Falklands

[Furunculus]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago.

This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.

it has been mentioned

for a rought idea:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...United-Kingdom
http://www.globalfirepower.com/count...y_id=Argentina

[The Wizard]

I'd imagine it has more to do with their regional position than their position worldwide, as far as Argentina is concerned.

[Pannonian]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Argentina is a major non-NATO ally of the USA? I only found out about this a couple days ago. This puts Washington in quite the pickle... although I don't exactly know what Argentina brings to the table for the U.S. compared to the UK.

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

[KukriKhan]

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

I don't know whether to LOL or cry, over that.

[Pannonian]

I don't know whether to LOL or cry, over that.

It's true though. Have a look at Wizard's riposte to Lemur's question of what Israel gives to the US in return for the billions in aid, then have a look at his weighing of Britain and Argentina in a matter that doesn't cost the US a cent. The political reality is that Israel and other vocal lobbies get massive amounts of money and cannot be questioned, but Britain fits into whatever policy the US government currently favours, without complaint, and we spend billions for this privilege.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Neither is as valuable to the US though as Israel, the bestest most valuablest ally evar of the United States of America, whose outstanding and wideranging contributions more than amply repay the billions of free money sent its way every year by the grateful taxpayers of America. You can screw Britain and you can screw France, but without Israel, America would not be able to carry out its foreign policy.

1. Be careful there pan-man, choking on your own vitriolic sarcasm is a harsh way to go.

2. For the vast majority here, you are preaching to the choir. The BR crowd has a few ardent Israel supporters....but only a few. The rest are more nuanced in their support, with a significant minority actively opposing pretty much everything Israel is/does/stands for.

3. I, for one, value all three alliances, but would rank-order their importance (and my attitudes thereunto) differently than the current crop of politicos. I suspect both I and Kukri and a raft of others would agree that the Special Relationship has been taken for granted by comparison.

[Subotan]

I remember hearing it being put that the USA has lots of special relationships. It has one with Japan, one with South Korea, one with Turkey, one with Pakistan, one with Israel, one with Mexico etc. It just suits British politicians seeking to win prestige at home, and American politicians who want British boots on the ground to ramble on about the Anglo-American special relationship, as if Britain was the only ally the USA had.

[Pannonian]

Not so much a special relationship, as an odd relationship.

The Sphinx and the curious case of the Iron Lady's H-bomb

“Excuse me,” Mitterrand begins, apologising for his late arrival. “I had a difference of opinion to settle with the Iron Lady. What an impossible woman, that Thatcher! “With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina — unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians. Margaret has given me very precise instructions on the telephone.”
...
“I ask you to keep that to yourself. I’ve been told that psychoanalysts don’t know how to keep mum in town! Is that true?” Magoudi did not reply. Instead he asked: “How do you react to such an intransigent woman?” Mitterrand replied: “What do you expect? You can’t win a struggle against the insular syndrome of an unbridled Englishwoman. To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded to her. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”
...
“I will have the last word,” Mitterrand replied. “Her island, it’s me who will destroy it. Her island, I swear that soon it will no longer be one. I will take my revenge. I will tie England to Europe, despite its natural tendency for isolation. How? I will build a tunnel under the Channel. Yes. I will succeed where Napoleon III failed.”

Clearly delighted with his vision, Mitterrand had no doubt he would persuade Thatcher to accept the tunnel. “I will flatter her shopkeeper spirit. I will tell her that the welding to the Continent will not cost the crown one kopeck. She will not resist this resonant argument.”
...
Mitterrand’s presidency ended in 1995. He died the following year. Thatcher remembered him as “quieter, more urbane” than Jacques Chirac, his long-term rival and successor as president. Chirac “had a sure grasp of detail and a profound interest in economics” while Mitterrand “was a self- conscious intellectual, fascinated by foreign policy and bored by detail and possibly contemptuous of economics”.

“Oddly enough,” she wrote, “I liked them both.”

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Sphinx and the curious case of the Iron Lady's H-bomb

A curious tale indeed. I've heard it before, I've never quite known what to make of it, I am not sure what to make of Magoudi. Nor of this version of Mitterand's role in the Falklands war. But Mitterand remains a mystery, anything is possible.

I must say that there seems something...not quite fitting the character, or the polics. I think Masoudi does not understand politics as well as psychotherapy. Why should Mitterand be blackmailed by Thatcher's threat to nuke Argentina? He would either have calmed her down, or called her bluff. It was not a political possiblity for the UK to employ nukes. Thatcher knew this, Mitterand knew this, and they both knew the other knew this.

The story that Mitterand then took revenge on the UK with the chunnel. Meh. 'France outwits Britain yet again by shoving something down its throat which it neither needs nor wants' - that story goes down equally well on both sides of the channel. It is usually a gross distortion of the thruth.


I think there are four simpler motives for Mitterand:

1 Mitterand, despite being a socialist, was a realist. He was very much of the mind that when push comes to shove, you fight with the Anglos. As he did in the first Gulf War too.
2 Mitterand hated the fascist Junta more than he feared Argentina's left opposition. Washington felt the reverse. With the result that the socialist Mitterand supported the Conservative Thatcher, and Reagan supported the fascists against Thatcher.
3 France and Britain have a special relationship. Since 1903 France joins the UK in war while America every single time endlessly debates whether to support the UK, or to support its mortal enemies.
4 Following up on reason three, the petty grovelling of the Briton as he realises he's made the same mistake as all the other times before, pleases us.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Reagan supporting the UK? Not so, says John Nott in his autobiography, the UK Secretary of State for Defense under Thatcher in 1982. Washington even forbade Britain to use the joint US/UK airbase in Ascension, which is British teritory no less.

Odd how, when you want to believe someone is your staunch friend, you keep screening out evidence to the contrary. So it is with our special relationship with America. They’re just not that into us.
Why do we find it so hard to see this? All this week I’ve been reading alarmed commentary about the United States “wavering” in its support on the Falklands. Wavering? Not a bit of it. America has never backed Britain’s territorial claim. But because we haven’t wanted to hear such things, the story told by the man who was the Defence Secretary during the Falklands war, Sir John Nott, has been almost entirely ignored. Here he is, though, in his own words, in his autobiography Here Today, Gone Tomorrow published eight years ago.

The Americans, he says, “were very, very far from being on our side”.

“The State Department, the White House security staff, led by Judge C1ark, and Reagan himself, were never wholly committed to our case, although they came out publicly in our support on April 30. Even thereafter the Americans gave every assistance to the Peruvians, the United Nations, and every other mediator — Brazilians, Mexicans and the rest — to bring about a negotiated settlement on terms which would have been seen as a surrender by ... press and public opinion in the United Kingdom . . . The Americans leant heavily on us, backed up by telephone calls from Reagan to Thatcher, to find some way of saving Galtieri’s face . . .”

“Only Mitterrand and the French remained staunch allies to the end.”

This may not suit your preferred view of international relations. It didn’t (as he admits) suit the profoundly eurosceptical Sir John’s. But if we screen out what has happened in the past, we may be screening out what could hit us next.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7048684.ece

You'll notice the Britons here bite their tongue over my provocations.

That is because they don't have a Navy deserving of that name anymore and will be dependent on Paris' mighty fleet for maintaining their Empire.

Washington is not going to help them. It didn't last time, nor will it want to upset Latin America this time

Britain will come running to us. So looking forward to their grovelling. From behind my large mahogany desk, I shall threat the Briton with due reserve and natural aloofness. I'll wear my dark suit I imported from Milan, its tone reflects well in my eyes, gives them a natural authority.

*dreams*

[The Wizard]

It's true though. Have a look at Wizard's riposte to Lemur's question of what Israel gives to the US in return for the billions in aid, then have a look at his weighing of Britain and Argentina in a matter that doesn't cost the US a cent. The political reality is that Israel and other vocal lobbies get massive amounts of money and cannot be questioned, but Britain fits into whatever policy the US government currently favours, without complaint, and we spend billions for this privilege.

That would be a valid point if Israel actually got the money because of a lobby. Which it didn't.

What you need to understand is that the U.S. is primarily self-interested when it comes to foreign policy. Obama has made regaining the initiative in Latin America a major policy goal, and he's decided the only way to do so is to abandon Dubya's policy of confrontation/firing the ignore cannon. And considering he's had to start with the initiative in Latin American hands, he'll have to accommodate them. Or at least, that's his vision (I lean towards agreeing). Face it: you're tiny, the U.S. is big. Not as tiny as, say, the Netherlands, but the comparison is akin to putting a terrier next to a parakeet, respectively.

P.S. I might also add that giving a country major non-NATO ally status does cost the U.S. money, considering it means the ally in question gets access to the U.S. defense market and the country's technology development, gets loans and U.S. financing for its acquisitions, and more goodies.

EDIT: Excellent link, “What do you expect? You can’t win a struggle against the insular syndrome of an unbridled Englishwoman.”

[Fisherking]

I should resist but I just can’t...

So Louis, you have cited another episode of American Presidents being duplicitous and disingenuous, just like WW I...

[Furunculus]

the thoughts of the kings of war:
http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/03/dea...nny-boy-to-do/

[Louis VI the Fat]

I should resist but I just can’t...

So Louis, you have cited another episode of American Presidents being duplicitous and disingenuous, just like WW I...

Not at all! I think that neither Wilson, Colonel House, Reagan, nor Obama/Hilary's shift are duplicitous and disingenuous.

What I do think is that the Special Relationship has been experienced in an altogether too sentimental, almost childish, manner since 2003. By these standards, Britain ought now to be renaming American food by now. By these standards Britain just took it up *there*.
I have, rather confusingly, been posting two different sorts of posts: one from the perspective above, with a wee bit of provocation thrown in for good effect. And, secondly, I've said that I thought Hillary was sensible, and that one must not make too much out of all of this. Regarding this latter: I don't see why the relationship should suffer when both parties could understand the position of the other?


Sentimentalism is fine, as long as one does not apply it to politics. The relationship suffers in this crisis from too much sentimentalism, not too little.*
The UK is not the 51st state either. Special Relationship implies a deeper, underlying relationship that goes beyond petty sentiments and incidents.
It implies both parties can understand that the other pursues private interests, that there are differences, trade disputes, that each one is entitled to some naughtiness too. It means that one understands all this, while at the same time the deeper understanding is maintained.

It does not mean both parties parrot and follow each other, always. If you want that, form a Union.

*As it did in 2003. Both parties were too much embolded by the support of the other, and lost track of the virtue of a sober assesment of the situation. Blair rushed to Bush's aid, which was his overriding sentiment. Bush was highly embolded by this, by Blair.

[Furunculus]

not far of what the kings of war said above ^.

[Louis VI the Fat]

not far of what the kings of war said above ^.

You hacked the forum and sneaked that in to embarrass me.

[Furunculus]

You hacked the forum and sneaked that in to embarrass me.

i do try my best. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not at all! I think that neither Wilson, Colonel House, Reagan, nor Obama/Hilary's shift are duplicitous and disingenuous.

What I do think is that the Special Relationship has been experienced in an altogether too sentimental, almost childish, manner since 2003. By these standards, Britain ought now to be renaming American food by now. By these standards Britain just took it up *there*.
I have, rather confusingly, been posting two different sorts of posts: one from the perspective above, with a wee bit of provocation thrown in for good effect. And, secondly, I've said that I thought Hillary was sensible, and that one must not make too much out of all of this. Regarding this latter: I don't see why the relationship should suffer when both parties could understand the position of the other?


Sentimentalism is fine, as long as one does not apply it to politics. The relationship suffers in this crisis from too much sentimentalism, not too little.*
The UK is not the 51st state either. Special Relationship implies a deeper, underlying relationship that goes beyond petty sentiments and incidents.
It implies both parties can understand that the other pursues private interests, that there are differences, trade disputes, that each one is entitled to some naughtiness too. It means that one understands all this, while at the same time the deeper understanding is maintained.

It does not mean both parties parrot and follow each other, always. If you want that, form a Union.

*As it did in 2003. Both parties were too much embolded by the support of the other, and lost track of the virtue of a sober assesment of the situation. Blair rushed to Bush's aid, which was his overriding sentiment. Bush was highly embolded by this, by Blair.

All of this rather indicates NO special relationship; in which case we should begin withdrawing troops from Afganistan and getting them winter gear. If America isn't going to at least stay out of this squabble (note that I'm not asking for support) then we should vcertainly no be offering military support to America.

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

[tibilicus]

All of this rather indicates NO special relationship; in which case we should begin withdrawing troops from Afganistan and getting them winter gear. If America isn't going to at least stay out of this squabble (note that I'm not asking for support) then we should vcertainly no be offering military support to America.

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

I would say longer than 20 years, about the only time it was good was the Reagan Thatcher relationship. Remember the so-called "special relationship" of Super Mac and JFK? Our so called allies were funding and encouraging the tensions which would lead to the formation in the future of the IRA because JFK felt some personal attachment to his "homeland". You know, being so in touch with his Irish heritage and everything.

Point being I see the relationship as a result of Britain's declining status in the 1950's, the Yanks stated they would help us if we opened up the remaining colonies we had post war so they could get in on the cash without paying any upkeep. Then along came Suez which would become synonymous for meaning "you don't start a war unless we say you can". Although I'm pretty certain they kicked up a stink when we and the rest of Europe wouldn't let them use our airfields during the Yom-Kippur war to give israel aid (I think it was that war).

Basically I personally think that even if you can justify there being a need for a "special relationship" at some point in time, which I can't, I really feel there's no need for one now, especially when we could be co-operating more with our European neighbours.

[Furunculus]

two points to all those getting there knickers in a twist about iraq:

1) regardless of the lack of apparent suport from america, First, it remains part of the strategic bargain with larger na?ons who are friends and allies in particular, the US to ensure collective security in the widest sense, whether in a NATO context or some other arrangement. The bargain with larger nations and influence over them relate to an important additional factor: inherent (or existential) military deterrent capability. This is the need collectively to maintain suffcient levels of military capability in particular combat capability to deter any emerging or existing power in the future from developing or using the military instrument for bullying or blackmail.

2) regardless of the obligation, i am happy that it is in Britains wider strategic interests that countries like 90's afghanistan are not failed states and actively exporting virulent brands of ideological terrorism around the globe.

In short, we didn't do it just because we are America's bitch!

[Pannonian]

All of this rather indicates NO special relationship; in which case we should begin withdrawing troops from Afganistan and getting them winter gear. If America isn't going to at least stay out of this squabble (note that I'm not asking for support) then we should vcertainly no be offering military support to America.

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

We're in Afghanistan as a result of our formal and moral obligations to the US, so it should be among the last places where we should look for cutbacks, and certainly not permanently. Iraq, and other theatres of choice, should be considered before Afghanistan.

[Pannonian]

2) regardless of the obligation, i am happy that it is in Britains wider strategic interests that countries like 90's afghanistan are not failed states and actively exporting virulent brands of ideological terrorism around the globe.

In short, we didn't do it just because we are America's bitch!

If that's the strategic aim, we're ignoring the two big elephants in the room. In going after Afghanistan and Iraq, even Iran, we're going after insignificant sources of Islamist ideological terrorism, whilst ignoring Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

[Tristuskhan]

In short, we didn't do it just because we are America's bitch!

That's a fact: UK was not paid in return...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We're in Afghanistan as a result of our formal and moral obligations to the US, so it should be among the last places where we should look for cutbacks, and certainly not permanently. Iraq, and other theatres of choice, should be considered before Afghanistan.

We have no moral obligation to the US, as the Falklands situation demonstrates, as far as a formal obligation; I would consider that it has been apply discharged. It is a military reality that most of our combat and jogistics brigades are deployed in Afganistan; if the US is not willing to support our security in the South Atlantic diplomatically then we will be forced to withdraw troops to cover it militarily. The US is failing in its strategic obligation to us, which requires us to abrogate our own obligation.

[Pannonian]

We have no moral obligation to the US, as the Falklands situation demonstrates, as far as a formal obligation; I would consider that it has been apply discharged. It is a military reality that most of our combat and jogistics brigades are deployed in Afganistan; if the US is not willing to support our security in the South Atlantic diplomatically then we will be forced to withdraw troops to cover it militarily. The US is failing in its strategic obligation to us, which requires us to abrogate our own obligation.

The US has fulfilled, and still fulfills, its part in Europe (even though it never actually came to war), so I'd want Britain to fulfill our part to the best of our ability. Now practical needs may require pulling out of Afghanistan to fill more British-oriented needs elsewhere, but I wouldn't want us to permanently leave Afghanistan, or at least not until the US tells us we're no longer needed. Iraq, OTOH, is a campaign we shouldn't have been involved with in the first place.

[The Wizard]

Alliance implies repriscocity, of which there has been none for about 20 years.

You're the weaker partner. You can't really do anything except suck it up.

[Furunculus]

That's a fact: UK was not paid in return...

are you sure?

we are sitting on 19% of iraq's oils. how much has the rest of europe got?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#Energy

[Meneldil]

are you sure?

we are sitting on 19% of iraq's oils. how much has the rest of europe got?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#Energy

Thanks for finally admitting that the whole "WMD" and "we have to establish democracy" excuses were a bunch of lies :D

[Furunculus]

Thanks for finally admitting that the whole "WMD" and "we have to establish democracy" excuses were a bunch of lies :D

i will make no shock admission now.

----------------------------------------------------------
i always said WMD was an excuse.
----------------------------------------------------------
and i always said we went to iraq because:
1. we wanted a secular arab state in which to hold a war of ideological supremacy against militant islamism, live on C-span
2. we wanted to ensure our unhindered future economic growth, which requires our energy security and thus a 'stable' middle east*
----------------------------------------------------------
to provide the engineering half of the energy security dilemma requires western investment in iraqi oil-fields, we deserve it since we paid the price in blood and treasure.



* yes, that does mean some form of representative government, because the continuance of authoritarian despotism only turns up the heat on the middle east pressure cooker, which is bad for ensuring unhindered western growth. it is not the oil per-se, it is the guarantee of future access to it at a stable market price that the west needs. we are susceptible to oil shocks, invading iraq is a way around that.

[Shaka_Khan]

A democracy never invaded another democracy. Look at how the old Axis Powers are some of the most peaceful countries now. There are anti-war people in every country and these people get heard in a democracy. They especially feel uneasy about invading another democracy.

[Furunculus]

britain apparently wasn't too happy with the spineless level of support given by washington:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7055925.ece