The American Spectator : Cruising for Trouble

Text Size

Cruising for Trouble

By Hal G.P. Colebatch on 1.18.11 @ 6:06AM

How Obama's carelessness could set off another Falklands War – which Britain this time would lose.

In the media frenzy surrounding Tucson, a potentially infinitely more significant event has been almost ignored. Obama has set the seal on his anti-British caste of mind by declaring that France is America's "greatest ally," and that "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people."

The first time I read this, I had trouble believing he was capable of such stupidity. To insult Britain so at this time (following up his earlier insult of returning the bust of Winston Churchill) is matches-in-the-powder-magazine stuff.

For one thing, Britain has 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, nearly three times as many as France. It is the British, not the French, who have been doing the actual fighting beside America in the war. Britain has lost nearly 350 men and women dead -- about seven times as many as France. One can only speculate on the effect reports of these comments by Obama may have on the morale of British servicemen in the field, as well as on the increasing number of wounded veterans and the families of the dead.

It is not exactly news that the war is deeply unpopular in Britain and a huge strain on the battered British economy. If the British leadership is looking for a reason to get out of Afghanistan (and the far-left Liberal Democrat part of the governing coalition would certainly love to do just that), Obama has just given them -- with no conceivable benefit to U.S. interests -- an excellent reason that would resonate with the British public. The fact that a unilateral British withdrawal would have a disastrous effect on a vitally important alliance, and poison U.S.-British relations, as well as leaving the U.S. to do all the heavy lifting in a difficult war, evidently does not bother him.

This is very bad. It gets worse. Britain, faced with major economic problems, has recently made huge cuts to its defense budget, in the opinion of many observers far beyond the basic margin of safety. Its Air Force is being reduced to a total of just six fighter and bomber squadrons (Belgium has five) and its Navy is scrapping its last aircraft carriers and carrier-borne Harrier aircraft, the victors of the Falklands War, largely to save enough money to keep the Afghan commitment viable. One or two replacement carriers will not be ready for years.

All that will be left of the Royal Navy, apart from the submarine force, will be 12 destroyers and 12 frigates: watch out for an exodus of the best and brightest officers and seamen who have suddenly found themselves without promotion prospects, and who may not be attracted to the idea of a valiant death in battle against hopeless odds.

One of the points this raises is that the South American countries are watching with keen interest. On the same day Obama's insult was announced, and the week the last Harriers made their last flight, it emerged the Brazilian Government had refused the Royal Navy's Falkland Islands protection ship, HMS Clyde, permission to call at Rio.

This was the clearest possible indication that Brazil has decided to back Argentina over the Falklands. It is otherwise completely unprovoked and until now the Royal Navy and the Brazilian Navy had had friendly relations. It is the first time Brazil has refused a Royal Navy ship permission to dock in such circumstances.

The new far left-wing President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, is paying a state visit to Argentina in a few weeks, and it is impossible to imagine that the Falklands will not be high on the agenda. The Argentine government has hailed the Brazilian Government's action on banning the Clyde, an action that is entirely pointless save as a demonstration of hostility to Britain.

At present Britain has just four aircraft and about 1,000 troops in the Falklands. If they were again attacked by Argentina, it is hard to see how they could be reinforced. Its only friend in the area would be Chile.

The last time Argentina attacked the Falklands, Britain had strong U.S. support. It also had a powerful Navy and the Falklands task force included two aircraft carriers. It had Vulcan bombers which could reach the Falklands and crater the Argentine-held runways. The U.S. and Britain also had Reagan and Thatcher as leaders, and Brazil was a fairly friendly neutral. This time, Obama's behavior might be taken in Argentina as a go-ahead signal. Argentina does not have particularly good armed forces, but they are there, and in any renewed fighting would have huge advantages in numbers. Britain has no carriers and no Vulcans. How long can four aircraft, that is assuming that they are all air-worthy, put up an air-defense? The British press, which has a habit of dwelling masochistically on Britain's alleged "shame" and "humiliation" when defeated at football and the like, might get a chance to find out what those words really mean.

On inspection, other nasty angles emerge: if the British did make a fight of it, the U.S. would have to choose sides, and incur the lasting enmity of whoever it did not support.

Obama's anti-British obsessions combined with Britain's culpable and myopic dismantling of its own defenses create a highly dangerous situation.

About the Author

Hal G.P. Colebatch's "Immram," Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment

Melvin| 1.18.11 @ 6:54AM

Just when a person thought it couldn't get any worse.

SC Mike| 1.18.11 @ 7:04AM

Falklands? You mean "Maldives," no?

Mitch Angoop| 1.18.11 @ 2:22PM

Mike;
I REALLY hope your question was sarcasm; because if it isn't, it's another example of just how incredibly ignorant Americans have become about everything. But, it's what we get when our teachers are just union hacks who care about only four things: Money, Benefits; Retirement; and the summer off.

The other point that comes to mind is that barry the muslim also cannot be this stupid/ignorant (pick one) to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, all the Europeans who thronged to adore him during his pre-election rock show can now start to see what ignorance and 'jingoism' brings about.

In 1937, what would we have called somebody who assassinated Hitler? Murderer? Traitor? Hero? You pick. But history has a nasty way of repeating itself, and we are blithely going about our i-pods and video games without a care in the world. When "IT" happens, all the talking heads will wring their hands and wonder how we got here. I'm afraid it is already too late; especially with the steel in the Republican's spines rusting away day by day.

Will| 1.18.11 @ 10:01PM

It's (if you're Argentine) the "Malvinas". The Maldives are in the Indian Ocean.

Tommy| 2.1.11 @ 2:17PM

I'm sure the US Secret Service is contacting you right now Mitch. Have fun!!

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 6:30PM

Nyet

Andrew Terhune| 1.20.11 @ 11:42AM

You mean Malvinas, don't you? (Las Islas Malvinas son Argentinas)

Hoytred| 1.18.11 @ 7:36AM

SC - No, they mean the Falkland Islands.

It should be noted that the British would withdraw troops from Afghanistan to support the Falkland Islands, It would be political suicide for any British Government to fail to do so.

Interested Conservative| 1.18.11 @ 10:22AM

I think he meant to needle the Islas Malvinas.

Stammon| 1.18.11 @ 8:08AM

To my British friends;

Pull them, pull your troups from Afghanistan. I know it will hurt my beloved US Military, but we need to teach these idiots (Obamba et all) a lesson.
Pull your boys home and let the chips fall.

Ron| 1.19.11 @ 9:11PM

I agree! With Obama's dislike of the British out in the open, they really have no need to show support for the US in Afganistan. They need to bolster their military to the strength needed to secure the UK's interests around the world. Obama needs to learn that his personal feelings have no place in the office of the presidency, the needs of America come first. This man needs to be a one term president, if not impeached sooner!

Broot| 1.20.11 @ 11:56AM

I strongly disagree; that lesson would be expensive for American troops. And the idiots may not be teachable.

Bunky| 1.20.11 @ 6:50PM

Broot you are absolutely right.
The idiots are not teachable.
They would rejoice and demand we leave as well.
The ME would destabilize fast and WMD's just may end up deployed in liberal havens.

BC| 1.18.11 @ 8:08AM

Being no fan of Marxism, I loathe defending Obama. But the Brits, purveyors of the (once)greatest Navy on earth, have no one but themselves to blame. Their socialist road to defenselessness should be a stark warning for all, and a reminder of where Obama is taking us.

David W| 1.18.11 @ 8:22AM

Just goes to further reinforce in my mind that Obama is the worse president ever. If the Republicans can't produce anyone better than McCain (who apparently is spineless as a candidate unless it is to keep his senate seat) and we re-elect Obama then the population deserves what we get (a move further in the direction of Hugo Chavez instead of Thomas Jefferson/George Washingont).

Former GOPer| 1.18.11 @ 8:38PM

Of course, we all know McCain was the lame stream media's less dangerous choice for the GOP. The sheeple obey their media masters. Watch 2011-12 while the GOP masterfully pulls defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

PJ| 1.18.11 @ 9:15AM

Didn't they recently discover oil around the Falkland Islands? What an incentive to obtain or retain the islands considering the cost of OPEC oil is going up!

The British may not have a large navy but I bet their equipment is in better fighting condition than Argentina's.

Harry the Horrible| 1.18.11 @ 9:59AM

Doesn't matter.
The Brits, if they were sufficiently ruthless, could probably sweep Argentina from the seas, but they can't hold the islands without a garrison and some air cover.

PJ| 1.18.11 @ 10:32AM

I believe there is a British military presence on the islands at all times.

Del| 1.18.11 @ 1:46PM

Which they have, handily enough

Old Soldier| 1.18.11 @ 9:53AM

Sounds like the Brits better start basing at least a regiment and an air squadron in the Falklands. A couple of Patriot systems would be useful too.

While Obama is a complete ass and the French have done next to nothing for us, it is the job of the British government to protect its citizens. Not ours.

RD| 1.18.11 @ 10:06AM

I apologise for being so vague but was it not the case that Blair invoked the NATO treaties to involve the European states in the Afghanistan matter on the basis that the United States had been attacked. Has that no relevance to British sovereign territory being invaded?

Ted| 1.18.11 @ 12:23PM

Now that is indeed an interesting question. Made more interesting by the fact that the U.S. Armed Forces are stretched pretty thin currently. And in the Army Times last week the headline was a 49,000 cut in total U.S. Armed Forces strength coming within the next few years....

Richard Baker| 1.18.11 @ 10:50AM

The French, with friends like them who needs enemies, demand respect and then act like the spoiled brats that they are. You'd think that saving their butts TWICE in the 20th Century would engender a little sense of gratitude. If Argentina is willing to attack the Falklands once more, then England will just have to suck it up and drive these Latin invaders away, again. The Kenyan's insulting behavior towards our oldest friend and ally, regardless of the Revolution and the War of 1812, shows to me, at least, that he's nothing but an angry little man in the White House. The thought that as President he genuinely hates England says, once again, that friendship with the US IS a double-edged sword.

Mike Rogers| 1.18.11 @ 11:40PM

The British military do not forget, and the Yanquis would do well to remember, that the oh-so-friendly French were the ones which sold the Argentine navy those incendiary Exocet missiles, which are capable of setting fire to Aluminium ships. (Brit spelling)
It is a fact that many British and a great number of American ships may have steel hulls, but they have Aluminium superstructures (lighter, faster, better balanced). So, don't get into a fight with our best friends the French, or any of their many military customers, or you will have the pleasure of watching a manned American vessel burning from within, like a strip of Magnesium. Very nasty.
The British should dump Obama's wars and concentrate on self-defense toute-suite!

Cato| 1.20.11 @ 6:29PM

Been there, done that. USS Stark, 3/17/87 - killed 37. Selling Exocets to Iraq, perhaps this is what Barry meant by bestest friends. What a national embarrassment we have elected.

Christopher Holland| 1.18.11 @ 11:00AM

The British have no-one to blame but themselves for being in this position. They are experts at kicking own goals. Obama is from Chicago, he knows a gutless loser when he sees one.

MikeD| 1.18.11 @ 2:30PM

Barry the muslim is taking us down the very same road that has destroyed Britain, and, frankly, all of Europe. Maybe we need to bring all our troops out of Europe and let them spend some of THEIR blood and treasure to defend themselves. We've been covering them for 60 years; enough is enough.

Having said that; this whole situation is just one more example of the contempt the rest of the world holds for us. Ever since the dems in congress refused to fund any actions in Vietnam, leading to the deaths of 6 to 9 million people in South East Asia, they have learned that the dems and sniveling scum in the media and academia will do their very best to abandon everything we used to stand for; like honor and valor, and strength, and the value of commitment. What a joke we have become. And what a tragedy.

Paul Clare| 1.19.11 @ 7:37PM

If BHO can spot a "gutless loser" why in the world would he chose France which hasn't won a war since Napoleon. French Army rifles never fired, dropped only once!

bill carson| 1.18.11 @ 11:02AM

"and incur the lasting enmity of whoever it did not support."

Shouldn't that be "whomever?"

oligarch| 1.20.11 @ 1:34PM

Yes.

Mike W| 1.18.11 @ 11:07AM

And we should care that the UK controls the Falklands? Why is that? And why does the UK have the implicit right to control the Falklands?

Britain is ahead of us. The welfare state and the warfare state can't both co-exist. Something has to give and the money is gone.

GavInTucson| 1.18.11 @ 11:15PM

Your last point is an interesting one that was on the tip of my tongue. The only real reason Europe has been free to engage in its welfare state mentality since the second half of the 20th century is due the umbrella of protection of the military umbrella the United States has provided since WWII.

Had we withdrawn our troops completely from Western Europe following WWII, and those nations had to fund an adequate military on their own, socialism probably wouldn't have taken such root there.

Of course I'm only speculating. Hell, in 50 years or so, Europe won't even be Europe anymore. We'll probably refer to that region as the "Near-East" or something along those lines, at least if their currently lack of immigration policy holds up.

Mike Rogers| 1.18.11 @ 11:50PM

Indeed, the money has run out - the welfare state and over-extended military are what destroyed the pound, and even after Thatcher pulled off an impressive rescue of both the economy and the military, the stupid socialists squandered them again.
We should care about the Falklands because they are peacefully settled, farmed and fished by the same kind of people that live and thrive on the Shetland and Orkney islands off the coast of Scotland, or who settled the remoter parts of Canada. Just because the islands are a few hundred miles from Argentina does not make them part of Argentina. By that logic, we should own Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican republic, Bermuda, the Bahamas....
We should care whenever a small free nation or settlement is bullied and subsumed by a much less free society.

Richard Baker| 1.18.11 @ 11:26AM

Mike W:
If Hawaii Ohana (look it up) attacked the US in the islands to regain the Kingdom of Hawaii and restore the Monarchy, would you object? What implicit right do we have to control King Kamehameha's creation?

Yosemeti Sam| 1.18.11 @ 11:31AM

" ... submarine force ...."

What can they not target seafaring-wise in terms of logistics in attempts by Argentines to 'land'
on the Falklands?

For the Argentine military - that has to be a slippery factor to dwell on.

xRedcoat| 1.18.11 @ 11:56AM

Let's not overlook the fact the 1982 conflict led to the downfall of the Argentine Military Junta led by dictator Leopoldo Galtieri. I

I'm sure President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is much wiser.

chris in va| 1.18.11 @ 11:59AM

The British Empire is over. The Malvinas issue, and the unfortunate position taken by the Reagan Administration (and Thatcher, who threatened to use nuclear weapons if those Exocets went off), turned Latin America against the US in ways the commies never could have achieved on their own.

Observe the results, forty years on, and weep.

Dai Alanye| 1.18.11 @ 1:33PM

Loyalty runs both ways. Britain (now the U K) has been a loyal ally, and we'd be the worst kind of fools to trade them off for a useless Argentina.

Difficult for me to see how any rational person could believe otherwise. Obama, perhaps, is too narcissistic to be loyal to anyone other than himself.

Pelligrino| 1.18.11 @ 2:36PM

Chris in VA, the US government did some rather astute work -- 30 years ago (40 years on?) -- to tacitly aid the British but do much to keep ties -- as best one can have them -- with friendlies south of Mexico.

The sad truth is that there is only one other nation in this hemisphere that seems to, mostly, have its act together: Canada.

That is why the USA must always look across oceans for nations with whom to partner.

It should not be this way; I am left all of my adult life pondering why nothing in Latin or South America ever amounts to much.

And, no, it is not the Yanks' fault.

Paul Clare| 1.19.11 @ 7:41PM

Not actually historically accurate! It is the commies in Latin America who are turning against us. While the U.S. was strong, they were on our side. Enter the communists led by Chavez and his posse and BHO who has dropped our strength and now they are against us. Oh, don't forget, goaded on by our "Friends" the PRC who are sucking up as much natural resources as fast as possible!

Bohemond| 1.20.11 @ 12:28PM

Give me a freaking break! The people of the Falkland Islands are British. There never was any native population to be 'colonized;' and since Spain ceded the islands to Britain in 1771, long before there ever was an Argentina, Buenos' Aires position (based on a 'claim' staked by an Americann pirate in Argentine pay in 1833) is nothing but Latino-nationalist rubbish. You might as well try to assert that Jamaica belongs to Cuba.

Richard Baker| 1.18.11 @ 12:28PM

Chris:
You mean we should care what happens in Junta Central south of the border? They can't even live with themselves similar to the Moslem residents of Planet Earth.

ABNCP| 1.18.11 @ 2:05PM

The basic issue here is that the President of the United States of America has again made a complete ass of himself. There is NO way to justify the statement that, "France is America's greatest ally". The incompetant boob we have in the White House is as full of S**t as a Christmas turkey. The question is WHY would he make such an incredible statment? DeSouza has a great explanation for Obamas neurosis or whatever the hell is wrong with the man. Why insult the one nation that has and is standing with us with credible forces in what is going to be a long and terrible struggle with radical Islam.

Just saying| 1.18.11 @ 6:45PM

ABNCP, you really need to have someone else cook your Turkey next Christmas. I think that you're doing it wrong.

Doc| 3.10.11 @ 3:19PM

Why do say that... it would seem you don't cook your turkey at all... not being a brat...

Mike Rogers| 1.18.11 @ 11:58PM

The bigger question is why we the people continue to elect ANY asses at all to our government. After all, their speeches may be deceptive, but they sure practice truth in labelling!

Ed| 1.18.11 @ 2:13PM

The UK is indeed up a creek without a paddle. The Falklands can be held, but not re-invaded, by the armed forces that the UK will have in the near future. In addition to a fighter squadron and at least a regiment of Soldiers and Marines, they would need AEW aircraft and to spot the Argentines if they came in. They would also need at least one squadron of Apache and transport helicopters each to hang on. The Royal Navy could neutralize the Argentine Navy and could even attack their mainland with Tomahawk missiles. If the Argentines kicked the Brits out, it would be a very long time before they could return.

Carrier Battle Groups are indeed a Big Stick. We have 12, and the Brits have none.

ABNCP| 1.18.11 @ 2:32PM

The Argentine Government is not going to start a war over the Falklands. The main reason Galiteri did that was to try to take the Argentine peoples minds off the terrible government he headed. He lost that one big time and then he lost his job among other things. Cristina Kirchner the present President of the country is not stupid. The people of Argentina could care less about the Falklands/Maldives. They like most of the world are concerned about their economy, jobs and living conditions. War with the U.K. it ain't going to happen.

Mojo Risin| 1.18.11 @ 4:34PM

If Obonehead had scat-for-brains he'd be dangerous!!! Barack Hussein Obonehead is head and shoulders, the worst president America has ever had and what is absolutely and incredibly insane is the thought he could be re-elected... What he's done in his first 2 years is only a trailer for coming attractions and with 6 additional years the damage would be catastrophic, America would cease to exist...

Redstateboy| 1.18.11 @ 4:45PM

just more credibility to my suggestion that Liberals are like Locusts.. they come to a rich land, ie. the UK, devistate it.. and then move on.

kevin| 1.18.11 @ 6:49PM

As an Australian I have never relied on the US for loyalty to friends.
Who was it said "the US has no friends, only vested interests".
And if you elected a foreign educated african as president you deserve all you get.
So Americans also use the soubriquet "rock-ape"?

kevin| 1.18.11 @ 6:51PM

Replace "So ..." by "Do Americans", please.

Dan| 1.18.11 @ 7:12PM

As soon as the Muslim population starts to outnumber native Brits, Obama will tell the world that Britain is the best friend of the U.S. In reality let's hope Obama is back in his native Kenya by that time. But it will probably happen in the not to distant future since Britain's Muslims are giving birth at a much faster pace than native Brits. Britain, France, Spain will all become Muslim countries without firing a shot in the next 25 years because of Muslim births.

Floyd Looney| 1.18.11 @ 10:55PM

A few hundred troops and a few aircraft aren't going to stop the Argentines. I agree, the UK should pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why should they put up with Obama's idiocy?

Big Leo| 1.19.11 @ 12:21AM

It's the Malvinas, campers, and that isn't going to change. It is only the Falklands until Britain decides it is too hard to keep them. That may take a while, but it will happen.

Chef Schnauzer| 1.19.11 @ 5:58AM

I remember a story, years ago. A bunch of political appointees (Carter Admin.) were headed for their self-important positions at the State Dept. and one of the permanent parasites dismissed the lot of political parasites with, "One doesn't allow the summer help to run the shop." The amateurish second-rate summer help have the tiller of state and the WHouse, the country is the worse for it.

Disappointed| 1.19.11 @ 6:55AM

Obama is the most embarrassing POTUS ever. I used to think it was Nixon, because the people had innocently elected a crook, but now I see they have innocently elected a Marxist Leninist.

REB| 1.20.11 @ 12:01AM

Wasnt obummers daddy a british subject? bammy must not really like his daddy either eh?Sad when this retard will side up with south american peons against his own but then hes loyal only to himself,hope the next two years are very short,I dont like the brits too well either,but obamma sucks!

Vlad from Marlboro NJ| 1.20.11 @ 11:39AM

YOU GUYS ARE ALL STUPID! THE BRITISH ARE ALREADY LOST TO ISLAMIC KOOKS! BETTER THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS TO USE AGAINST US! WHO CARE ABOUT THE "FAULKLANDS" ANYWAY? THEY NEED A SUPPLY OF SHEEP TO DIDDLE?

HIS EMMINENCE BISHOP SOROKA| 1.20.11 @ 11:43AM

THE BRITISH ARE HEATHENS! THEY MURDERED THE MESSENGER OF GOD, JOAN OF ARC! CHURCH OF ENGLAND, MY ASS! ITS THE CHURCH OF SATAN! THE FOOL WHO RUNS THEIR CHURCH DOESN'T EVEN BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION!

REAP WHAT YOU SOW! NOW THE MUSLIM SWINE MURDERERS ARE TAKING OVER THE UK!

THE ARGENTINIANS, IDIOTS THEY MAY BE, BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE CATHOLICS!

Citizen-Comrade| 1.24.11 @ 9:57AM

STOP YELLING!!!

DAve| 1.20.11 @ 8:01PM

Obama is the colonial avenger- avenging the injustices (as he sees them) of Kenyan history.
What really took down the pound was currency manipulation by Soros (Barry's big buddy), and the sooner you recognize that the EXACT SAME THING is now happening here in the U.S. the better you'll understand its unfolding and hopefully be able to take steps to defend yourself and this country's interests.
What's happening is not an accident by any means...

Mark| 5.31.11 @ 4:23AM

With the Left controlling approximately 95% of the American media and schools, there is NO chance the American public will become better educated or knowledgeable about what is going on in the world. Using the schools and the media our citizens are being taught to believe that everything said and done by the Left is correct, and therefore there is no reason for the individual to learn or know anything else. As long as we have our new iPod nothing else really matters. The West is doomed; it’s just a matter of time.