Tripwires
Is Argentina seriously considering making another move against the Falkland Islands?
From the Scotsman:
AN INCREASINGLY anxious UK government is closely monitoring a build-up of Argentinian military strength and a series of confrontations with the RAF close to the Falkland Islands, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
The activity has led Tony Blair's most senior advisers to demand he issues a "hands-off" warning to Buenos Aires.
The sense of threat surrounding the Malvinas islands, regained from the Argentinian military junta in 1982, has been gathering for several months as President Nestor Kirchner's government has presided over an unprecedented revival in the strength of its air force - now at twice the strength it was during the 1982 conflict.
Several planes are believed to have overflown island airspace in a bid to test RAF defences. A number of Falkland vessels have been seized in waters close to Argentina.
The British have a garrison there, but it is small:
The British military presence in the South Atlantic has dropped from 1,900 troops in 1998 to 1,200 now, while 8,000 troops are deployed in Iraq and 3,000 are heading for Afghanistan. The Falklands garrison is dwarfed by the 20,000-strong British presence in Germany, the 10,000 in Northern Ireland and even 3,400 in Cyprus.
But critics warn that the garrison, which costs more than £110m a year, is hopelessly inadequate for fending off any renewed threat from abroad.
Well, their role is not to actually beat off an attack. The garrison is a tripwire -- an Argentinian attack would have to deal with the garrison, almost certainly resulting in the deaths of a significant number of British soldiers. That would compel a British response.
This has to give the Argentinian government reason to reconsider, which is exactly what the garrison's presence is supposed to accomplish.
But what of the Argentinian military buildup?
In recent years, the Argentinian air force has doubled in size, and is now the largest in South America. A major upgrade has fitted new missiles to Mirage fighters and Pucara ground-attack planes.
So it sounds like the Argentinian air force is a slightly spiffier version of the 1982 one. Though the Argentinian air force accounted for itself well in the war, far better than either the navy or the army (ironic, since of the three branches of the military, the air force leadership was the most against an invasion), the Argentinian air force was beaten off by British Royal Navy Harriers flying off small aircraft carriers, operating thousands of miles from any friendly land bases.
This time around, the British have land-based aircraft, including Tornados, on permanent rotation on the islands.
But besides the beefed up British miltary presence, including the advances in British technology since 1982 (advances I would be surprised if the Argentinians kept pace with), there are other differences between 1982 and 2006 that makes me think an invasion is unlikely.
In 1982, Britain had yet to be truly transformed by Margaret Thatcher. The country was still in comfortable decline, happy to be safe under the US nuclear umbrella. The Falklands War changed all that, of course. Since then, Great Britain went to war in the Gulf twice and in the Balkans. While other European nations dithered, Britain has taken the lead with the US in the Western struggle against tyranny and terror:
An Argentine soldier said: "If I had had real officers who were real men, maybe I would have stayed. No way! I'm Argentine and we aren't made for killing people. We like to eat, go to the movies, drink, and dance. We aren't like the English. They are professional soldiers--war is their business."
That quote was from 1982 -- the British have gotten only tougher since. But more than that -- with the unflinching support provided to the US over the last two decades, the Argentinians have to realize that the US will provide whatever support the British ask for in a war over the Falklands.
A bunch more Pucara ground attack planes suddenly don't seem so important.
One more thing. In 1982, Argentinian territory was never attacked (the Falklands don't count, of course). That was both a strategic decision to avoid escalating the conflict, as well as a tactical nod to the limits of British power projection. This time around, things might play out very differently on that front. If Britain is faced with having to fight the same war twice, they might decide that this will be not only the second time but also the last time. Argentina might be faced with some serious threats to its strategic military and economic assets over...what?...some wind-swept rocks and sheep?
With stand-off weapons of the kind that wreaked havoc inside Iraq launched from hundreds of miles away by submerged submarines, the Argentinians might discover that the explosion they trigger by stepping on the Falklands tripwire is far worse than they imagined.
One only hopes that the Argentinian strategists aren't expecting to have a replay of 1982. They'd be fools to think that all they need to do is have more airplanes this time around. The British aren't stupid. If the Argentinians have more planes, the British will change the nature of the war so that the number of airplanes you have don't matter.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
First thing I thought of reading this was Hugo Chavez.
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at February 26, 2006 09:51 PM
Let's not forget the rest of Argentina's history. Since the 19th century, they've been involved in a number of wars with their neighbors, coveting their territory. The 1982 Falklands War was only the latest war they started.
In addition, one can probably surmise that the Argentine peoples' attitude is the same, that the islands are rightly theirs.
Plus notwithstanding all of Argentina's serious economic problems, that they've spent huge amounts of money modernizing and expanding their military. This without any serious national security threat to Argentina from anyone.
Putting all this together, one may logically surmise an aggressive Argentine government is probing the British will even more than their Falklands defenses.
If the result of this probing activity convinces the Argentines that today's Britain would not be willing to fight, they may very well try a better organized and robust version of the 1982 attack.
But are the Argentines that ignorant of world history, of British history, of the character of the British people? And do they really think that because of Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan in the War on Terror, a preoccupied Britain won't or can't find the resources to fight a second, and decisive, Falklands War?
Most importantly, do the Argentines think Britons are Spaniards? Are they that ignorant of the character of the British people?
Britons are not Spaniards. Not only would Britain, even Tony Blair's New Labour Britain, react and counter-attack vigorously and decisively. The British people would demand it. And, as noted above, the British may very well decide this time to inflict serious strategic damage on Argentina.
And it goes without saying that the United States, as we did in 1982, would offer Britain all assistance short of actual American military combat participation. We would NOT leave Britain, our closest ally, out on a limb on this.
This is a war Argentina can't win. Although history is full of examples of wars that the nations that started them were destined to lose.
Let's keep an eye on this
Posted by: Dave at February 26, 2006 10:15 PM
The fact that it has been mentioned means it wont happen.
Peace comes through vigilance.
There are enough troopers on the islands to keep a foothold and I am sure there are enough sailors in the Argentine Navy to remember the Belgrano.
It is the the British submarine fleet that the Argentines should fear.
If British vigilance falls then they dont deserve to hold on to the islands so many miles away. Why the Argentinian government would feel the need to take the islands is beyond me, is there oil nearby?
Posted by: Stephen at February 26, 2006 10:55 PM
Two things:
1. Back in 1982 the Argentinian government did what they did as a diversion to the mess the country was going through ... This leads us to ask, how is Argentina doing today? Does the government of the day need a distraction?
2. The first commenter mentions Hugo Chavez... he is certainly one to watch if anything breaks out. All of Latin America calls the islands by their Spanish name. Many Latin Americans think that the Falkland islands should be Argentinian. Most would want to stay out of any conflict but Chavez is just stupid enough and crazy enough to get involved ...
Let's hope clearer heads prevail in Argentina...
Posted by: José at February 26, 2006 11:04 PM
I agree that 2006 is different than 1982, and the the Brits still have the advantage over the Argies...
But the 1982 war was not a cake-walk for the British.
(Web page for British ship sunk and damaged)forhttp://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm
I count 7 ships sunk, and the website notes a number of ships damaged by unexploded bombs, with one ship surviving 4 bombs that did not explode.
My point?
We may remember that the Brits won the Falkland War, but we may not remember the price Britain paid.
And also, they perhaps were a few unexploded bombs away from losing ongoing public support...
Posted by: Pete at February 27, 2006 12:08 AM
I promptly thought this was Hugo Chavez and scrolling down, Mulder and Jose both touch that base as well.
This is perfect for Hugo. The conflict would be at arms length for him. Argentina would take the hit.
Chavez has recently come into mountains of wealth, just as Alberta has. That means he can buy weapons galore. Does he want to test some out? Will his planes back Argentina?
He can afford to give heating oil to the poor in some states. Many of those who are Latino may see Hugo as a kind of hero. Would they bomb or sabotage refineries if Hugo requested that?
Someone better informed than I may tell us how Hugo gets along with Argentina. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 27, 2006 12:08 AM
In all these unresolved festering issues, everyone is always taking stock of what the other has to throw. The larger 'empire' type nations follow an inevitable trendline of spreading resources out too wide, and so, at a certain time, some nations will weigh this, and when they feel they can, they will try to take what they believe they can claim.
Most of these conflicted claims have two names for the same space.
Britain should sell the Falklands. What are they good for now a days? A few sheep farmers who could be bought out to retire in a more hospitable place aren't worth the money it is costing britain now. A military beach head base... for what? Does Britain intend to attack Latin America? A 'symbol' of the British Empire's past, a clinging to something of no practical value today at such colossal cost to fuel a chauvinist self-image pride? Makes good press for twits, I suppose...
This is a good time for diplomacy and getting concessions re trade that make practical sense, in exchange for a useless piece of geography.
Posted by: brock at February 27, 2006 12:30 AM
Brock, one problem with your idea about selling the Falkland Island is that the people living on the Falkand Islands are British citizens and wouldn't be too happy with being told that their home are being sold to Argentina and that they would have to face a new government or move away from their homes. Would you like that to happen if you was in a similar situation?
Posted by: Crazy Dan at February 27, 2006 02:10 AM
Brock's idea makes sense, Dan.
The price simply has to be enough to satisfy those who must move. There is a difference between an average sized country and a small Island.
I live on Vancouver Island. Everyone here would likely agree to move to the sunshine coast for about 300 gs. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 27, 2006 02:16 AM
Has this got to do with about the toilets flushing the wrong way down there?
Brock, it's not just an 'island', there are untapped oil reserves down there. Wait, where did I hear about another war on democracy and oil...
dang sounds vagly familiar...
Posted by: tomax at February 27, 2006 07:03 AM
Argentines making a move on the Falklands again?HAHAHAHA! South American hotheaded despots with delusions of grandeur are apparently all the rage these days.
I hope these beaneaters try it and that Chavez throws in with them. Seems that every couple of decades they have to be spanked and sent home with their tails between their legs.
They have no idea how much more advanced the British arsenal is compared to 1982. Throw in a loaned U.S. Aegis missile cruiser or two plus the nuke subs lurking quiety underwater and the Argentine air force and navy would meet each other for their permanent naps on the bottom of the Atlantic.
Posted by: Steve N. at February 27, 2006 08:49 AM
If the Royal Navy, specifically the submarine service, had been let of the leash the Argie navy would have been massacred. If they try it again I sincerely hope that would be allowed to happen. Furthermore, I cannot find a single reason to oppose using Trident if it saves a single British soldiers life. If they do intend to take a second kick at it I would suggest they get on with it. With the new building programme in the RN every day they waste will only make the job harder.
Posted by: Mr. C.J. Mullan at February 27, 2006 10:00 AM
If only our Canadian Armed Forces were supported and improved in the past dozen years instead of having their budgets pillaged to pay for Fiberal follies.
Posted by: Mac at February 27, 2006 10:52 AM
It was a monstrous mistake to attempt taking the falkland islands the first time. Only British restraint kept the war from turning into a slaughter.
Since the Falkland war however, the British have shown weakness, in the defence of her colonies, returning Hong Kong to china, and considering giving Gibraltar to Spain. The Argentinians maybe of the opinion that a show of force may be rewarded.
Posted by: Curtis at February 27, 2006 10:52 AM
Britain went to war once for the Falklands there is no way they will not do it again.
For generations those islands have been British, the people there are British.They will not accept a financial option by a country who already tried force.
If Argentina did not learn a lesson the last time it wil be a harsher lesson next time.
I don't think there is any oil so it looks more like a pointless pissing contest.
Posted by: ian at February 27, 2006 11:59 AM
Steve N paints a reassuring picture. I hope he is correct about potency of modern equipment.
You know when people like Hugo get oil rich, they go out to. not the auto show, not the yacht swap, but to the weapons exposition.
Hugo may have bought some shiny new hi-tech stuff and now would gladly lend one or two to Argentina for real world testing.
I hope Blair delivers a sledge-hammer blow and limits any farting around. Just assume that Chavez has the latest and the best and act accordingly. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 27, 2006 12:33 PM
Need a lift? Guaranteed this would never happen in any fudamentalist run country. TG
http://tinyurl.com/ny7q7
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 27, 2006 12:38 PM
http://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com/
Posted by: thepoetryman at February 27, 2006 12:52 PM
The last time around the US had the problem of two allies going to war with each other. So, no official support (but everything possible for the Brits behind the scenes). But even leaving out the idea that the US "owes" the Brits for Afghanistan and Iraq (which is bull), I think the Argentinians pulling the same stunt would result in official, public support - meaning Navy and Air Force pilots and missiles directly involved (the Army is still busy).
And yep, me too - my first thought was the motivation, what specifically is the Argentinian President trying to get his people's minds off of?
Posted by: at February 27, 2006 02:03 PM
I agree that this is probably just a distraction as was mentioned earlier. It is meant to drive a stake between South America and the USA. Argentina will push this to the brink for all of the political gain it can muster and will then pull back imo.
If Argentina gets knocked out the World Cup early things may move faster. (in all seriousness).
As for the hits the UK took last turn around, it is a strong point made. However, the UK (and everyone else) learned a lot of lessons in regard to ship warfare and the same mistakes will not be made. The Falklands were the first true test of modern aircraft and missiles against a naval fleet. (i.e. taking your defences down in a warzone to do work on them).
I also agree with Stephen...the Argies have no credible defence against UK submarines.
Posted by: NorthBayTrapper at February 27, 2006 02:32 PM
During WWII, South America politically opposed the allies (US & the British Commonwealth) and still does today. If Chavez supported Argentina for another move on the Falklands it would give the US the right political environment to move against Venezuela. Sieze the oil fields in the name of democracy & security of it's allies.
Posted by: the bear at February 27, 2006 03:02 PM
Ten nuclear-powered attack submarines of Her Majesty's Navy Trafalgar-class and the Swiftsure-class have received upgrades to carry U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles over the last 8 years. The first submarine to be upgraded, the Splendid, fired Tomahawk missiles during Operation Allied Force. The upgrade of a second submarine, the Triumph, was completed by the end of 1999. Others in this squadron participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom in differing ways.
Obviously none of these boats was around during the first Argentinian misadventure in the Falklands. These ten boats by themselves could sit off the coast of Argentina and send the entire Argentinian navy to the bottom of the Atlantic in quick order. It would be a blowout.
If the Argentines can't get large numbers of troops to the islands, which they cannot without ships, they are effectively checkmated.
It would be a suicidal adventure...much more so than the last attempt.
Posted by: Steve N. at February 27, 2006 03:05 PM
These may be windswept rocks, but this is the second last sea gate left to be taken away from the "Isrealitish" nations, that include the British Commonwealth and USA and others. If you've ever heard of Herbert W Armstrong, you'll know what I'm talking about
Posted by: Rita Moore at February 27, 2006 04:29 PM
Dave says Tony Blair's New Labour Britain would attack and attack vigorously. Blair would have to rely on Conservative support to do it. His own party wouldn't support him.
In Britain we now have effectively two prime ministers. Gordon Brown is basically setting out Government Policy. Tony Blair ? He seems to be taking a back seat this days, making the occasional foreign trip to keep up appearances.
Posted by: at February 27, 2006 06:03 PM
i forgot to post my same. Sorry.
Posted by: The Fog is Clearing at February 27, 2006 06:04 PM
Some background - I think Brasil will tell them to cool it. More at the link URL below.
Experts acknowledge that Brazil is a pivotal state with a vibrant democracy, a diversified economy and an entrepreneurial population, a large national patrimony, and solid economic institutions. Brazil’s success or failure in balancing pro-growth economic measures with an ambitious social agenda that reduces poverty and income inequality will have a profound impact on region-wide economic performance and governance during the next 15 years. Luring foreign direct investment and advancing regional stability and equitable integration—including trade and economic infrastructure—probably will remain axioms of Brazilian foreign policy. Brazil is a natural partner both for the United States and Europe and for rising powers China and India and has the potential to enhance its leverage as a net exporter of oil.
But!
Continued limited access of the international oil companies to major fields could restrain this investment, however, and many of the areas—the Caspian Sea, Venezuela, West Africa and South China Sea—that are being counted on to provide increased output involve substantial political or economic risk.
Argentina ain`t even on the map
Posted by: Floyd Low at February 27, 2006 08:14 PM
Neither is Canada. (on the map) We dont have a large enough population to be anyone's major trading partner.
Brazil will try to keep the Falkland Island situation under control, as they also have boarder disputes, and dont want the message to get out, that aggression will be rewarded.
Posted by: Curtis at February 27, 2006 08:46 PM
A CIA Sponsored Conference paper on Latin America in the future at the link
Lest all hope China stays stable!
Posted by: Floyd Low at February 27, 2006 08:58 PM
Imagine if the billions spent on the Iraq war or other wars in similar situations where two groups claim the same geography were spent to resolve the claims? Behind military power is economic cost of war, and if this same money was spent to relieve claims, everybody, including the poor British sheep farmers eking out a living so far from their own culture, could be happier.
The rights of those who wish to stay should be part of the negotiated sale of this remote 'British' island, but with a lush settlement package, those who choose to keep sheep in a place where their kids have few post-secondary educational opportunities etc etc will be the eccentric very few indeed.
Posted by: brock at February 28, 2006 01:06 AM
Possession is 9/10ths of the law. The Falkland islands are British, argentina has no right to expect britain to give up those islands to appease her nationalist aspirations.
Why should they sell them to avoid a conflict they can win? perhaps we should sell Newfoundland?
Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 10:21 AM
In 82 the Brits were missing one piece of equipment that would've changed the entire course of the war, AWACS. All literature that parces the war determines that fact as the single most important shortcoming. Today the Brits have a variety of AWACS aircraft, plus realtime SAT imagery via the USA. The days of aircraft approaching to pop-up and shoot are over. The days of ship born threats creeping about to land in surprise are over. The days of Mirage aircraft to sneak up and fire at British shipping are over. An Argentine attack would become a slaughter of hapless Argentines hopelessly outclassed, outgunned, and outteched.
Missiles and/or torpedoes fired from one submarine would devastate all approaching transport ships. Tornado aircraft would down incoming aircraft like flies, and if warned soon enough, ground based missile systems would ravage any aircraft that avoided the Torondo screen. If AWACS and SAT supported shipping was present, the slaughter would be embarrassing. Sure, a massive air attack would overwhelm current resources in the Falklands, but a massive attack would provoke a massive response; and not even Chavez is that stupid.
1982 might as well be from another century.
Posted by: debris trail at February 28, 2006 10:54 AM
Steve, It's about oil. 6 major pools known, one being tested.200mm Barrels so far. England knew of these pools (untested) prior to Falklands war. England will do that it has to do. JMO. socket
Posted by: Socket at February 28, 2006 11:53 AM
6 Reserve pools you say. And I thought I knew it all. Blogs are kick in the butt to go and look more stuff up.
Now there*s a reason Argentine wants a scrubby pile of sheep grass off the right coast. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 28, 2006 12:31 PM
Brock:Imagine if the billions spent on the Iraq war or other wars in similar situations where two groups claim the same geography were spent to resolve the claims?
Your very argument shows how silly that line of thought is. Despite all study of human nature, the way we act, have acted in the past and every indication of how we will act in the future people insist that if we give in we will all just get along.
You persist in thinking and speaking this way. It is illogical, contrary to human nature and yet you still do. The same goes for fights between people, nations, races etc. There will be unreasonable bullies and we will have to fight sometimes.
enough
Posted by: enough at February 28, 2006 12:56 PM
This is going to be a political exercise and that is all. It will play well in the press at home, just like when we had pictures from the Okanagan with the Spanish trawler in the crosshairs during the much ballyhooed Turbot war.
It will not only fuel Argentinian nationalism but also nationalism in other South American countries that seem to be sitting on the Chavez bus (which is heading for the cliff by the way).
Posted by: NorthBayTrapper at February 28, 2006 02:05 PM
crap, just read my post and noticed I spelled Okanagon wrong.
consider this a correction.
NBT
Posted by: NorthBayTrapper at February 28, 2006 02:09 PM
My family is from Argentina and I just came back from my third visit to the country. A few points:
- In South America, the Falklands are known to all as "Las Malvinas". One quite often sees many bumper stickers/signs that read "Don't forget the Malvinas / The Malvinas are ours".
- The people and government institutions are quite nationalistic - besides the fact that Argentinian flags are everywhere, people are very proud to be from Buenos Aires and/or Argentina. (To the point that Americans would seem unpatriotic in comparison.) It would be very easy for the president to get popular support to reclaim the islands that everyone believes is rightfully theirs in the first place.
- The Argentine economy has improved much since the dark days of the currency crisis in 2000. Government spending has increased in all areas and a big deal was made about the payment of the country's IMF debt in early January. The payment, made because Brazil was also extinguishing their portion of IMF debt, was toted by the president as 'Argentinians taking control of their own destiny'. It does not seem improbable for the president to continue along that theme and tap into the prevalent nationalist feelings to make an attempt to get the islands back.
Posted by: paulo at February 28, 2006 04:19 PM
Re South America being "politically aligned against the Allies," Brazil ended up sending a large expeditionary force to fight alongside the Allies in Italy. Sending the force was not without controversy, but that's where the Brazilians ended up.
It is, of course, undisputed that Argentina was sympathetic to the Axis (think of the Graf Spee).
Argentina has a reputation with all her neighbors as a belligerent nation. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see an attack against the Falklands launched.
As for "all of South America" calling the Falklands the Malvinas, Brazilians don't.
Posted by: Joffre at February 28, 2006 04:41 PM
Nationalism and patriotic feelings aside, the Argentine military is not capable of performing such a mission. The government has had no motivation to modernize the military thanks to the security provided by MERCOSUR. The economy is still hurting, with high inflation and zero growth rates, so there is no money to do much more than maintain their current military assets. They can't even give their pilots enough time in the air. There has been little to no modernization and since there is zero industry to produce any new assets, I find it difficult to believe they would attempt such a mission. Argentina is a major non-NATO ally, with peacekeepers in Haiti and Kosovo just to name a few areas. I don't think they would give up a favorable partnership with the US over a couple of islands. Chavez is building a pipeline to satisfy their natural gas needs, and they have the infrastructure for power generation. What would they gain with this? Many of you say it's about oil, but that is a pretty high price to go to war with the UK and their inevitable losses would leave them very exposed to Brazil, Chile and Paraguay.
Posted by: CT at February 28, 2006 04:55 PM
Well if those 1,200 men in the garrison, are Royal Marines, that is not a trip wire. It's a Garrote.
If not Marines, ok then use your navy.
But RM's?, even if the Argies can get 20,000 to the island, they gonna feel the pain, and prolly try to swim home.
Posted by: Jim Doherty at February 28, 2006 05:01 PM
Its fair to presume that there would be a suprise air strike as part of the opening attack, of these 1200 Marines, I would think that a fair number would be out of action before the first invader comes ashore.
Again, I dont think Argentina will attempt this little trick again. They maybe using this to help bring about a diplomatic solution to the first Falklands war. (you may not realize, that the UK and argentina are still technically at war - the Falkland island war is only at a cease fire) Maybe they'd like to apply a little pressure to get the diplomats talking, get a normalization of relations, maybe some trade...
Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 06:57 PM
altavista.com can do a very passable translation of the VC 10 link above
Posted by: Floyd Low at February 28, 2006 08:40 PM
 
|
|
