Don't forget Blair trained as a barrister, his wife is a barrister and it is a very small network. Although I believe that Blair was an oxford man whereas our legal specialist went to Cambridge I believe.
:Vomit: Somehow, I doubt it. I rather fear whatever the cost, it was/is/will be borne by the UK, 'coz I can't see that Tony/Cherie had anything personal he was interested in...
I agree with what Jim Davidson said about Blair... How can you ever trust the judgement of someone who looked across a crowded university bar at Cherie Booth and thought "she'd get it" ?
The problem in 1982 was that all the signals that Argentina had got from the UK were from the previous, Labour government, which had been set on a path of appeasement - favouring a "joint sovereignty" deal that was strongly opposed by the Islanders themselves. Yes, the Thatcher government misread Argentina's intentions until it was too late; and in that way they negotiated for far too long. To say that they allowed it to happen knowing that the invasion could be repulsed is pure cloud cuckoo land - it was (in the words of several who were there) a close run thing; the outcome was in no way certain. They key point is this - Thatcher did not start the Falklands Conflict, Leopold Galtieri did. He did it to distract public attention away from what his government was doing in their own country - pretty much what Blair and Bush did with Iraq...
I'd disagree most strongly that the result was in any way in doubt. There was simply no way that an Argentinian victory would have been permitted. Had the Argentinians been a true threat in terms of a permanent occupation, they would never have been allowed out of the starting blocks. I have the greatest respect for serving troops, having met them in-theatre and having spoken to people who have worked side-by-side with them in a war zone. However, I do not look to servicemen and servicewomen for strategic assessments of how a war is, was or should be conducted. They know, intimately, the conditions under which they operate and have an understanding of the tactical situations in which they are involved ... but as for the "big picture" - they seem less informed than civvies who have taken a good look at the situation.
Indeed, but to be fair Thatcher took the oportunity to forge her reputation as the 'Iron Lady'. She got away with it but as you say it was a close run thing by all accounts. The peace plan that Alexander Haig was brokering with the Argentinians via Peru was supposedly down to just a few words of difference. Then the Belgrano was sunk, with statements being made in Parliament that were, in the words of Tam Dalyell, lies. Precisely who knew what and when about the peace plan is unclear even today but the fact that there was an attempt to muddy the waters over the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano is a matter of historical record. And that is the similarity I originally referred to.
Sandy Woodward admitted that it was a close run thing, the task force at sea was close to breaking down. Also if the Argentinians had traded aircraft with the task force the result could have been very different. The Sea Harrier pilots expected 2 out of 3 of them would die.
When considering the Falklands War, you cannot ignore what was happening elsewhere when trying to work out how and why events happened as they did. Reagan was the US President, and was bellicose as any that have ever held that office. The Cold War was a cold and as fierce as it had ever been. Reagan had found a kindred spirit and staunch ally in Thatcher. The Labour Opposition to Thatcher was led by Michael Foot, with his CND sympathies and opposition to US Imperialism. CND itself had a popularity in the UK nearing one third of the population. After a term in power, the Tories were losing ground to Labour in the polls. Something had to be done to shore up the Tory government. You always mask trouble in your own country by "uniting against a common enemy" - that is Leadership Tactics 101. So, you conduct a winnable war against a weaker opponent. There was never any doubt that we were going to win the Falklands War. Had the war gone unexpectedly badly, we still would have ultimately prevailed. We know this because the consequences of Thatcher failing to win the islands back were simply unacceptable to the Americans. I know some of this reasoning is backwards, working back from the conclusion, but the whole situation was just too convenient, the results were just too successful for the Reagan and Thatcher governments. The whole thing proceeded too well - as long as you weren't serving in the armed forces at the time, of course.
You said it. I have read several accounts of the Falklands War, the last one just recently, and they all conclude that it was a close run thing. The Argentinians were poorly led and with different tactics could well have won.
Could have won - what? The Argentinians "won" when they invaded. We then "won" when we turfed them out. Had the first attempt failed, there would have been subsequent attempts - or are you suggesting that there is a scenario where the Argentinians could have been occupying Las Malvinas for, what, the past 32 years now?
For a start, impeachment as a process has been obsolete in the UK for 150 years, so discussion of it is of academic interest only. Second, removing a UK Prime Minister can be done at any time, and requires only a simple majority in the House of Commons for a motion of no confidence; there is no need for an elaborate and complex procedure like impeachment. Third, for an office-holder to have acted in a way somebody asserts to be unethical is a basis for questions in parliament, debates, and campaigning at election time - it does not even come close to justifying impeachment (even if such a process existed). Everyone is welcome to express whatever views they like about the decisions Tony Blair took when he was in government, even if those views are based on short memories, flawed analyses, and grotesque misunderstandings. For several years Tony Blair led his party to unprecedented landslide victories, recorded extraordinarily high approval ratings, and achieved a long list of successes. It was inevitable, and predicted at the time, that this would eventually reverse and he would have to go through a period of general vilification. Eventually a historical synthesis will be reached and there will be a balanced view of his strengths and weaknesses, achievements and problems - just like every other leader there has ever been. I would expect this to take about 10 years from now. The Labour Party in particular has a long history of excoriating its former leaders instead of celebrating them. This is probably healthier than deifying them, as some other parties do.
So Blair is being vilified because of some pseudo-organic process that is repeated throughout history. The fact that he helped bamboozle the UK into prosecuting an (arguably) illegal and (easily arguably) immoral war is merely incidental?
Won as in defeated the task force, which was Britains first, last and only possibility of an amphibious landing. So short of nuking the Argentinian mainland what else could Britain have done in anything like a reasonable time frame ?
Try going back 50 years, or 100, or 150, or 200 - whenever you like really - and look at the history of British leaders of the period. See what they did or didn't do, the decisions they took, the ways they dealt with the problems of their day. Then see what reputation they had when they came to power, how their reputation stood when they left office (always bad), and how it stood a decade or two later (much better). Arguably? The pros and cons of any controversy can always be argued, but the heat of politics gradually turns into the light of history. Which was my point.
I would have taken a similar view then to that I have now - I am not sure we can afford nuclear weapons, and I don't really see what scenario they are protecting us from (especially now that we have enemies who are impossible to target and would in any case be happy to go up to heaven in a fireball).....but I hate to say it - would the Communist states have collapsed as soon as they did (not that long after the Falklands really) if Reagan and Thatcher had taken a softer line?
Defeated the task force? In what respect? You mean, sink Hermes, sink Invincible, sink Fearless, sink Intrepid? Are people suggested those outcomes were a strong possibility? Really?
