No Allies -- But Plenty of Enemies

Townhall.com ^ | 3/4/2010 | Victor Davis Hanson

[GonzoGOP]

One whiff of a UK submarine and the Argie navy will become a non-factor.

Problem is Argentina can invade using paratroopers. Since the British force on the Island is relatively small they can't hold the entire landmass. If they tried they would be overwhelmed. Their best bet would be to retreat into Port Stanley and hope for relief in a reasonable time. And without flattops to establish air superiority the Brits couldn't run in supplies.

You end up with a mutual sedge. The Brit garrison dung in and surrounded at Port Stanley, and Argentine airborne troops cut off from anything other than air dropped supplies by British SSNs. Some supplies can be flown in, but not enough to get their guys more than the basics. And even that assumes that Argentina can keep all of their transport aircraft air worthy under wartime conditions in and area know for some of the worst weather on the planet.

The Argentine Air Force only has 7 C-130s unless they want to use their two KC-130 tankers as transports. And some of those are old "B" models. If they can capture a jet capable runway they have about a dozen airliner types that can be pressed into service, but the Brits are probably on the ball enough to blow up any runways they can't hold on to.

Basically it is a race to see who starves first.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Argentines have paratroopers ?

[Porterville]

I’m not neutral, but the british people and gov. haven’t always acted towards our best interest as of recent; and they are a bunch of hedonistic appologist for all things Un American.

[GonzoGOP]

Argentines have paratroopers ?

Allegedly. Don't know about the quality, they might be the equivalent of the Iranian super weapons we hear about all the time.

To date (2009), the Argentine Army has eleven brigades:

two armored brigades (1st and 2nd),
three mechanized brigades (9th, 10th and 11th),
three mountain brigades (5th, 6th and 8th),
one paratroopers brigade (4th) and
two jungle brigade (3rd and 12th).

The islands are only 480 km from Argentina so they can't just use their helicopters to fly out there. So basically until they can capture a runway it is the C-130s. The can also throw stuff out the back door of some of their turboprop airliners. You could probably drop some supplies that way but I wouldn't want to use it for troops.

[onedoug]

...our great ally, the British....

Who traded with North Vietnam during the entire conflict there.

I support Britain re the Falklands too. But diplomatic relations are usually not so smooth at all.

[Servant of the Cross]

Thanks for your perspective. I have been more enlightened regarding this question and "U.S. military intervention". IMO, this isn't about U.S. military intervention (or even the threat thereof) though. This is just a matter of U.S. foreign policy to "reflexively and instinctively back an ally's interest first with words" rather than being a "neutral weenie". Yes, the Brits should handle their own military needs at colonies (and as mentioned upthread they are more than capable with subs).

This is about the U.S. being the leader and voice for freedom in the world. Again, there is a consensus of the people of the Falkland Islands that they wish to remain British. The U.S. should support that with strong words, not weenie swiss french vichy "neutrality".

[CholeraJoe]

Unless Argentina has improved the quality of its Army in the last 28 years, things will turn out the same way. I became friends with an Argentinian man who was a Lieutenant in one of the units sent to the Malvinas in 1982. Almost all of his soldiers were conscripts, ethnically natives, and poorly educated. Many of them did not speak Spanish very well.

He told the story, that in Basic training, several of his soldiers had never even used a toilet before. Training was a serious challenge and most of his men were from the warm jungles in the north and not used to the sub-freezing temperatures in the Malvinas during winter. He didn’t want to surrender his men at Port Stanley, but had no choice. They refused to fight.

[USS Alaska]

You end up with a mutual sedge. The Brit garrison dung in and surrounded

I can see a mutual sedge, but a Brit garrison surrounded in dung, that's very smelly.

[GonzoGOP]

A combination of poor typing skills and spell check are out to get me, I’m sure of it.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The U.S. should support that with strong words, not weenie swiss french vichy "neutrality"."

The time may come for that. For now, Argentina is huffing and puffing but nothing is being done. I don't personally think it will go beyond huffing and puffing. If it does, I would hope that even Obama would do the minimal where we side with Britian and give them sattelite or logistical support if needed. The big difference between now and 1982 is that in 1982 Argentina was ruled by military juntas. They are a democracy and usually democracies do not go to war with each other.

[Deb]

Mr. Yummy nails another one.

Lets see, in one week we drop-kicked two vital allies onto the poop pile. But, hey, you Brits and Turks are in great company.

I wonder if those air traffic control kids are available to run our country.

[Servant of the Cross]

Hey! Yes, VDH (aka mr yummy?!) does it again. Brings in the historical context of the leader of the free world and its allies in this pursuit and then highlights how that role is being sullied ("drop-kicked into the poop pile" [damn nice phraseology!]) by the current "usurper/poseur in chief".

Now that's an idea about the air traffic control kids running the country. Clearly more mature, eh?