I remember a news item about how the heads of the military branches in the Junta had a screaming match, with the top admiral saying “you can’t ell me what to do…” after Galtieri told him to keep the main battleship in port. The admiral was convinced it was a plot by the Army and Air Force to take all the glory.
He sent the ship out.
It got sunk.
I recall discussions at the time that this was the distinction between top tier military hardware (USA, Britain, France, etc.) and lesser powers, further illustrated later in the Gulf war. The arms race was less about matching the USSR and probably more about making sure the western powers in terms of military capability stayed ahead of places like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Libya, Iraq and Iran, etc. … just in case.
Indeed. But why would an official in an intelligence agency be writing (even as a thought experiment) a foreign policy proposal (particularly one which any foreign policy official could have seen to be unworkable)?
Well of course the British did lose the islands to the Argentines. They lost them in less than a day.
The issue the CIA was noodling over was how it would all sort itself out. Retaking the islands depended on a lot of variables. One of them was the military practicalities. The British forces were adequate (as history shows), but the Falklands are a rather far way away. The bigger issue would be the size of Margret Thatcher’s balls. To judge them you would have to get inside her head.
So the idea that the British would have ceded the islands is not totally outlandish. The outcome we saw was not certain. It could have gone either way.
I agree. I mean didn’t I read somewhere where we have invasion plans for Canada, and plans if Canada invades us? I suppose an argument can be made that we need to plan for every contingency because being caught unprepared could mean millions of deaths and/or the end of our nation, and an equal argument could be made that there are too many bureaucrats in the military pissing around wasting time on stuff like this. But either way, it doesn’t surprise me at all that someone in the government was working on a potential solution to the Falklands issue wrt the UK and Argentina prior to the war.
This discusses the extent of US support for the UK during the Falklands conflict and the consequences. It was extensive and useful lessons were learnt that were applied to upgrading naval capability during the Cold War.
If there’s an embassy or consulate somewhere, there’s an “invasion” plan. More of a rescue of non-combatants; state department personnel, US aid agency folks, US citizens there for contract reason, tourists. The NEO [non-combatant evacuation operations] plans cover permissive, neutral, and “fight your way through the bastards” scenarios. Many of these friendly plans (Canada for example) only get a review when a “mandatory date” comes up.
Back in the late 90s, things were going south in one of the Congolese nations. We, SETAF, sent down a planning and administrative crew to the other Congolese nation to prepare for possible action. Turns out that the uprisings were reversed; the staff unhorsed to the other country and NEO plans were put into action in the once “friendly” environment.
This is the bit I find hilarious. It’s a little akin to the USA giving up Puerto Rico and the British (or any other foreign power) deciding the residents should be repatriated to Wyoming. Not just mainland USA, but a specific bit of it.
Ok, but they were used to being very cold, so they decided they were acclimitised to Scotland.
Of course they would be UK citizens and could go anywhere UK.
It was just a quick question and answer prepared for the USA plan… which was "nah, its lump of rock down near Argentina, we aren’t fighting South Americans for that … the residents can go to Scotland, they won’t notice the difference ! " USA was busy selling lots of weapons and only Chile was telling Argentina not do do it. An enemy of your enemy is your friend, right ?
Meanwhile the pope had stopped Argentina militarily resolving a border dispute with another catholic country, but hey, UK is anglican, its fair game - crusade it today !