re: "More Mumbais?"

Victor Davis Hanson at Private Papers offers the message that messages matter.

Money quote(s):

"(B)ad actors, whether contemplating conventional wars or unconventional attacks, are often emboldened by even superficial outward signs of appeasement (from Dean Acheson’s slip that Korea was not in the US sphere of defense to April Glaspie’s supposedly casual reference to unconcern with Mesopotamian border disputes, to a few British references to the Malvinas and the withdrawal of an otherwise insignificant ship from the Falklands) — even if the potential target is militarily prepared and quite able to reply in deadly fashion. If I were the administration, I would send out a memo to cut the ‘worry over the rights of the terrorist’ talk, and quietly send messages that the US is fully prepared, as in the past, to take all full measures to prevent an attack, and would respond with overwhelming force to even a small assault." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Let's keep all our options viable, and on the table.

7/21

re: "Why Doesn’t The United Kingdom Own Argentina?"

Paul Hair at Big Peace takes a non-post-Modern look at an international flashpoint.


Money quote(s):


"I understand why Argentina does it: the U.K. seems militarily weak as demonstrated by its performance in Libya and by other reports of its deterioration. And when a state that is unencumbered by political correctness and principles, such as Argentina, sees an opportunity to take advantage of another nation, it is going to do so. Furthermore, even if the U.K. has the capabilities to fight back, history tells us that it will only minimally do so. In fact, the only reason Argentina exists today is that the U.K. didn’t do what it should have done in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

By this analysis, if the U.K., by Argentine analysis, can't or won't make it either too expensive for the Argies to take and/or hold the Falklands, they'll make another attempt to do just that.

"(A) combination of self-hatred and cowling to internationalism has brought the U.K. to its knees. Even worse, the same self-hatred and submission to internationalism infects the U.S. as well. Hence, ten years after Islamic thugs attacked the U.S. we still haven’t beaten them. Actually, we aren’t even comfortable with the term “victory” any longer."

When was it, exactly, that the term "exit strategy" replaced "victory"?

I don't recall precisely, at least in terms of a time and date, but philosophically it marked the time when those who made (and those who accepted) that change determined that victory was no longer an option.

"(T)here is a heavy price to pay for self-hatred. And the civilians of the U.K. and U.S.—the people ultimately responsible for the policy of voluntary defeat—have yet to see the full consequences of their actions. The West paid a price in the 20th century for allowing the enemy Axis powers to flourish. So too is the U.K. paying a price for not conquering Argentina . . . and so too will the U.S. pay a price for not conquering its enemies."

re: "Impolitic"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") is keeping his eye on our hemisphere.

Money quote(s):

"Retirement from active service brings with it the opportunity to more freely speak one’s mind, but a retired Royal Navy admiral who commanded the task for which recovered the Falkland Islands back in 1982 has put government in a spot by stating that Britain’s naval writ no longer extends over the islanders’ defense"

Basically, they can't get there anymore, not in any strength. Not in time to do anything about it, unless they fly commercial or something.

"The UK’s MoD refutes the claim, noting that the islands are defended by a frigate, four Typhoon jets and a thousand infantry, but the admiral’s point is mostly made: Britain is over-extended militarily, and the fleet that sailed to the Falklands back in 1982 no longer exists. And given the chill that has come over the Special Relationship in the last few years, perhaps Britain is right to wonder how far the US would go to defend the UK’s territorial claims in the South Atlantic. The Argentinians are probably not keen to make another play at what they continue to call the “Malvinas”, but neither have they relinquished their claim to the islands – from their perspective, it’s unfinished business." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

I think this word, "refute," does not meet what they think it does, i.e., to deny. Saying something isn't so isn't the same as it being so.

The fleet that liberated the Falklands no longer exists. It's been decommissioned, scrapped, rendered for razor blades, and sent to the breakers. It's no longer pining for the fjords. &tc.

Worse, the fleet that liberated the Falklands was not replaced. Replacements for those ships remain purely theoretical, in the "out years" and on the drawing boards, at best.

"In his day, Royal Navy officers learned French to accept surrenders."

Which is kind of how I feel about Arabic and Farsi.

re: "Quick Takes, June 16, 2011"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") shares some quick takes.

Money quote(s):

"ITEM: He Did WHAT?! Remember, gentle readers, the war over the Falkland Islands? You remember that Argentina seized the British Islands in 1982 and the Brits, plucky critters that they are, seized them back? Since taking office, one of the foremost elements of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been egregiously insulting our allies, and none more stupidly and regularly than the British. Last June, he backed an Argentinian call for “negotiations” over the islands (read: for forcing the British to give them to Argentina). And now, fresh from his latest diplomatic debacle of insulting the Queen with a clumsy toast, he has again backed a similar resolution. Oh yes, Argentina is more and more allying itself with our declared enemies in the region, so it’s a cinch that Mr. Obama would support them. Go here for the story."

&

"ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Smart Diplomacy Division. I was shocked, shocked! when I discovered that Mr. Obama and the State Department were—how should I put it? Naïve? Foolish? Abysmally stupid?—in their approach to Egypt and their assumption that everything would be just fine, because after all, the Muslim Brotherhood are really just a bunch of moderates who long for democracy. Right. Not so much. Go here to the Washington Post, which speaks of the current and ongoing battle for the future of Egyptian culture. Will Egypt continue to be a reasonably secular democracy or an Islamic theocracy with all that implies? “There is going to be a battle between two visions for Egypt,” the article quotes. Indeed. And the Islamists are heavy favorites as they will have no hesitation in murdering anyone who disagrees with them. Smart diplomacy indeed."

re: "More Foreign Policy Insanity"

Rand Simberg at Transterrestrial Musings ("Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!") is unable to embrace the absurdity.

Money quote(s):

"There must be some reason, but I doubt if it’s a good one."

re: "Obama takes Argentina’s side in Falklands dispute."

Moe Lane at Redstate ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill, is the most often cited right of center blog in the media, and is widely considered one of the most influential voices of the grassroots on the right") explores the motivations.

re: "Falklands responses"

EURSOC takes the U.S., among others closer at hand, to task.

Money quote(s):

"US President Barack Obama's administration certainly takes the booby prize for disloyalty to its allies, following the state department's declaration of neutrality in the issue of sovereignty.

Washington's betrayal has unleashed a torrent of anti-Obama comments on the British blogs, and an equal number of apologies from decent Americans, who are as horrified as us that their President has chosen to repay British support in two wars with a snub."

re: "Britain Considers South Atlantic “Sovereignty” Rights"

Robert at Atlantic Crossings ("Between the Hudson Highlands and the South of England") comments on the nature of sovereignty as Argentina asks the Falklands question.

Money quote(s):

"Being next door to anywhere does not rightful sovereignty confer: if it did, for instance, England would still rule France."

&

"When that comes into existence, does that mean also that good parts of their populations will then also exclude the U.S.A. and Canada from their list of destinations for illegal entrance?"

"That" refers to BBC reports that "Leaders at the summit, between the Rio Group and the Caribbean Community (Caricom), are also said to have discussed plans for a new pan-American alliance which would exclude Canada and the United States".