Britain’s last bloody (and successful) war
As the press likes to remind us, 2,621 American troops have died in Iraq as a result of hostile action, with a total of 3,253 dead. (I assume that the differential is because, at any given time in a large organization, especially one that trains with deadly weapons, a certain number are going to die for reasons other than combat operations.) Since the War began on March 20, 2003, this means that, in the 1,474 days of the War, there have been an average of 1.8 deaths per day.
Britain is commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the very successful Falklands War, a war that lasted 74 days. During that time, 255 British servicemen died, for an average of 3.4 deaths per day — almost twice the number in Iraq, which is proving to be a much fiercer war.
Considering how bloody it was, albeit on a small scale, the Falklands War is considered to be a very successful war, if only because the War’s outcome meant that the Islanders, rather than being tied to the sagging, dragging Latin American economy, enjoy one of the strongest economies in Latin America or, indeed, anywhere. Fear not, though: The British, rather than taking pride in having rescued one of their most remote outposts from the scourge that is Latin American politics and economics, are taking the very PC route of abasing themselves and apologizing profusely for what they’ve done:
Britain has expressed “continuing regret” over the deaths on both sides in the Falklands conflict.
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett released a statement on the eve of Monday’s 25th anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the islands.
She said families of dead Argentine personnel could hold a commemorative event on the islands later this year.
Over 900 people died during the 74-day war, including 255 British servicemen, 655 Argentines and three islanders.
Argentina’s invasion, on 2 April 1982, followed friction between the two countries dating back to 1833, when Britain claimed the islands in the south Atlantic.
Argentine forces surrendered on June 14, 1982.
Just in case you’d like to see how far Britain has collapsed since 1982 (a time when I lived in England and remember well how excited the Brits were to flex their long-dormant military muscle), read the following quotation from the same article about the Falklands War, and try to reconcile it with British pandering in the face of Iran’s assault against the British Navy:
Tony Blair has said going to war over the Falklands took “political courage” and was “the right thing to do”.
Interviewed for the Downing Street website last month he said there had been a “principle at stake”.
Shadow foreign secretary William Hague welcomed arrangements for relatives of the Argentine dead to visit the Falklands.
He said: “It is absolutely right to work for improved co-operation with Argentina.
But he said it was important to remember the war “was the result of an unprovoked act of aggression.”
“It was the heroism of the gallant British armed services that ensured the right to self determination of the Falkland islanders and the maintenance of international law”, he said.
It’s quite sad that Britain, once the undisputed ruler of the world, is now reduced to trumpeting its minute historical triumphs in the hope that no one will notice its current abject failures. And small wonder that, having mimicked Carter’s behavior in 1979, the British are now realizing Carter-esque results: their citizens are being humiliated and their embassies are being attacked.
I’ll leave the last word on Britain’s final fall (following 25 years of decline) to Mr. Steyn:
Yet, like the Americans [in 1979 and after — ed.], the British persist in trying to resolve real crises through pseudo-institutions. A bunch of unelected multinational technocrats can designate an entire continent as “citizens of Europe” but, as Pat Buchanan wrote the other day, “dry documents, no matter how eloquent, abstract ideas, no matter how beautiful, do not a nation make.” Similarly, the West’s transnational romantics can fantasize about “one-world government,” but, given the constituent parts, it’s likely to be a lot more like Syria writ large than Sweden. In fact, it already is.
And, at one level, the obstructionists have a point. Russia’s interests in Iran are not the same as the United Kingdom’s: Why should it subordinate its national policy for a few British sailors? Conversely, why should we subordinate ours to transnational process? If saving Darfur is the right thing to do, it doesn’t become the wrong thing to do because the Chinese guy refuses to raise his hand. And Darfur is an internal region of a sovereign state. If the Security Council cannot even “deplore” an act of piracy on the high seas, then what is it for?
The U.N. will do nothing for men seized on a U.N.-sanctioned mission. The European Union will do nothing for its “European citizens.” But if liberal transnationalism is a post-modern joke, it’s not the only school of transnationalism out there. Iran’s Islamic Revolution has been explicitly extraterritorial since the beginning: It has created and funded murderous proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and both Shia and Sunni factions of the Iraq “insurgency.” It has spent a fortune in the stans of Central Asia radicalizing previously somnolent Muslim populations. When Ayatollah Khomeini announced the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was not Iranians but British, Indian, Turkish, European, Asian and American Muslims who called for his death, firebombed bookstores, shot his publisher, fatally stabbed his translator and murdered anybody who got in their way.
So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of “international law”: If you’re in a ”warship,” you can’t wage war. If you’re in a ”destroyer,” don’t destroy anything. If you’re in a “frigate,” you’re frigging done for. (Emphasis mine.)
UPDATE: I forgot to mention one other thing about Britain’s “little war” against Argentina. If I remember my living history correctly, it is credited with helping to bring down the dictatorship that controlled Argentina and with helping to make it a free society.
