"Why didn't the USA intervene in the Falklands war?" Topic

I know the US helped the British a bit, but it seems that truly substantive help would have gone a long way to prevent loss of life and ended the war more quickly and with less risk of failure.

I always imgagined what a real carrier group could have accomplished if it had sailed ahead of the task force and provided air cover, early warning, swept for submarines etc.

The cost would only be fuel and it could be written off as a training exercise.

Any small amount of combat could have been handled by British troops – the problems such as they were were inadequate naval and air forces.

So why no US carrier group?

War always comes at great cost, and if it doesn't serve strategic interests, why bother?

US had trade and diplomatic links with Argentina (and other South American countries) which would have been jeopardised by sending combat units.

If they hadn't been concerned about upsetting south american countries then do you think a carrier group would even have been necessary?
I doubt it.
If the president of the United States told Argentina to get out or face military consequences then they'd be insane not to back down.

10 minutes on the phone plus a news presentation.

And a threat to build McDonalds in every city.

So why no US carrier group?

----------------
Supporting anti communist military dictatorships in its own back yard was more important than helping a country who would still be an ally whether or not you helped them? Pretty straightforward choice given US action in Chile and other countries in Latin and Central America in the 70s and 80s

I agree with GNREP8.

It was viewed as a mere spat in the South Atlantic by a couple of loser nations (1982 timeframe) – who would have expected the unexpected. The Empire Strikes Back!

There was a marvellous sketch on the British TV 'Spitting Image' comedy show around that time. A latex Ronald Reagan French-kisses a latex Maggie Thatcher as she returns to the UK. Once gone, he then turns to the camera and wiping his wet lips he says "What a gal, what a woman! Shame I'm only -ing her country!!

Ah, high level international politics!

There were some very harsh discussions between Margaret Thatcher and the Americans. It was one of the biggest (secret) fall outs between USA and UK after WW2.

Some of the details came out recently under the 30 year rule. There was a very intersting documentary about the Vulcan bomber raid about a month ago on BBC.

The Americans even asked Britain to let the Argies have the Falklands. Margaret Thatcher told them politely but firmly to get stuffed.

There was also a risk of escalation, US substantively supports the Falkland Islanders and GB, it may then have been other S.American countrys support Argentina.

You then have a large amount of NATO assets commited to the S.Atlantic, British ground, Sea and Air ones, and US fleet.

This kind of weakening of European forces with an unfriendly USSR would have seemed to be a big risk.

Everyone has legitimate responses here, but I also think that PM Margaret Thatcher (the "Iron Lady") wouldn't have asked for help of any kind from anyone, given that A), her many supporters and critics were closely watching how she would approach and settle the crisis, and B), the reputation of Great Britain's resolve, with or without allies.

I wouldn't attempt to be sexist to any degree, but since she was the UK's very first female prime minister, I'm sure many of her detractors were looking for her to make some kind of mistake.

wasn't Our fight, wasn't a NATO fight and if We had intervened everyone, including the British, would be screaming about how We threw Our military weight around.
sometimes it's just better to let two people fight it out.

Bet this thread gets ugly

I think there was also the view that the Brits could handle the situation. US satellite intel and air refueling was probablly seen as sufficient.

Bet you're right Gray Ghost

Well you could start with.

The Reagan administration's ties to the Argentine military using them as proxies to teach torture techniques and supposedly COIN doctrine to Guatemala and El Salvador. They would also use them to supply arms to the Contras, to wage terrorism against Nicaragua.

Despite the horrific human rights record of both Guatemala and El Salvador, Central America was a major focal point of US foreign policy in the early to mid eighties. Who better to help than the military of a country that had disposed of 30,000 of it's own citizens?

Jean Kirkpatrick being a virulent and nutty anglophobe.

Al Haig being a pompous twit and wannabe Kissenger par excellance.

Actually all up I can see little reason for the US to get involved, although it is rumoured that Caspar Weinberger did offer the use/lease of a carrier.

Soviets never were a serious threat and they were up to the armpits in Afghanistan at that point.

We're talking a trivial amout of US Naval forces – a single carrier group for just a few months…

I'm curious if the US was peeved about Harold Wilson telling him he didn't want to play in the great SE ASIA away game…

Or they didn't want to upset their real friends in South America.

The so special relationship is a pretty one way street and has been since 1940.

I just wondered if the UK had asked or the US had offered real concrete help. And if anyone knew either way.

I thought at the time – almost a lone voice at the time among my friends in the UK – OMG – how are they going to pull this off! Thousands of miles, scant air cover, winter on the way. When they started taking big hits I thought – here we go….but they muddled through in the end relying on the skill, courage and professionalism of the men and women involved.

It was one heck of a gamble and it's still one of the things I'm mad as hell with Thatcher about.

OK – they won, the Falkland Islanders wanted to be saved blah blah…I'm glad they did and it wasn't any worse. And I'm even gladder Glatieri was overthrown.

But such a huge cost in lives, ruined lives and money. Huge amounts of money that was badly needed elsewhere.

It's all here: link

Suggesting a carrier battle group merely acts as CAP without getting involved is fine, if the other side obeys that. What if Argentine fighters had then (intentionally or otherwise) engaged US CAP? Would the CAP then have to respond? Would that not have directly involved the US in combat operations?

I understood that following a discussion Thatcher had told Reagan that we were fine on our own, and that the US had agreed to simply not get involved.

I have also read that Weinberger offered the use of a carrier group but we refused, not wishing to draw the US into the conflict and also wishing to pursue it to it's conclusion ourselves. I also read that we did get the first deliveries of AIM 9-L's that were re-routed from their destination with US units straight to us, along with intel and as much avgas as we could eat.

I also read that New Zealand, upon hearing of the sinking of HMS Sheffield, asked when we would like them to send over a ship to replace her.

There's a lot of 'right' in the comments upthread.

On the surface, the Thatcher government did indeed want
to 'go it alone,' and not just as an expression of
national ego, will, etc. It was also an excercise in
the nation's ability to project power in bad logistics
circumstances, using forces reduced by essential
economies in Defense spending.

The whole story can't come out for a while yet, but
the US was involved in some fairly significant, non-
risk ways, most of it having to do with intel of various
kinds, especially imagery and sigint.

I agree with Mick in Swizterland.

Don't forget Thatcher could be said to have caused it by her drastic cuts in the Navy via John Nott. The removal of HMS Endurance was like a red rag, or starting pistol, to Galtieri. Thatcher was lucky the forces saved her arse, and the Falklanders, they didn't get much thanks in real terms from her though.

Was not the reason given for allowing the bombing of Libya from US bases in UK " thanks for American help during Falklands War"

Not sure what that supports was.

Don't underestimate the vital importance of the AIM 9-L's or the continuing anger in Argentina over the US support.

Galtieri was strongly supporting US efforts in Central America including having troops on the ground but despite the US reluctance to lose that help (and Central America was Reagan's hottest button at that time), the bulk of the US Defense establishment was pushing to provide maximum covert aid including drawing down NATO stocks at a time when the Soviets were still a 12 foot tall bogeyman.

As far as actual US combat involvement less than ten years after Vietnam with absolutely zero US national interest at stake, simply impossible.

I understand there was 'help' but not 'concrete' help.

I've always believed that once the islands were taken over, Thatcher was out for blood. Not a big war, just a few dead and as much glory as possible.

I think she got far more than she'd bargained for, though the Navy especially must have briefed her on the risks. Of course, she didn't take advice from experts on anything else so why on this?

As I meant to say above – that big bad bear was a spectre conjured and constantly used to frighten the children. Not a real threat.

There was zero risk of a conventional war with the Soviets and everyone in a position of power knew it. But it would have made a convenient excuse to not get involved – except when it suited the US.

Galtieri's support for Reagan's misadventures in Central America is probably more the real reason.

I seem to remember the Monroe doctrine coming up back then, and the "Well technically it doesn't apply here, since…." arguments.

With absolutely NO US interests involved, it was a nice little war you could just sit back and take sides in a cheering sense rather than getting involved. I wished Britain "Good Luck!", mainly because I did not like the Argies and their brinksmanship government. (Love that term. An American columnist wondered if Fleet Street had a secret stockpile of rude names to call foreigners.)

A "special relationship" does not mean that we both get invilved in each others' scrapes, willy-nilly. Did Britain help us in Salvador? Charlie Wilson's War? Were we "helping out" in Ireland?
It's far better for nations to run off and have their own adventures, without dragging in "allies" at every opportunity.

We're talking a trivial amout of US Naval forces – a single carrier group for just a few months…

You regard a QUARTER** of the US's deployed naval strength as 'trivial'?

**Yes, the US had 14 or 15 carriers at the time. 4-5 are deployed, 4-5 are in the shipyard after a major deployment, and the rest are doing workups for their next major deployment.

I think it may be as obvious as the UK didn't need US help to smack Argentina.

@History PHD

Re " air refueling was probablly seen as sufficient."

One of the key points about the BBC documentary on the Vulcan raid was that USA did not give air refueling support to the operation, so the British repaired every single Victor tanker that could fly. They needed eleven tankers to refuel the Vulcan and the Victors to get all the planes there and back.

What US intervention there was had been done by Carter's administration previously and inadvertently. Due to the dreadful human rights record of the Argentine Junta, military ties had been reduced. That's why the Argentinians didn't know how to fuse their bombs for low-level skip-bombing. They didn't have those manuals.

British anti-aircraft systems forced them to bomb at extremely low altitude and the lack of fusing meant they usually dropped what were for all practical purposes 500 lb solid shot. Had all (or most) of those bombs exploded the landings might never have taken place and war might well have gone the other way.

What is the title of the BBC documentary with the info disclosed on the 30 years rule?

My thoughts on why I think the US did not send "hard assets" …

After Carter's massive fallout from the events in Iran (and Regan having a lot of ex-VN figures in his staff like Haig), it looks like he did things more covertly through third parties like contras, mujahadeen, Charlie Wilson, etc. Regan also had a some CIA/covert guys in his staff like Bush senior who probably helped with this; not saying what is right or wrong, just offering an opinion.

I think the last thing Reagan wanted was something that could be equated to "another Viet Nam".

Also, like others said, Argentina was an enemy to our enemies, so we did not want any fodder to help Cuba and the commies to get a bigger foothold there. I don't think the Junta was really as much against the commies as they were to any opposition.

It will be interesting from a historical standpoint to see what really went on when more of these security docs get released. Hopefully they will not be fodder for another war.

The simplest and most accurate assessment is that we didn't because we weren't asked to.

If we had been asked to, US public opinion would have forced the intervention, no matter what bizarre conspiracies may or may not have been in play. The US man on the street couldn't care less if everyone in Argentina dies horribly, but is generally very positive towards the UK.
-Kle.

It's not clear to me that the US were bound by any duty to intervene in favour of the UK. Nonetheless, they provided generous quantities of ISTAR and logistic support, including notably the free use of US owned and built basing facilities at Ascension Island, and the supply of AIM-9Ls that did such execution among Argentine aircraft. I understand that when a UK Special Forces contingent left Fort Bragg, where they had been training with their US opposite numbers, they were invited to take their pick of available US kit to take South with them -- which explains the SAS use of Stingers, never an inventory item in the UK armed forces.

The British Ambassador to Argentina was annoyed, at the end of the war, that full credit could not be publicly given to the US for its generous assitance, as HMG naturally wanted the victory to be seen as a distinctively British one. So it was only after a discreet interval of a few years that some acknowledgement was made of the US contribution to the Falklands victoy, when Casper Weinberger received a knighthood.

All the best,

John.

The NATO treated stated that the US was obliged to defend the UK if it is attacked in EUROPE.
The RIO treaty requires the US to defend Argentina (amongst others) if it is attacked.
That looks to make a stronger case for aiding Argentina. (Yes, I get that the Brits were just recovering their islands, but Argentina was claiming them and their flag was flying over it at the time. Good thing the Brits didn't take a shot at airbases on the mainland.)
The US sitting out was the best compromise for everyone. I remember this being pointed out in the news at the time.

Because the Brits did not need U.S. assistance to win. It wasn't even close.

Britain acted in the Falklands because it was a …colony? protectorate? commonwealth nation? Whatever – it basically belonged to them and the inhabitants were British. If they had needed our help they would have asked for it. As it was, they did a dandy job, after a bit of a rough start.

"Why didn't the USA intervene in the Falklands war?"

Because it was non of their damn business!

Margard hits the nail squarely on it's head!

The documentary with the Vulcan Raid is called "Falklands' Most Daring Raid". It was Channel 4, not BBC as I had thought.

link

I cannot remember whether that is the one which included details about Margaret Thatcher' discussions with the Americans.

Here is the story.
link

link

Mick

Thanks Mick in Switz…

As John and Margard have quite rightly said and as was discussed in another recent thread; for what possible reason would the USA get involved?

The USA very generously offered the use of an uncrewed LHD – not a carrier group, as is often claimed. An LHD would have been massively useful and would have negated the need to use the Atlantic Conveyer as an ad hoc 'aircraft carrier'. However, the RN simply didn't have the manpower to crew it or the time to train a crew for it.

As John has said, they did discreetly supply massive support in terms of satellite reconnaissance, signal intercepts, logistics and access to their entire reserve stock of AIM-9L. These things were far more than we had any right to expect from a neutral power.

I can tell you for a fact there was support from US intelligence (but not AWACS) state side field stations that was provided to the British on a real time basis. NSA played a huge part in battlefield intelligence support during the Falklands War.
VR
James Mattes

To help? To reduce the loss of life?

I'd heard something about a carrier being proferred and rejected. An unmanned LHD ship would of course be useless given the timeframe.

It's clear the US could have done something but didn't for their own reasons. I wouldn't say 'should' have done something.

With hindsight it's easy for us to say a US carrier group could have been deployed to the area to stop all the early hostilities that meant the war was on for real. But the people able to authorise such a move can't have imagined there'd be large loss of life right away – they probably thought they had time to pressure London and Buenos Aires into a less insane course of action.

Possibly the best help available was supplied by the USA prior to the actual invasion. When the Argentinians were poised to land, US diplomatic efforts were made to disuade any invasion at all. Unfortunately they failed but Churchill's 'jaw-jaw' would have been far preferable to the subsequent 'war-war'.

An interesting letter from the time is at: link

I've heard the 'carrier' loan (possibly LHD as above) argument before, but in the context of the USA providing one in the event of a UK vessel being sunk or damaged. The AIM-9Ls and similar NATO war-stocks being provided is well-known and extremely useful, along with permission to use Wideawake airport on Ascension Island (a UK possession, leased to the USA as part of the WW2 lend-lease agreement, I believe, the same as Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territories).

And don't forget the US vote in favour of the UK in the UN Security Council, permitting a decisive diplomatic victory.

Because the Brits did not need U.S. assistance to win. It wasn't even close.
------------
surely that's in retrospect?

It was also an excercise in
the nation's ability to project power in bad logistics
circumstances, using forces reduced by essential
economies in Defense spending.
-------------

'essential economies' – well that's the Sir Humphrey way of putting it. Ironically for all the reputation of the Conservatives as the pro armed forces party, they are very much the party of the bean counters and accountants

As an American I would not hesitate to offer any help I could to the UK as an attack on the UK is an attack against the US. I have fought in 4 wars this last one very much next to UK,Aussies as well as US and they are some of the finest folks you could know. I think its ashame to assume that:
The British Military would not be able to undertake a successfull operation with out US assistance or.
That that assistance would not be freely given if asked for.
That Special relationship extends beyond Goverments. I lost my best friend in Iraq he was an X brit Para But more importantly he was my Brother….Mikey

mengo ate morrer

welcome to TMP with your antiseptic comments, glad to see a toxic character join us the same time Savlon gets banned……

Pat

I'm curious if the US was peeved about Harold Wilson telling him he didn't want to play in the great SE ASIA away game…

you know sometimes in a relationship you have to tell your partner no, I'm not saying I agree with Wilsons stance but I recognize He was doing what He thought was best for His country at the time, pity that some people can't recognize sometimes you have to look after your own country first.

My 2 cents:

1. The US did provide all the behind the scenes assistance that was requested, and some that was not…

2. Other S American countries were actually rooting for the Brits, Chile in particular, and provided some key SF basing and overflight rights….

3. Believe it or not, in all the panic about Exocet missiles, the French Intelligence services and Defence forces were also very active and helpful.

Realpolitik or no, I guess all major league players understood the confrontation from the Soviet point of view -a NATO country was being pushed around, would it fold or fight?

You can be certain that when in 1990-1991 the Politburo sat around the Kremlin to consider their options as their economy was collapsing, and some hot head suggested that invading West Germany would make things better, the British reaction to the Falklands invasion was weighed in the balance when NATO's likely resolve was discussed…

According To Max Hastings book (which seems very good to me) the American Government where facing both ways, with the departments that dealt with South America etc being pro Arggie and the others for the Brits. REagan as he was always going to, at the last moment banged heads together. The American Ambassor got the Juta leader out of bed to tell him that the Brits would kick his arse- and that he better step back. He said he couldn't step back because that was them finished , so it would mean him getting sacked and bad fallout alround in Argentina.