Chinooks - hard to credit

Even by the abysmal standard set by the Coalition government in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), the dithering about confirming the Labour regime's very belated order for more Chinook heavy lift helicopters boggles the mind. The Reg has a fair take on it.

The probable reason is that the RAF would fly the Chinooks and the Army, desperate to control its own battlefield resources, is committed to the far less capable Lynx (see my previous post here).

Only the British political capons would regard that as a Gordian knot. The SDSR faithfully reflected the irrefutable fact that the MoD is simply not concerned with war fighting and is entirely given over to grossly over-priced arms deals and inter-service bickering over who gets the jobs and the kick-backs.

MoD appears to be determined to leave no fuck-up uncommitted. As Major-General Julian Thompson, whose land forces were compelled to walk across East Falkland for lack of helicopters, bitterly wrote to The Times (£) last November:

Harrier could still use Kandahar runway if half of it were blocked by Taleban action; can use any make-shift landing site; has a response time of less than 10 minutes, as against 30 for Tornado; performs better in hot weather; requires fewer ground crew; and has better availability.

Harrier can deliver close air support of ground forces anywhere from the existing carriers, has nearly twice as many airframes provided with precision-guided ground attack capability as Tornado; will not require a further £1.4 billion to re-engine in 2014; and can remain in service until 2023 without significant investment.

The existing Tornado force will cost, over 10 years, seven times as much to keep in service as Harrier. . . . The decision to axe the entire Harrier force is strategically and financially perverse.

Thus also the part cancellation and delay in confirming the purchase of further Chinooks. Men's lives are being sacrificed on the altar of inter-service rivalry, just as they were in the Falklands when the unprepared Guards were sent instead of the battalions that were in high readiness. Prestige old chap, don't'cher know?

Falklands - British diplomacy triumphs again

The Foreign Office has confirmed that Brazil has denied diplomatic clearance to dock at Rio de Janeiro to the RN Falklands protection ship HMS Clyde, despite the defence cooperation treaty signed with the Brazilian navy in September 2010.

That was the same month the Type 42 destroyer HMS Gloucester was refused permission to dock in Montevideo, explicitly to register Uruguay's solidarity with the Argentine claim on the Falkland Islands.

The refusal to permit HMS Clyde to dock in Rio was without a doubt a similar act of solidarity with the recently widowed, ultra-nationalist Argentine President Cristina Fernández by the new Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, previously a Castroite guerrilla.

When signing the defence agreement, British Minister for International Security Strategy Gerald Howarth described the UK and Brazil as "old and trusted friends" and said the treaty would mark a "new dawn" in defence relations between the two countries.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: ""Brazil did not grant diplomatic clearance this time. We respect Brazil's right to make such a decision. We have a close relationship with Brazil. The UK-Brazil defence cooperation treaty signed last September is a good example of our current strong links."

In other words, let's not put our relations with Brazil at risk for those miserable islanders who have so stubbornly resisted all our efforts to sell them out to Argentina. Ha ha! This time we've got 'em.

On a closely related theme, see Sharkey's World on the French aircraft carrier that is supposed to provide air cover for our fleet while we bugger around with our naval air capability. If there is one thing more sure than that the Foreign Office is determined to prove it was right pre-1982, it is that the MoD wants to get shot of its commitment to defend the islands.

Bingo! We don't have the capability anymore. Just like we damned nearly didn't in 1982. If the Argentines had waited another year they could have walked in and all the British could have done was bleat ineffectually to the UN. See my 2006 book Razor's Edge: the Unofficial History of the Falklands War.

The Argentines have a word for our diplomats - vendepatrias. The personnel has changed, but it's the same game plan; and this time, oh joy!, the Americans won't back us, as both The One and Clinton have made clear.

Job done, you sneaky, cowardly, shameless sons of bitches.

P.S. Look out for leaks from the Foreign Office about how they warned the government this would happen if it persisted in upholding British sovereignty and licensed oil exploration off the Falklands.

Falklands - here we go again

"Staggering to war in the Falklands?" asks an article on the US Naval Institute blog.

Argentina has put into place a program of economic sanctions designed to put pressure on the people who live in the Falklands. It has abrogated a 1995 agreement with the Falklands that would have permitted collaboration in the search for oil and natural gas. The same can be said for a 1999 agreement to conserve fishing stocks in the southwest Atlantic.

A ban on charter flights crossing over Argentine airspace to the Falklands has hurt the island’s tourist business. Currently, the only direct flight from Argentina to the Falklands leaves from Rio Gallegos on the second Saturday of the month and returns on the third Saturday. Argentina permits this single monthly exception to policy on behalf of families who wish to visit the Argentine Cemetery north of Darwin, which holds the remains of 237 Argentine combatants from the ’82 war, although other private travelers are allowed to join the flight.

As of February 2010, Argentina’s Decree 256 requires authorization permits for all ships passing through Argentine waters to the Falklands. On 15 July 2010, it was reported that an Argentine navy ship operating in shared Uruguayan-Argentine waters forced a small merchant vessel linked to the Falklands to identify itself and provide all the information related to cargo and destination. Even aside from the intimidation, it remains costly and time-consuming for merchant shipping and cruise lines to obtain proper authorization from the Argentine authorities. Consequently, fewer cruise ships have been stopping in the Falklands.

An Argentine bill about to become law contemplates sanctions against international companies that operate in Argentina and either intend to participate or are involved in oil-related activities in the Falklands. In the meantime, Britain has protested to Argentina and has firmly rejected the legitimacy of Decree 256. Britain considers the decree a violation of international law and, more specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Falklands Chamber of Commerce claims that Argentina has imposed a full-fledged sea blockade on the Falklands population.

Since responsibility for the defence of the Falklands has certainly been a major bargaining chip in the current, supposedly Strategic Defence Review, and since the Tory defence review in 1981 was the major proximate cause of the 1982 war - the longer-term one being the FCO's genetic predisposition to appeasement - everything is in place for a repeat performance, only this time without the crucial support of Chile and the USA.