The Falklands War
The Falklands War is 25 years old, which makes it about as long ago as Suez was at the time of the Falklands. Should it have been fought? Obviously - the principle of self-determination, and that you don't invade other countries was upheld with 'only' about 1,000 lives lost, of which 255 were British. But hang on, that's with the benefit of hindsight. As some supporters of the Iraq war have argued, whether the decision to go to war is right or wrong needs to be justified using the facts at the time. This is surely a more tricky question. I don't know if the official history shed more light on this, but the two books I have read (Max Hastings and Sandy Woodwards) both stressed (although more in the Hasting's book) how different the result could have been if a few more Argentinian missiles had exploded on British ships. If the British had lost in the South Atlantic the repercussions would have been terrible, and the decision to go to war presumably now seen as finally folly of Mrs Thatcher's terrible three years in office.Of course we didn't lose, and that in itself suggests the odds were better than evens. But what odds would have tipped the balance?
Labels: Falklands, Mrs Thatcher
posted by Matthew @ 3/27/2007 11:16:00 AM
Comments: 7
