Remember when the Royal Navy got gutted, reducing their ability to project force outside European waters? It appears that Argentina has drawn the obvious conclusion that the Falkland Islands are now back in play:
The Argentinian president has criticised David Cameron for insisting the Falkland Islands should remain a British territory.
Cristina Kirchner described the prime minister as “arrogant” and said his comments were an “expression of mediocrity and almost of stupidity”.
Cameron had been prompted by Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell during prime minister’s questions to remind Barack Obama that the British government would not accept any kind of negotiations over the south Atlantic islands, over which Argentina and Britain fought a 10-week war in 1982.
Cameron told the Commons: “I would say this: as long as the Falkland Islands want to be sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory — full stop, end of story.”
In her criticism of his comments, Kirchner said Britain “continues to be a crude colonial power in decline”.
Well, Mr. Cameron, you’ve given Argentina a ten-year window of opportunity here between your (in my opinion stupid) scrapping your last carriers and getting rid of their Harrier aircraft and the time that your next carrier comes into service. By the time you have HMS Queen Elizabeth in commission and with a full complement of aircraft, the Falkland Islands will likely be under Argentinian control.
If the government of Ronald Reagan had to be pushed into supporting Britain in 1982, there’s absolutely no chance that Barack Obama will lift a finger to help Britain in 2012 — in fact, it’s much more likely that Obama will decide that Argentina is more deserving of American help anyway.
Allies help each other. Obama’s feelings tword England aside, I believe we have more in common than not.
Still – if the UK won’t do what needs to be done to keep furriners mits off overseas territory, why should the US help out?
I believe the next go-round would be in the favor of Argentine. The UK won, house rules say that the loser will try harder in the next go-round and innovate.
Comment by Brian Dunbar — June 17, 2011 @ 12:50
Ah, Mr. Monroe’s doctrine again, eh? 😉
As I mentioned in the post, however, despite the “warmonger” label applied to him by his opponents, Mr. Reagan wasn’t eager to back Mrs. Thatcher’s military response to Argentina. If the patron saint of modern neo-conservatism had to be dragged along, it’s impossible to imagine Mr. Obama supporting the British government now.
Comment by Nicholas — June 17, 2011 @ 13:35
Ah, Mr. Monroe’s doctrine again, eh? 😉
Phht. Far as I’m concerned the UK is welcome to take back the Falklands by force. Have at it!
I fail to see _how_ they’ll do it. But I’m sure MoD is thinking real hard about how to have a war 10,000 miles from home with what will soon be a coastal defense force.
Comment by Brian Dunbar — June 18, 2011 @ 13:07
In the steady decline in British military power, under both the current and previous governments, the one branch that has done the best fighting is the Royal Air Force. Unfortunately, that has all been in-fighting against the Royal Navy and the army. They’ve done a brilliant job of protecting their own big-ticket toys (designed to fight Soviet aircraft over central Germany), while steadily racking up a high score against the other two services.
The RN can (just barely) project power in the shallow seas around Europe, but have very limited blue water power projection now. The army, rather like the even smaller Canadian army, is fully committed to current actions and has few remaining units to handle another distant battle.
Comment by Nicholas — June 19, 2011 @ 09:19