Earlier, you seemed to be suggesting that the Task Force would have been in trouble had the Argentinian Navy put to sea. The fact that their Navy mostly stayed home means that Galtieri was certainly holding that back. Rightly so, he would have suffered a ruinous loss in terms of ships and personnel - beyond that of the sinking of the General Belgrano. And the number of troops deployed is immaterial if the quality of personnel and equipment is deficient. The Argentinians were virtually incapable of reinforcing their garrison by sea, once RN submarines were on the scene, and in view of the state of the Port Stanley airstrip. The lack of reinforcements was a fact of life that would not have been lost on the Argentinian commanders and troops already deployed. Morale would have been an issue and the British Task Force commander would also realise this. The initial invasion could only have been a success if the UK Government had capitulated without a fight. Once Thatcher had determined that we would counter-attack, the result was never in doubt save for unforeseen/unexpected disasters. So there was little chance of a naval engagement. So that was not a factor in determining the likelihood of success of the Task Force, which invalidates an objection you raised earlier. The Argentinian air power threat was mostly contained, for reasons that could have been foreseen by British strategists. The Argentinian ground forces were vulnerable because they were incapable of being reinforced, a fact that could have been foreseen by British strategists. I suggested that the Task Force was almost certain to succeed, your posts above seem to support my contention.
Well, that is possible, but I suspect it is simplistic. I rather think that he held the two views in his head. On the one hand, he was being told by the Americans that it was true and that they had solid intelligence for it. On the other, he would have been told that it was probably baloney and that the intelligence was anything but solid. He would needed to have fronted up to the Americans and told them to come off it and sided with the French "peace monkeys". That would have imperilled the "special relationship". He had also struck up some weird Christian friendship with Bush. No doubt other advisors were telling him that, post 9/11, we had to stand with the Americans. At the end of the day, he didn't have the balls to stand up to them. I suspect that that is nearer to what happened. He would have suspected that the story he was pedalling to Parliament was crap, but in terms of realpolitik, it was necessary. He would have hidden behind the idea that he couldn't know it was crap. Essentially the Americans played hardball with him and because we are a feeble, ex-colonial power which is dependent on the American nuclear umbrella (and are never allowed to forget it), he lost. Does this excuse Blair or let him rise in my esteem? No. But I can see how the situation was very tricky. If you are going to have a "special relationship" where you are beholden to another country in aeternam, this is the sort of thing that will continually happen. But the whole jihadist thing, the whole war on terror, is a direct result of American foreign policy. So you either put up with it and shut up (which is what we are doing) or maybe, perhaps, one day, you stand up and be counted.
I am sure nothing quite so crude occurred, but people find what they look for. The Argentinian Navy would have been destroyed in an engagement at sea. However, trade Mirage for Sea Harrier, let the South Atlantic weather degrade the ships, use Super Etendard with Exocet (I know there were limited supplies) against the major assets to defeat the Task Force. Then reinforce the Falklands by air after upgrading the runway. Britain could have regrouped and made life very difficult for the Argentinians but a second invasion force simply didn't exist, and world opinion would have slowly swung against the UK. John Prebble suggests that the Belgrano was sunk after the Argentinian navy had received a return to base order, that had been intercepted, but just who knew about it on the British side is one of those murky areas. The Argentinian aircraft carrier was at sea and had been tracked by a British SSN but had subsequently been lost.
I am shocked; surely the New World Order would maintain a large standing army to protect against alien invasion.
I am in broad agreement with this assessment but - the Argentinians were in the game in order to reclaim the Falklands, which they thought would be a bloodless exercise. I find it extremely unlikely that they would have wished to start sinking Britain's capital ships and escalate a game of chess into an unending, full-out conflict. The fact that Britain did indeed go to war probably filled the Junta with horror and a deep desire to find an exit strategy out of the situation. The Argentinian plan failed the instant the Task Force sailed for the Falklands. They didn't want a bloody, protracted war nor did they want the long-term consequences of having fought one with Britain. In a sense, neither side could afford a catastrophic failure of the Task Force. And as you say, Exocets were in short supply - not an insignificant factor giving the type of war.
I read Woodward's auto-biography and it agrees with Prebble in that detail, I also read Sharkey Ward's account too (Sea Harrier pilot and considered Mr Sea Harrier). My personal view (and Woodward's) is that it was a bloody close run thing. I'm not sure if Johhny V is saying that but that's what I'm taking from it. The overall impression from Woodward was shit was wearing out fast and this is before they started taking a hammering, the South Atlantic was doing a lot of the Argentinian's work for them. Good synopsis, I just wanted to add IF the Argies had actively engaged the Harrier instead of running away from it, then it would not have taken many losses for the British air defense to be unsustainable. Given the Harrier was the long range radar "eyes" as well as teeth, then the fleet would have been "fish in the barrel" for the Etendards. Another gigantic cost cutting cock up when we went to "micro carriers" we lost the long range radar eyes we had previously with the likes of the Gannet & the Harrier was far from ideal for the role.
Well done for working the words "solid" and "intelligence" into the same sentence, twice. Intelligence is never very solid, as you pointed out yourself in an earlier post. Decisions have to be made on scanty facts. Information is always insufficient, and sometimes wrong. Enemies set out to deceive. Predictions and forecasts are speculative. If those deficiencies were reasons for inaction, no politician (or soldier) would ever do anything.
Some intelligence, however, is clearly more credible than other bits. Sometimes the same story appears from various unconnected sources (not that I am an intelligence expert, you understand. Oh, you mean you did?) Where it becomes egregious is if you are willing to disregard what your intelligence experts are telling you in favour of clutching at some straw, or indeed in interpreting the intelligence yourself in the face of those who are paid to do that. This is what the Cheney cabal did. They looked at innocent buildings and despite being told they were innocent, weaved a narrative around them to come up with the story they wanted. They personally did their own analysis (despite having no qualifications for the task). Then they presented their fiction as incontrovertible fact.
The principal threat to this great planet is from alien invasion. Little green men got lazers and shit
Go on Pete, make one little criticism of Tony, just for me. You know you can do it, it won't hurt a bit.
The fact that you chose to use the phrase "reclaim the Falklands" says everything I need to know about your knowledge of this subject...
that wasn't in the script tho. The shipment of (many) Exocets was spotted by a British serviceman on holiday near the port was reported back to the British Government, who then put pressure on the French to have the ship turned around. Before it was sunk. The Argentinians were preparing properly.
Was going to do a thread called 'Blair' after seeing the scallywag on Newsnight tonight - but there is one already I don't like him, he's sooooo creepy worse than Trump by far
