair,

    Thank you. That was what I was hoping for in terms of information. I agree with your last remark.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  37. I had hopes for Carter but what a let down.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  38. The people who live in the Falklands consider themselves British. The people who live there are, for the most part, ethnically British. They also have full British citizenship.

    They have the right to self-determination!

    Newtons.Bit (b10556)

  39. nk @ 24, 27, 29, 30, and 31 … Ancient Confucian Wisdom – “When in hole, stop digging !”

    The UK was, is, and continues to be a group of 4 countries united in a single Kingdom … those in Northern Island continue, in spite of Gordon Brown and NuLabour, to want to remain part of the UK …

    And, contrary to your current ‘wisdom’, the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland are significantly less cold in winter than most of New England … (between mid-December 2009 and mid-January 2010, I visited a couple of places on the west coast of Scotland where palm tress grow outside, year round) …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  40. ACK ! Northern Ireland

    (mutter, grumble)(not New Zealand)

    Alasdair (1bbc64)

  41. One cold little island, one beautiful green island, Alasdair. I know my geography.

    As for “in when in hole, stop digging”, that’s a message for the vitamin-deficient inbreds who now occupy where Great Britain used to be.

    nk (db4a41)

  42. its all fun and games until someone drills for oil

    remember argentina also claims antartica

    EricPWJohnson (0255b7)

  43. DRJ – Bad Title. Britian vs Argentina makes sense – Britian vs the Falklands does not.

    The Brits have a better claim to the Falklands than Argentina. The inhabitants of the Falklands consider themselves to be British not Argentians.

    Newtons.Bit has it right. This is a attempt to grab the oil off the Falklands by the Argentians. Shades of Juan & Evita!

    Longwalker (996c34)

  44. Let them both screw each other over.

    Vile prats.

    Jack (e383ed)

  45. Obama will probably try to meet, without preconditions, for meaningful discussions with General Belgrano.

    Hey, that’s not a bad idea!

    Beldar (46dfde)

  46. i side with the Brits, then and now. Argentina just wants the oil and a sop to their damaged macho ego, having got their asses kicked by a woman and a bunch of outnumbered light infantry.

    screw them. they were dumb the first time, and now they’re being greedy. neither attitude deserves to prosper.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  47. General Belgrano….
    I think he should take the entire cabinet with him for a meeting with (the) General Belgrano

    AD - RtR/OS! (aa95b5)

  48. “The people who live in the Falklands consider themselves British. The people who live there are, for the most part, ethnically British. They also have full British citizenship.”

    They’ve also had, since the war, tons of british money spent on them.

    imdw (de7003)

  49. having got their asses kicked by a woman and a bunch of outnumbered light infantry.

    Perfect

    highpockets (40ce09)

  50. 34.There’s a difference or two between Arizona and the Falklands, I think

    Arizona has more desert. And Gila Monsters. And John McCain. But, depending on the outcome of this disagreement, they may both have problems with unwanted immigration…

    west coast of Scotland where palm tress grow outside, year round) …
    Comment by Alasdair — 3/1/2010 @ 4:47 pm

    I never knew that. I guess going to Nova Scotia isn’t quite like going to “Scotia” after all.

    Nevertheless, Iceland still grows the most bananas in Europe.

    Were another President in the White House, they could secede from the UK, declare war on the US, and surrender.

    Did Earl (“the Pearl”) Monroe really date nk’s grandmother??

    MD in Philly (e347b2)

  51. Longwalker: You’re right about the bad title. Titles seem to be my downfall.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  52. Did Earl (”the Pearl”) Monroe really date nk’s grandmother??

    Comment by MD in Philly — 3/1/2010 @ 5:42 pm

    I don’t think so, but some guy named Paris carried my great, great … etc. grandmother off to Troy. It was in all the news at the time.

    nk (db4a41)

  53. I still think that Obama’s antipathy to Britain has something to do with Kenya.

    imdw, with stunning insight notes that Britain has spent money on the Falklands. And we spend money on Guam.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  54. “imdw, with stunning insight notes that Britain has spent money on the Falklands. And we spend money on Guam.”

    I guess it wasn’t clear that they kicked it up after the war. Despite the conservative government.

    imdw (490521)

  55. learning their lessons, Britain built an airfield that modern jet fighters can operate from…. the Argy air forces and navy will have even more fun this time around, should they come out to play.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  56. redc1c4,
    That does tend to get certain peoples’ attention, doesn’t it.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  57. “Obama doesn’t seem to like Britain…”

    At long last this President gets one thing right! Americans’ liking for the Brits (which involves glossing over their many “high crimes and misdemeanors” down through the long centuries of invasion, persecution and occupation that they indulged in) is possible because the US is so much bigger in every way.

    The elephant doesn’t fear the jackal; he may indeed think him a feisty little puppy who punches above his weight. Forgive the jackal’s prey for not concurring in this condescension. There was a time two hundred odd years ago when the power relation was quite different that Americans weren’t so enamored of good old Britannia.

    And before anyone starts gushing on about Churchill, history didn’t start with Hitler, nor did England’s wars. They fought so many stretching back a full millennium they had to find themselves on the right side eventually.

    liamascorcaigh (bbe15c)

  58. Thank-you Liam ….

    My family history goes back to the Scottish Expulsions on both sides and I have to give history lessons everytime I refer to ‘bloody Sassenachs’.

    Robert N. (b4f76a)

  59. Liam…thank you for your latest contribution to Irish Independance.

    Seamus McGrane (ad40ca)

  60. > I really wish I could forget that. What a national embarrassment! The snub could just be malice but the iPod was such arrogance. It still makes me cringe in shame.

    My own personal take — just speculating, mind you, no proof — is that they assigned the task to some halfwit relative, without any grasp of the idea that there’s a protocol office associated with the PotUS whose job it was to deal with such questions. A lot of the early gaffs seemed to be related to them having no clue whatsoever what the hell they were doing, and no idea that there was a protocol office whose job it was to Do Appropriate Things for the President in that context — gifts, advice on proper responses and behavior, that kind of thing.

    It closely resembles a TV spinoff that was once considered, “Jed Clampett for President“.

    (yeah, I made that up)

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0944 secs.