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

Dear Pat,

I'm sorry if historical fact offends you.

Under Reagan one of the key planks of US foreign policy was fighting a proxy cold war in Central America.

Guatemala had an appalling human rights record during its civil war. The US supported, trained and armed the Guatemalans. Actually, using proxies like Argentina became more attractive in part as a result of outcry in the US. I suggest you read Greg Grandin's seminal piece on the topic 'The Last Colonial Massacre, Latin America and the Cold War', if you wish to know more. Grandin is a US academic and former member of the Guatamalan peace and reconcilliation committee.

Similarly El Salvador had a truly appalling record vis a vis its own citizens. You might consider reading up on the activities of the US trained Atlcatl battalion, who staged a massacre in El Mozote that makes My Lai look like a Sunday Picnic.

The junta in Argentina killed at least 30,000 of it's own citizens. Many of the victims remains have never been found. Some were dumped at sea.

Argentine army and secret service agents were active in training the security agencies in a number of Central American countries at the time in torture and the use of death squads. Those countries included key US allies, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

It's all well documented, I'm sorry if you find that 'anti-American'.

And this has what to do with Miniature Wargaming?

Ask the OP.

The US take sides against Argentina? Seems implausible. I think the more interesting question is why the US chose to remain neutral and not impose sanctions against the UK. It was probably the right decision, but not necessarily an obvious one.

Why would it be the right answer?
As far as I was concerned at the time, the Aregnines had NEVER occupied the Falklands, and the Falklands had a long of history of British occupation, with many generations of British settlers.
The Argentines were going through one of their periodic fits of blaming someoen else for their economic mess.
For me, it was easy to pick sides.

It was also not a violation of the Monroe doctrine, since it had never been anything BUT a British colony. Except when it had been ovvupied by Yankee whalers…

I know I know – it was bound to turn out like this…

US support/use of South American dictatorial regimes to further some bizarre agenda is well documented and thoroughly despicable.

Britain is no snow white when it comes to such activities so I don't want to get into any exchange of name calling.

Save to say it is highly relevent to the question I posed. The US had to stay neutral and walk a fine line. Open support for Britain would have 'let the commies in' in Argentina. Which we know would be the end of the world….:-)

Support for Argentina [like even more pressure on Maggie to back down and give up the Falklands] would have caused outrage among ordinary voters in the US – who mostly have a naive and quite fanciful view of US foreign policy.
I'm satisfied the US did what they could given the mess they were in in South/Central America.

It is a shame the Islands could not and cannot probably ever be given over to Argentina. The UK could easily give the islanders $5,000,000 USD each to start a new life in New Zealand or some such place and be done with it. Far cheaper than building/maintaining sufficient forces to defend and garrison them.

Nice assessment Skarper. £5.00 GBPm a head would be an interesting offer (and financially beneficial long term to the UK tax payer, if you ignore the oil issue, but then it wasn't really about oil rights…), although New Zealand may not let them in :-)

Mengo, thought your comments here and elsewhere were well reasoned.

Er…. the garrison on the Falklands costs very little, especially when wieghed up against the huge training opportunities the islands offer.

And I'm personally be insulted by the diea that I'd give up my birthright for money.

I'm guessing the USA didn't get invovled because not doing so enabled them to stay on good terms with both nations, which seems sensible to me.

If someone gave you five million quid would anyone be daft enough to want to live in New Zealand?

Is this the start of a new row!!!

Only if someone makes it one ;-)

That's why I said interesting idea. I doubt many would take it up on principle, but £5.00 GBPm and New Zealand must be tempting :-)

Why should the UK pay the settlers to leave? If Argentina wants the islands so bad, let them offer the residents 5 million each.

Better yet, let Argentina put up 100 million for a UN supervised election. The money stays with the islanders no matter which way they vote. Should put a stop to this periodic demand for islands they never occupied nor owned.

I'm satisfied the US did what they could given the mess they were in in South/Central America.

Pity You couldn't have come to that conclusion before starting this firefight.

I dunno – no-one's using live ammo. Those who are gunshy are free to stifle those views they dislike hearing.

Harmless fun at worst. Enlightening at times IMO.

I said 500,000 USD (not 5000000 pounds) And they'd either get the money and go or stay and live under Argentinian rule.

Many probably would have taken the deal back in 1980. But it's too late for that now. It was the minute Argentinians landed in 1982. The UK is stuck with them.

Any oil they find will like as not never be exploited – there's actually more oil already located than can be burned without causing massive climate change. But that's a whole different issue best left alone.

The garrison might not cost much but the aircraft and an extra ship stationed there, plus the costs of maintaining some kind of long range naval strike force is huge. Billions I'd say. The war in 1982 cost $1.19 USD Billion alone.

…islands they never occupied nor owned

Other than Jewett's claim of 1820, and Vernet's aborted attempts in 1823-1829.

Actually I think half of Europe has been there at one time or another, except perhaps the Swiss. Surprised the French haven't put in a claim as well :-)

I said 500,000 USD (not 5000000 pounds)

Ok, you said "$5,000,000.00" ($5m) which is about £3.00 GBPm.

mengo ate morrer 05 May 2012 5:31 p.m. PST wrote:

El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

It's all well documented, I'm sorry if you find that 'anti-American'.

As a former Special Forces Advisor who servered in the region and several other countries during the mid 80s and 90s I think you need to do some more research.

VR
James Mattes

Skarper – the oil is I think exploitable ebcause the Falklanders are making plans to spend the money. I've ehard they may start this year or next.

As for the assets – a few hundred squddies, four fighters and a ship we'd have anyway isn't a huge investment.

As for the attitude of the Falklanders prior to 1982… suffice to say your assessment is as accurate as your knowledge of climatology….

I meant to say 500,000 but did type 5,000,000. Sorry for confusing the issue. 5M USD a head would still be a bargain if it had avoided the war and post war costs – not counting human life which can never be counted in money of course.

Naturally, I can't know what the islanders would have done prior to 1982 if offered money to relocate, but I bet a large number would have been tempted – especially the younger ones.

Let's not start on climate change or we'll never stop!

The UK is stuck with them

Ouch! That's wounding.

Is that the official view of the UK Establishment, I wonder?

If so, beware all those other Islanders off the coast of the UK, and further afield.

We provided satellite intel to the UK and not to Argentina. We did not help the Argentines to refuse their bombs for low altitude attack, which saved many a British ship. We did not provide the Argentines with Sidewinder missiles, but it sure was a huge advantage for the Harriers.

Certainly the Aregentinians would have been better to try to win friends by being good neighbours rather than using force.

But that bird has flown. The War did concentrate Westminsters mind on what had been a neglected outpost, and now it is running quite nicely.

The meat industry has been revived, people are making money and the population is icnreasing.

And, of course, the prospect of oi lwealth making everyone rich is a good reason to stay….

All-aspect Aim-9L's, paired with the SHARs were the game changer in the Falklands.

Without those, they might not have retaken the islands.

Same goes for the small number of Exocets, due to the embargo slapped on those missiles. I'm surprised the Argentines didn't take more off their ships, and put them on the islands, in trailer-borne mounts, but they probably didn't have the time.

The bomb fuse problem was a huge issue for the Argentines as well. If they had worked efficiently, the British would have lost many more ships, making the whole expedition much more difficult, if not impossible.

As mentioned, the USA did provide satellite, and SIGINT intel to the British. I think that we even launched, or retargeted a satellite, or two, to aid with that effort.

We also tried to reason with the Argentine leadership, without effect.

As for fighting the communists in Central and South America, that is/was a noble cause . A lot more people have died from communists/communism than from the battles against them.

Given the impressive body counts run up by US-backed right-wing paramilitary death squads throughout Central America, I'm not sure about that latter claim….

Why should have the US put herself in the middle of that mess? The Argentinian military Junta was taking the worst military decissions possible; while the British were blundering into victory, as usual. US could watch from the fence without being involved. If she would have intervened, she would have served a political victory in a silver plate to her real enemy at the moment, the USSR. If she backed up the Junta, she would have been accused of supporting a rightist dictatorship while leaving in the lurch her best European ally. And if she would have supported UK, then the accusations of supporting neo-colonialism would have been used by the USSR to cast a pall of smoke over the criticisms against her own presence in Afghanistan.

In top of it, remember it was 1982. Vietnam War was still fresh in the memoir of the American people. Foreign adventures were looked with suspicion. In Washington, covert operations and investment in technology was looked as the answer to USSR victories in the 70s. They didn't want to be distracted with military adventures. Particularly as the British looked to have things well in hand, and the weakness of the military Junta was hinting towards a political change in Argentina. Better to deal with a controlled demolition of the Junta, than with a revolution with comunist-ish undertones.

Besides, there were the suicide penguins to content with.

It's easy to point to many ways communist govts have oppressed their people – or other people within reach.

Famines, purges, political prisons, gulags and so on.

You will get a pretty huge number if you add it all up.

But it doesn't make it justifiable to use terror to destabilise often highly popular socialist and similar govts in South/Central America or South East Asia for that matter.

I'm not going to sit here in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and say communists are all lovely chaps who never hurt a fly.

But that's irrelevant.

"I think you need to do some more research."

Not really, I've read quite enough on the subject. I might suggest you need to do a little more reading on the baleful history of your country's involvement in Latin America.

I meant to say 500,000 but did type 5,000,000. Sorry for confusing the issue. 5M USD a head would still be a bargain if it had avoided the war and post war costs – not counting human life which can never be counted in money of course.

--------------------
aside from the buying people off aspect being rather dubious morally (we don't of course encourage the paying of ransoms for the very reason that ultimately ti just endangers more people)where would Argentina have got x times $5 USDm USD a head from. I'm not aware it was ever something on the agenda – rather like saying we should have offered PIRA £pounds per terrorist to leave us alone

As for fighting the communists in Central and South America, that is/was a noble cause
-------------
problem is that the people that do it define trade unionists, nuns, human rights workers etc as communists and tend to want to kill them too along with any genuine dyed in the wool actual Marxists or Maoists

Besides, there were the suicide penguins to content with.

Yes, once you've been mobbed by half a dozen of these little brutes in Port Stanley high street you know you've 'seen the penguin'….

Shudder….

Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre Penguins:

School of Infantry PCD Instructor Penguins:

Int Corps Photographic Interpretation Penguins:

Suicide Penguins – Mission Accomplished:

"You've just proven his point"

Not really. You have no idea what my reading on the subject matter has been or what my frame of reference is. It's you that has reached a conclusion without factual basis. I feel no need to surmise the basis of your own hasty conclusions.

I will qualify my previous statement. I'm quite prepared to further my reading on the topic. Perhaps you'd like to proffer some suggestions. Presumably you are well versed on the topic. I'm also quite happy for Mr Mattes to supply his own list of reading material.

Alas the mountain of documented evidence demonstrating US support for repugnant regimes in Latin America is unassailable. There's quite a bit in your own congressional records.

Don't worry, you're not alone here. There's evidence to show that the French security forces helped train the Argentines.

"Noble cause" my arse! The Allende coup, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Gautamala, Honduras etc Horrendous dictatorships supported in doing appalling thing because they were "anti communist"

"If anyone offered that much to live in a place as lovely as New Zealand,who would be so daft as to not do so?"

Clearly you've never been there. ;-)

"As for fighting the communists in Central and South America, that is/was a noble cause "

Well, you going to struggle a little to find many these days. There's the FARC in Colombia and the tiny and ragtag remnants of Sendero Luminoso but the days of both have passed. SL were in the news whilst I was in Lima a fortnight ago, like FARC they've mostly transitioned into criminal activity.

Hopefully one day Mako will travel to South America. I'd suggest he visits the ESMA naval mechanics school in Buenos Aires or the Villa Grimaldi Park in Santiago and then see if he feels quite the same about the nobility of the cause. Truly haunting experiences.

I've not been to El Salvador but I understand it is not difficult to travel up to El Mozote and see the evidence of what the fight against 'communists' meant. Alas the last survivor of El Mozote died a few years ago. El Mozote is worth reading about, as the residents who were murdered there were not communists or even communist sympathisers. Most of the community were evangelical Christians.

No doubt it was a case of having to crack a few eggs to make an omelette eh?

The problem with most 'sides' is that they vary from time to time. Today's friend can be tomorrow's enemy, and vice versa.

Funnily enough, at least in South America, US influence has diminished as a result of the triumph of capitalism not its defeat. The US is far less relevant than it was 30 years ago.

Well, it's not Current Affairs, since the 10 year Statute of Limitations has passed. However, we ARE edging in to Naopoleonic Discussion like territory.

I am now taking bets on the over/under for DH residence from this thread.

It started towards that path quite a ways earlier OFM. Robert

John, I have been out ten years this month. So per Bill's rules all my time in the military is ancient history now . I have no problems sleeping at nights when I think about what I knew and was active with in the region and many others during the twenty plus years I was in SF. I know what we taught and what we did. Central and South America were but one of many regions we worked on UW, FID, SR, DA, CT, CP, IO and AFO operations. I would put it at about 30% of our operations over that time were in this region. There are some excellent open source works on the subject. I do not have access to them here or I would list a few. It is true that we have not had as great a focus on the region since 9-11 compaired to the former Soviet Republics and the Middle East and South Asia but there is still significant SOF forces thoughout the region. FWIW Carlos I was also on an exchange to Rio de Janeiro around 1986 to work with CT forces in cross training and advanced CQB.

VR
James Mattes

Of course if a nation does go Communist you end up with Cuba.

Whereas it has a dubious human rights record, I have to say there are worse places in the world to live.

Columbia springs to mind….

Vojvoda – so you're enitrely comfortable with US-trained goons torturing and killing priests, trade unionists and indeed anyone else who opposed to often tyrannical rule of the Latin American landed classes?

If you are OK with that, I assume you'd have no problem with those tactics being used against government opponents in the USA?

As mentioned above, the local definition of 'communist' was …ahem… exceptionally broad.

James- From what I gather it doesn't matter whether you were present or not- it seems to be down to which books you've read on the subject.

Leigh

"Some days even Weasels get sucked into jet engines…."

And yet its the same Weasels are the ones that it keeps happening to. . Robert

"James- From what I gather it doesn't matter whether you were present or not- it seems to be down to which books you've read on the subject."

No. What would matter would be a cogent answer rather than a series of non-sequiturs.

First man: You really ought to do some more research.

Second man: Ok, happy to do so, what do you suggest?

First man: I was there man, I was there.

Not really very productive is it?

Bangorstu 07 May 2012 1:59 a.m. PST wrote:

Vojvoda – so you're enitrely comfortable with US-trained goons torturing and killing priests, trade unionists and indeed anyone else who opposed to often tyrannical rule of the Latin American landed classes?

Nope I am telling you it did not happen that way. In fact we often had folks giving rules of land warfare classes along side us on almost every deployment and MTT.

As for Books I am on the road and don't have access to those that address the Military assistance given to the region during the times I was active. When (if) I get back to North Carolina, (Ft. Bragg) I will get the reading list from the JFK Center at SWC for Carlos.

VR
James Mattes

Thank you James.

I should point out that I'm not accusing you of teaching Latin American armies the techniques of torture or being complicit in war crimes. I doubt you were even in El Salvador in 1981 for instance.

US support for regimes that actively used torture, death squads and perpetrated mass human rights viloations is, however, indisputable. Naturally, they liked to keep the unpleasantness at arms length. To put the best construction possible on the relationship between the Reagan administration, its predecessors and the regimes in question it was one of wilfull blindness. Alas there are holes in that. Even when it was well publicised, they kept pouring cash and resources in to prop up these regimes.

As it happens I've met a number of victims of state terror in Latin America. What you may or may not have done in Central America probably has little bearing on their story but it doesn't make their story any less real.

I hope you enjoyed your time in Rio, it's a wonderful place, I'm sure you would agree.

Vojvoda – you may well have given the classes.

Extensive evidence from Latin America suggests the lessons weren't learned.

To deny the war crimes committed by American allies in Latin America is to the a stranger to the truth.

Sparker.
Loved the Penguins collage! Esp the model ones. Who makes them?

I remember that time vividly.

The war was not what Thatcher wanted initially.

It was public opinion that forced the issue in Britain.

With her cuts to public spending, she would have liked to see the Falklands gone – it would also have suited Reagan's policy of cosying up with Argentina by giving Gualtieri's junta an easy prestige-boosting victory.

After the event, Thatcher had to jump on the bus and pretend to drive – Lord Carrington was the sacrificial scapegoat to cover up her government's complete misreading of the British people's mood and reaction.

Interestingly enough, when Argentina made bellicose noises regarding the Falklands in the 70's, PM Jim Callaghan (ex RN) organized a 'goodwill' visit by elements of the Royal Navy to South America.

Argentina took the hint and backed down.

Net result = no war; no waste of life nor of treasure.

Callaghan was Labour (socialist for US TMP'ers) and Thatcher was supposed to be a Tory (Conservative, right-wing, 'hawkish').

Churchill must have turned in his grave!

Sparker.
Loved the Penguins collage! Esp the model ones. Who makes them?

Can't take the credit I'm afraid…28mm minis from Mike Oscar Foxtrot Oscar (Phonetic spelling to get around nanny checker)/ Gripping beast, Pics from this excellent blog:

link