It can only be his personal antimosity towards the British that we have seen over an over that can explain this - especially when the British spent the better part of a decade backing our play.
It was a headline I never expected to read: “US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” Washington has declined to back Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. President Obama’s position is one of strict neutrality, refusing to take sides. According to the State Department:In The Telegraph, Toby Young nails it,We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.
Has it come to this? Tony Blair sacrificed his political career and jeopardised Britain’s international standing by making common cause with America in the War on Terror. No matter how often he claims it was because he believed it was “the right thing to do”, we all know what was really going on in his head. He simply didn’t want to break ranks with the United States. The Atlantic alliance has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy since 1941, when Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt joined forces against the Axis powers. Dean Acheson may have declared that Britain had lost an empire and yet to find a role, but successive British Prime Ministers have know what their role is and, by and large, it has been to stand shoulder to shoulder with America, presenting a united front in a series of global conflicts, from the Cold War to the Gulf.Is this a tough call? Of course it is - life is tough; being President of the United States is even tougher. You define your nation by the tough calls - and this defines us as wobbly and ungrateful.
...
So it is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history and insist that we have to fight this battle on our own. Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him? Do the sacrifices Britain has made in defence of the Atlantic alliance count for nought? Who does he think will replace us as America’s steadfast ally when she finds herself embroiled in a territorial dispute of her own — possibly with the very same motley crew of Latin American rabble rousers? Spain? Italy? France? Good luck with that, Mr President.
You’d think that having made his bones in Chicago, Obama would know the Chicago Code of Honour: When someone picks a fight with a friend of yours, they pick a fight with you.
If the Falklands are not British - then the Southwest is not American and neither is Hawaii. Follow the logic.
It will take other leaders years to repair the damage and insult to our best friend.
86 comments:
When it comes to the Chicago Machine, there is no such thing as a code of honor. If there was, it would not produce people like Barack Obama, and Rham Emmanuel. There is only self centered greed, and lust for power.
Face.palm!
Holy crap on a cracker! This silly little man is taking the Mau Mau revolt personally!
Or something!
I dearly hope our UK friends regard this unfortunate incident with the kind of patience you'd reserve for a good friend who has temporarily had too much to drink. You know when he sobers up he'll make things right. And whatever he said or broke while he was incapacitated, well, it wasn't personal. And it will never happen again.
I don't think many of those who voted for Teh Obama had any idea it would involve a hearty "Screw You!" to our most loyal friend and ally. They probably didn't read that fine print, if indeed it was ever in the program.
Now, Mzzz. Hillary should know better. If I were Mzzz. Hillary, tomorrow morning my loud resignation would be smack dab on Teh Obama's desk and the gauntlet laid down for 2012. Do it, Hillary. I might even respect you a little if you did!
This is enough to make you cry. To my British friends I served with in OIF, I am sorry I truely am sorry.
By the way, do we have any friends left in the world? Hopefully, we don't pi$$ off Canada.
I seriously am feeling the need to apologize to Britian--like start a website where Americans hold up sign saying "I'm sorry" with a picture of Obama on them.
How awful...
Seems like that if nothing else, taking leadership in attempting to find a resolution to the problem would be helpful -- two of your buddies start to get in a fight, try to keep it from happening. Just seems weak to stand back and say "I'm not taking sides."
Incredibly stupid. A large part of why the Argentines thought they could get away with seizing the Falklands in '82 was no one told them they couldn't. The Brits were then actually trying to negotiate a transfer to Argentina. The only stumbling block was the Falklanders themselves wouldn't hear of it. But Britain never once told the Argies, "No, you can't have them, we'll fight for them."
How hard would it be for Obama to say, "The Falklands are British. End of story. Now, let's talk about EEZs and mineral rights."
If I recall, even in 1982 we tried to be coy and not take sides until the Argentines had fired the first shot. Don't we have treaty obligations with both sides?
That said, I know my heart is (still) with the UK on this one, and we do seem to be going out of our way to treat them badly, given how much they have done for us - Blair flew over for the day to sit in the gallery for a SOTU address! Can you imagine Queen Victoria's PM doing such a thing (even apart from not having airplanes)?
How we are going to have that 1000+ ship Navy in the recent strategy is beyond me if this is how we treat Allies.
Any chance of 1982 re-match? RN: 1980 - 13 DDG/ 53 FFG, 2007: 8 DDG / 17 FFG...
BHO, it seems to be almost impossible to limit the internal and external damage he will cause this country in his four year term.
Britian, as an American, I regret that you are forced to suffer BHO along with us. BHO apologizes, probably doesn't really mean it, and is rather selective who he apologizes to.
Not that I am fond of US sufferering thru BHO's idiocy. I'm going to buy a T-shirt at the end of his (self-percieved) reign.
Of all the reprehensible acts perpetrated by the O, this is absolutely the worst. I have a Brit friend who flies an American flag on his property, a rather large one, side by side with the Union Jack in honor of the Americans who fought and bled with Brit forces. I feel dirty now and will be hard pressed to express my shame to Mick. His son is going back to the 'stan very soon; I can't help but wonder if he now feels rage. Can't say I'd blame him.
<span>Andrewdb: 'If I recall, even in 1982 we tried to be coy and not take sides until the Argentines had fired the first shot.'</span>
<span></span>
<span>I would have to check it up, but I DO think the US provided logistical support for the Brits.</span>
<span></span>
<span>As for BHO... what did you expect from a man who had the NERVE (!) to send back a bust of Churchill for God's sake, or to give Brown a set of dvd's as a gift?</span>
<span></span>
<span>I am still trying to get my head around the fact that BHO was elected POTUS in the first place.</span>
If the Argies work up the nerve to try again, we better damn well help the Brits. To do anything less is bullsh** and dishonorable. Britain is our closest (pre-BHO) and I can't believe that the retard-in-chief can continue to crap all over that if it came to a shooting war. Well, I can believe it, just hoping not.
Copied from email to my Brit friend Mick, who's son Andy just recently returned from the Stan, and is readying to go back in a couple of months:
<span><span>You have the deepest apologies from myself and 99% of my fellow Americans for the statements made by our fucking president yesterday, in which he said”</span></span>
<span><span> </span></span>
<span><span><span>“US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” Washington has declined to back Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. President Obama’s position is one of strict neutrality, refusing to take sides.</span></span></span>
<span><span><span> </span></span></span>
<span><span><span>Everyone in the milblog world is highly pissed. British soldiers have fought and bled next to ours for damn near a century now. For us to turn our backs on our cousins is against everything REAL Americans stand for. </span></span></span>
<span><span><span> </span></span></span>
<span><span><span>My deepest apologies,</span></span></span>
<span><span><span>Byron</span></span></span><span><span></span></span>
Well, in 1982 Reagan limited the help to intelligence data, because Argentinian junta was very anti-communist... I certainly don't expect BHO to make even that in case of trouble now.
E40,
Not that anit-communist outside its borders; here.
My vote was his to loose. He just lost it.
war makes for a strange bedfellowsindeed , in Argentina of the junta times suspected communists were flown out of naval airbases and thrown into ocean from cargo planes....
<span>Au contraire, Phib. You CAN vote "present" to history. You can estrange close allies, rupture burgeoning partnerships, push away the undecided, and embolden enemies.
In fact, it is almost a guarantee when the administration has a world view that reflects a "student union" mentality and a disdain for history and tradition. The revision of that history is always with a goal to justify an extreme interpretation that would otherwise never survive any kind of objective scrutiny. ("America is no longer a Christian nation...)
For this administration and those in it who embrace the socialist/communist ideology of forced equality among nations, the teleological signposts don't point anywhere. Of all of the dangers of this far-left incantation, this is undoubtedly the most dangerous. It leads to actions and decisions in our national security strategy that are based on false assumptions and flawed understanding. It is a certainty that we will run afoul of the warning of Cicero:
“A culture that knows not its past is doomed to forever reside in that most illusory of tenses, the Present, as if a small child lost, who knows not from whence he came, nor whither he goes.”</span>
Nothing seems to set off my ultra-nationalism more than the Falklands lol, i was dissappointed with the lack of support from the US but i know the POTUS != USA. It'll all blow over anyway.
Doctors like to operate, marines like to invade, try to be original. You can't ram peace down a country's throat, and Jingoism ensures continued terrorist attacks.
Bob,
Your comment seems to be a reply to mine. I am not sure where it links up, however. Nobody is speaking of invasion or use of military force. The issue is the understanding of history being necessary for effective diplomacy and foreign policy. Lack of the first begets lack of the second.
Can we get Nigel to give this speech in the well of our Senate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY&feature=player_embedded
Sure we can. Worked several times: the South in the Civil War, the Spaniards in the Spanich American war, the Axis in WW1, Italy, Germany and Japan in WW2. You get peace out of anyone you kneel on and put a knife to their throat. History is replete with examples.
And effective diplomacy is only effective if there is a national will to back up a strong military.
PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I PITY THE FOOL WHO DON"T HONOR HIS ALLIES....
IIRC, there was also a thing about the Argie bombs. They were using Mk8X iron bombs and there was some kind of recall on the fuses. We declined to allow the export of the fixed fuses to Argentina. They freaked out and said that shouldn't be since they weren't buying new weapons but just doing routine product support. Anyway, that's why some of their bombs didn't go off.
E40,
It wasn't just intelligence help. In 1982, AIM-9Ls were provided to the British, plus support at some of the islands along the British TF's route. Once Al Haig's shuttle diplomacy ran its course, President Reagan unequivocally backed the Brits and gave actual support.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think Obama might agree. He's spent his life in the fever swamp of grievance politics. He's probably on the side of the separatists, even if he can't say so out loud.
Wow.
I'm gonna hold you to that.
"<span>To my British friends I served with in OIF, I am sorry I truely am sorry."</span>
You should be more sorry that we started that idiotic war.
"<span>By the way, do we have any friends left in the world?"</span>
Were you in a coma for the last 8 years?
This was a simple decision for the Administration: EITHER protect the six of your closest historical ally OR change the course of U.S. history and stand to be counted with the Socialist cabal of Chavez, Castro, Ortega, Morales, Correa, Lugo, et.al. Are any of us truly surprised with the course of action that our President has embarked upon?
well if that is the case, it was major help - AIM-9L was dubbed L for lethal by Brit pilots AFAIK...
Ewok, In 1982 the US initially tried to walk a tightrope between the too sides but once Al Haig failed and the shooting started we pulled our exchange program officers off their ships and came down on the side of the UK. We proved them with substantial military support (missiles, torpedoes, and eventually CIWS), far beyond the intelligence support indicated here. Ultimately the OPNAV Staff moved a couple of officers in the Foreign Military Sales Division over to the Pentagon from Crystal City so that they could respond to transfer requests more rapidly and get the necessary approval directly from the guys in the Strategy and Policy Division where I worked.
The apology tour that will need to be accomplished by the next elected president will be lengthy and difficult. Starting with the British for our total lack of respect and acknowledgement of our closest allie, and followed closely by apologizing for the weak manner in which this president has presented himself and the US.
Nahh., not so much. All the next guy has to do is immediately ask for the bust of Churchill back so he can put it in the Oval Office, be photographed doing so and invite the Queen to his first State Dinner and toast her about our lovely friendship. The UK is a grownup country. They'll understand. ;) Give them a lovely and relevant gift expressing our common goals and heritage. That's the beauty of Diplomacy... those who pay attention to the importance of symbolism and the integral meaning of words and objects have a ready-made shorthand for communicating the deeper ideas.
Hopefully their response will be like those old British Airways commercials: Do come back. All is forgiven!
Where is the "logic" that the Falklands are British, just as the US SW is...or Hawaii?
I think this is more logical -- the Falkland Islands are as British as...India.
The Brits have been our best friends in OIF & OEF, Blair got hung up more for supporting the US for OIF, not OEF.
Have we forgotten the Monroe Doctrine? It appears so...
Are you kidding? The only sizable population to ever live on the Falklands are British. The people who live there want nothing to do with the Argentines, if that matters to you. That idiot woman is only doing this because she has driven Argentina even further down the statist/socialist/fascist rathole and needs a diversion, shades of 1982. The Monroe Doctrine is not law, it is a policy of the US government that we have selectively ignored for the roughly 200 years since it was adopted, and it was never meant to apply to land already held by European powers. The British have been our closest allies for a century while the Argentines have often given aid and comfort to the other side and are now cozying up to Hugo Chavez. This is not a close call.
Jay, you have elevated yourself to the level of "TROLL". No matter what the prevailing attitude is here, you will find the opposite position. Especially if the position is against Obama in particular and the Democrats in general. The last statement you made just made it plain to everyone that you are an inconsequential jackass. Since no one here either respects your arguments or takes you seriously, why don't you head over the DU or DKos where your fellow travelers will greet you with open arms.
Jay, A better parallel than India would be Gibraltar. The residents of the Falklands and Gibraltar, unlike those in India, have no desire to be annexed by Argentina or Spain respectively and are quite happy as citizens of the UK. From my limited association with British foreign policy, the UK would like to work out an arrangement but their subjects are opposed.
Byron, They can't all be "trolls". Consider Jay a "burr under the saddle". ;)
A US comparison would be Guam. I don't think they would want to be annexed by the Philippines.
C-dore -- I thought of Gib as well, however, at least that is in the same Hemisphere (!) as the UK.
I am no intenational law lawyer -- so even if their claim to the Falklands territory is "legal"...c'mon now...
Perhaps a better example would be Hong Kong?
I haven't had time to look on UK sites (heading there later...) to see the reaction (if there is any).
My suspicion is -- (and I am not normally a "conspiracy" type) -- that the current Labor government is hurting for money, and realizes it can't really defend the Falklands (heck, just look at the assets the MOD has these days...).
It is indeed a shame that they couldn't defend it if called to do so, I worked with some Brits -- great folks!
So -- then I look on the world stage -- perhaps the Brits asked us to state same? (Again, I do need to see what the Brits officially are saying...). Once we did that -- then they have top cover -- "Hey, we can't really do much about it, it is costing XX pounds sterling...the US won't be helpful, so we need to start dialogue with the Argentines, etc....blah-de-blah".
I am sure the families of those who died during the Falklands Campaign are very pissed...
We'll see how this plays out. One thing is for sure, I very much doubt this was a surprise to HMG.
Understand the current residents desire not to be under Argentinian government. Not really sure that their desire continues to be realistic. Concur that an arrangement may be worked out. This may be the first step.
For anyone who hasn't read it, ADM Sandy Woodward's book re: the 1982 war is excellent.
It is closer than you think, see below...
Oh Byron....Prattle on...
BBC says it's oil...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8531052.stm
Jay - I hope you are right, and this is all stage-managed between Washington and London, but sadly I've seen little evidence the current US administration has done anything but mis-treat the Brits.
Spoken like a true American. I see why you all get off on voting people off of islands. If you disagree, get out, your founding fathers would be proud. They didn't agree with the people in power, so they left. Where are ya goin?
A philo by any other name is still a troll.
You too were a N51'er? Knew there was something I liked about you :)
- SJS
N51B 2001-2004
I wish I could say I'm shocked...but I'm not.
And shit like this is why your oldest allies are wondering why put our military out to die......
Last comment was mine.
"<span>de facto UK administration"</span>
They voted to be British you tools, many men and ships ensured that wish was carried through.
Keep pissing on your allies, them feel what it's like to stand alone.
Sim, this isn't going to last forever. Most of us (with one glaring exception) demand that we stand with you. I've got a good friend in England that I felt I had to send an apology to. He regularly flies our flag at his home.
I see you are taking the Obama approach to debate and winning friends.
If I were you (and thankfully, I am not) I would sue the living crap out of my teachers for having failed to give me either an education, or coomon sense.
Peace though military dominance actually works quite well, thank you. Thanks to Pax Americana, the last real, flat out, full bore war ended 65 years ago. Europe has had peace and prosperity thanks to it, and Japan has flourished. So, HUZZAH! for peace through superior firepower!
I Wonder if anyone in your state department has a clue at all
Why not slap the Queen? It'll only just turn 70 countries against you.
It behooves me to share this, this continual spittimg in the face of your oldest allies has many ramificatiions.
A) The next you're in the shit you get no help and;
B) You have all nations less willing to provide troops (or perhaps withdraw troops) from places like AF/PAK.
Sim, don't judge all of us by the actions of a few. Most Americans disagree completely with this policy. And this blog in particular is solidly behind you, save for one liberal apologist for the Obama regime.
My Squadron of SH-3's didnt have Mad Birds until 1989... Lent them to the Brits.
only if the saddle is on a mule.. then yes, yes it is...
There will always be an England...
Byron-
I don't doubt that. However the UK, Australia and all the other members of the Commonwealth are proud nations. Continue spitting in their face and see where your '1000 ship navy' goes.
Sim - probably not. There is a long history of moonbattery at Foggy Bottom, and now it has top cover.
Jay, Don't agree re: Hong Kong. The circumstances surrounding its being ceded to Great Britain were quite different. Am somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive about the concerns of the citizens of the Falkland Islands. To me their desires should be a prime consideration.
The UK was facing financial problems back in '82 as well. At the time they were scaling back the Navy along the lines of a "White Paper" issued in the late '70s, and two of the ships that participated in the war had been sold to and were enroute Chile (with UKN crews) when the war started. The difference was that the Thatcher government decided to make a stand.
Agree re: Sandy Woodward's book.
SJS, Sure was...although it was Op-60 back in my day.
MTH, Unfortunately the is no longer an ENGLAND in the USN despite FADM Kidd's quote.
Old news. The US media has been reporting this since the back and forth started.
Um, Sim, if you haven't figured it out yet, there's a LOT of us on this side of the pond who are as least as pissed off at Barry as you are. We remember who keeps faith. And we remember how to do so ourselves. We're just not represented in the White House just now, alas.
I thought it was FADM King?
Spare the outrage, gentlemen, as there is NOTHING NEW in this position. The US Govt stance towards UK sovereignty over the Faulklands has long been one of recognition of de facto control but neutrality on the question of whether the UK or Argentina should have de jure ownership. That stance long predates the 1982 war, and it was in force from 1982 to 2008, and has continued uninterrupted under Obama. Had the same question been posed to the State Dept under the Bush Administration, you would have had the same answer.
Since the Argentines commited unprovoked aggression in '82 it wasn't hard to square helping the British with maintaining neutrality on the ultimate legal question. Even then as noted below we tried hard not to take sides until shooting started, and even then some in the Reagan Admin wanted to back the Argentines over the British (e.g., Jeanne Kirkpatrick, UN Ambassador at the time).
Fair enough. But that doesn't let Obama off the hook. There's any number of ways Obama could have condemned Argentina's actions, leaving no doubt in anyone's mind which side we stand on, while not at all addressing the issue of sovreignity.
Simply stating that Argentina's actions are "troubling" while not criticizing Britain would send a clear message to any tea-leaf readers.
milprof,
Your assertion that the answer would have been the same in the GW Bush administration is not so.
The policy may have been identical, but the answer would not have been so tactless, brusque, and undiplomatic as this administration's. And it would not have come on the heels of such discourteous breaches of protocol and such deliberate slights of a long-faithful ally as the Obama administration has seen fit to perpetrate.
I'd love to see any evidence of a different reaction under Bush. The previous administration had plenty of opportunities in 2006-2008 as Argentina ramped up its rhetoric, issued some naval threats, raised the issue at the OAS, and loudly enlisted Hugo Chavez in the cause. After doing a bunch of Lexis searching I can't find any evidence that the Bush team ever uttered a peep in support of Britain on the issue.
Prof,
Neither did they decide to verbalize such equivocation publicly after the aforementioned diplomatic embarrassments, either. I am sure Britain was well aware of the US position and policy in 2006-7, without having the matter become yet another gaffe in our relationship with a close ally.
Will you people ever get over Bush? Really -- that is pathetic.
So many in the U.K. & Europe thought Obama's election would mark a second coming. Sadly, I think they've come to realize that he is more Judas than Jesus.
Byron - I was going to hit the "Like" button, but I am a card carrying member of the Sons of the Union Vets of the Civil War, so I'm looking for a "Half-Like" button.
You missed my point entirely if you thought my comment was a slam on G.W. Bush. He just happened to be President when the Argentines started this latest round and so was the proper point of comparison; if you like, Obama's State Dept. isn't saying anything different than did Clinton or Bush Sr. to the extent the issue came up for them.
My point was that before accusing a President of some outrageous change in American policy, you might do well to actually check and see if it's a change at all. In the case of our neutrality on Falklands sovereignty, it isn't. I've called liberals on it when they attacked Bush policies that were really just continuities from Clinton and earlier, and I'll call conservatives on it when then mischaracterize Obama's policy.
Does this President have an animosity towards the UK? Does this fit a pattern? From a STRATCOM POV, how is this act being received in the British press?
I read the British press every day.
Once again - pulling the Bush card does nothing but distract from the issue at hand.
So it's oil, your point is?
STB, You are correct. Sometimes the fingers move faster than the brain. :)
This is not a hard call. The Brits are our friends, so we get their backs. Period!
America is a crappy friend and ally, and always has been. Its one of our national weaknesses - we're too ready to abandon our friends to expediency. Ask the homng.
I guess here is our answer!
"Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over Falklands"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7047309.ece
The problem is actually Britain's - the limp numpty Brown simply has not got the balls to put the pressure on Obama: "back us over Argentina, or watch us walk away from AF in the same time frame as Canadians and the Dutch" - he would never dream of it, so we suffer the indignation. Of course Brown is the architect of the ruin of he Royal Navy, so he will be happy to have any excuse to hand over the islands without a scrap, as that would be greatly embarrasing to him ("but we bought lots of MRAPS for the army...."). Obama is in fact, as pointed out by many below, following the same political path on this as regimes from both parties that have preceeded him since the 80's.
So in the end, the problem is ours, not the USA's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/07/AR2010030702690.html
An editorial on how our allies perceive POTUS or whether they view him as a friend.
"
No one named Gordon Brown. That's fairly remarkable: The relationship between the sitting British prime minister and U.S. president has been consistently close over the past 30 years. Think Reagan and Thatcher, Clinton and Blair, Bush and Blair. But Obama has been portrayed as dissing Brown ever since he presented him with a set of DVDs as a gift during their first meeting in Washington a year ago. Last fall the British press reported that the White House had turned down five requests for Obama to meet Brown one-on-one at the United Nations or the G-20 summit.
Finally, I was offered a name I didn't expect: Dmitry Medvedev."
Hmmmm
Post a Comment