Joseph Loconte: No Iron Lady This Time Around

Joseph Loconte is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a commentator for National Public Radio, and editor of "The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler's Gathering Storm". This essay is adapted from an article in National Review Online.

To measure the political and moral terrain traversed since Great Britain’s Falklands War against Argentina — yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the conflict — recall the debate in the House of Commons on April 3, 1982. The BBC just aired an audio version of the event, and it is riveting stuff: It reveals a democratic government fully awake to the dangers of unchecked aggression.

The scene is the day after the neo-fascist regime of General Leopoldo Galtieri seizes the Falkland Islands, a British dependent territory in the south Atlantic. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher calls an emergency meeting of Parliament to denounce the invasion in no uncertain terms. “It has not a shred of justification,” she says, “and not a scrap of legality.” Despite warnings that a military response could prove unworkable, the Iron Lady vows that the islands will be liberated by the British Navy.

The mood in the House is one of outrage, not surprising given the fact that 1,800 British nationals have lost their freedom overnight. What startles the listener, though, is that the anger turns quickly from the Argentine junta to the British prime minister: The administration should have discerned Galtieri’s intentions and acted preemptively to protect British citizens. Julian Amery, a Conservative MP, accuses the Thatcher government of relying naively on diplomatic gestures despite early signs of Argentine belligerence. The administration, he says, “confuses diplomacy with foreign policy.”

Even more astonishing is the response of the opposition party. Labour MPs, one after another, complain bitterly that the government failed to muster an appropriate show of force at the crucial moment. Edward Rowlands calls it “reprehensible” that military action was not taken despite “a number of telltale signs” of imminent aggression. Michael Foot, the Labour-party leader, goes even further. “So far, they [the hostages] have been betrayed,” he says, “and the responsibility for their betrayal rests with the government.” The House, it seems, grows red hot with its reproach.

Though there’s political posturing afoot, the net effect is to help marshal national resolve. Parliamentarians of all stripes berate the Argentine dictatorship as a regime of torture and mass executions. They agree that a failure to use force to protect British interests would signal impotence to the agents of lawlessness and terrorism. “If you tolerate one act of aggression, you connive at them all,” warns Conservative MP Edward du Cann. “We have nothing to lose now, Mr. Speaker, but our honor.” Labour MPs are no less hawkish — or jealous for British sovereignty. When Margaret Thatcher tells House members that Britain has taken the matter to the U.N. Security Council, for example, opposition members can be heard howling in disgust.

In view of Britain’s slavish diplomatic response to Iran’s seizure of 15 of its sailors and Marines, the Falklands debate sounds like a surreal tale of a nation that existed a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Nearly two weeks into this standoff, Britain still has not warned Iran that the seizure of its crew in Iraqi waters represents a grave violation of international law. Despite threats that the hostages could be put on trial, despite evidence that they’re being coerced into making false “apologies,” the Blair government has set no date for their release. It has failed to secure a United Nations resolution condemning Iran, or a pledge from the European Union to impose sanctions unless the servicemen are freed.

Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of this crisis probably leaves the typical Briton more suspicious of his democratic government than of the Islamo-fascist regime in Tehran. We learn that there is a “dispute” over whether the British crew was found in Iraqi or Iranian waters while on patrol under a UN mandate. We’re told that Britain’s Ministry of Defence “claims” that its GPS system shows the crew was operating in Iraqi waters. But based on BBC reporting, the average viewer probably wouldn’t know that Iran “corrected” its coordinates when confronted with the GPS data. Neither would he know that the Iraqi foreign minister has told his Iranian counterpart that the British seamen were indeed in Iraqi waters when captured.

No wonder, then, that a recent opinion poll by the Telegraph suggests widespread public ambivalence about this crisis. If diplomacy fails, more Britons — 48 percent to 44 percent — would oppose military action against Iran than would support it. More than one in four respondents think Britain should apologize to Iran and ask for its captives back. The BBC’s “Have Your Say” comment blog was stacked with jibes like this one: “What is the way out of the Gulf crisis?” asks Asif of London. “Leave the Middle East and take America with you.”

I was at Westminster last week, watching Tony Blair field questions about the standoff with Iran during his weekly question time in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, there weren’t many questions to answer: Conservative-party leader David Cameron seemed almost embarrassed to raise the topic. When Cameron asked about the rules of engagement for the British seamen, Labour MPs moaned with indignation. Blair failed to make clear that under its severely restricted U.N. mandate, the British crew was lightly armed and not permitted to fire unless fired upon first. The House quickly moved on to more pressing matters — like treatment delays in the National Health Service and the condition of British seaside resorts.

“Admiral Lord Nelson must be revolving in his grave,” complained Melanie Phillips, conservative columnist for the Daily Mail. “There is no sense of urgency or crisis, no outpouring of anger. There seems to be virtually no grasp of what is at stake.”

Twenty-five years ago, during another act of lawlessness by a brutal dictatorship, virtually the entire political class of Great Britain knew exactly what was at stake. Led by Margaret Thatcher, they found the moral mettle to act on those convictions: the Argentine aggression did not stand. That Britain no longer appears to exist — an impression her enemies are putting to the test.

Comments

[Londoner]

I am not saying that the response to the seamen has been perfect, but it is a false analogy to compare it with the invasion of sovereign territory.

The better analogy is between President Carter and Tony Blair. Did using force help to resolve that quickly? And will Tony Blair leave office with the British "hostages" still in captivity? This last point has occured to many but sensibly few are highlighting it as it might encourage the Iranians.

[Steevo]

I agree with you Londoner your analogy is more appropriate but its still far from accurate. We were suffering from trauma caused by our involvement in Viet Nam but as a whole were still outraged watching our citizens paraded and used as pawns for nothing but humiliation. Our policies with the Shaw of Iran were questioned and criticized and rightly so but the reality was kept in perspective. They were innocent civilians held against their will and if my memory is correct there were no doubts over who was right and wrong. It was portrayed and understood properly as an extremist and fanatical religious takeover and a transgression against our people. Force wasn't even allowed the chance to resolve it because Carter didn't posess the understanding nor will, and still doesn't. They were freed when Reagan entered office. He possessed those capabilities.

Still, it is so very revealing using the Falklands as an example just one generation ago of resolve that frighteningly, does appear to be the result of a completely different nation.

[jfkalltheway]

Stop using the capture of these people for politics. If we handbag the Iranians they will stall releasing them. We sadly have to be nice to the Iranians until we get all 15 safely home. This kind of comment is emty headed and likely to cause problems. Remember what happened when the USA tried to use force to get its hostages back.

Or should we do what Ronnie did? Dave Cameron could promise weapons for Iran if the Iranians hold the hostages until after he has won the election.

No American should lecture us on how to handle a hostage crisis!

[Steevo]

What American is "lecturing" um Brit jfkalltheway how to handle the hostage crisis?

Stop using the capture for politics, what does that mean? Are you referring to the politicians? The BBC? Oh of course... you must at least be referring to the Iranians.

And "what happened when the USA tried to use force" was a botched attempt at a rescue. Not the force being discussed in this forum.

[Anon]

I don't recall Ronald Reagan being quite so resolute when he allowed the Saddam Hussein to get away with killing 35 US naval personnel following the missile attack on the USS Stark in 1987. Steevo may also care to remember the USS Pueblo inicdent when 82 US naval personnel were held captive by the North Koreans for 11 months prior to their eventual release.

[Steevo]

Anon let me very clear. This is a forum with topics posted by British citizens who are conservative and with whom by and large I'm in agreement. Consequently, their intent: Britain and America as opposed to Britain vs America happens to be mine.

The article's author illustrates a very distinct disposition believed dangerously pervasive in your nation at present, as opposed to that exhibited during the Falklands. It exhibits a mentality and resolve present then that one has to seriously question exists now. I'm in agreement and I take your entire response as an overly sensitive reaction in so many words saying 'well you guys can't talk either.'

As far as the 2 incidents you mention your right about the Pueblo. Your implication with the Stark has to be further clarified. Iraq was at war with Iran and if you remember we were not at war with Iraq but even helped supply them because a victorious Iran would have meant disaster with far greater consequences. Anyway it was not likely the attack was authorized, this was understood at the highest levels. It was a tense environment and most probably an unintended consequence.

Look like I said in another post here if we end up electing a Democrat in 08 you may well see a nation with the most powerful military in the world reduced to a perverse leftwing appeasing mouse. Even tho there is lot I love here there is a whole bunch of stuff I can critisize. We both have many strengths in common and suffer from many of the same weaknesses to one degree or another.

[Mr. Page (the yank)]

Perhaps it's just my poor reading skills, but it seems that Mr. Loconte is arguing for quite a rigid standard concerning how a country (i.e. Britain) should respond to foreign lawlessness.

The surprising thing is that "use of force" is not being argued for its practicality or appropriateness in the situation, but (it seems) to demonstrate that Britain hasn't lost its nerve. The quotes from Edward du Cann and Melanie Phillips talk about "losing honor" and being concerned that there isn't an "outpouring of anger."

Force may be necessary, but I hope it would be because it fits the situation and not because people are calling for the wrath of God in their anger.

I don't pretend to know much about British politics, but I did spend a lovely summer in Argentina. Nice place, awesome food, sweet soccer (football) team. And yeah, they don't like the Brits much, which made it easier for me, being from the States...so, thanks!

[Steevo]

You bring up a fine line here but still distinct. I believe they mean there may not be enough honor left to use force 'if' necessary. Punishment won't mean your sarcastic wrath of God, it will mean a price to pay for a transgression and injustice on an innocent sovereign nation. Diplomacy is not refuted, but caving in to lies and consequently the appearance of Iranian justification is. Not to mention setting a dangerous president.

[Kevin Sampson]

Londoner:
"The better analogy is between President Carter and Tony Blair. Did using force help to resolve that quickly?"

Carter didn't actually 'use force'. He attempted to, but being the bumbling fool that he was, failed miserably. By the time the Iranians knew about the operation, it had already been aborted and the survivors extracted. One of the main reasons Carter failed was because he waited nearly six months before making the attempt. You British might want to reflect on that while deciding what to do about your own people.

[TomTom]

I have never understood why John F Kennedy did not order the US Army to demolish The Berlin Wall in 1961. It was illegal, breached the Four Power Agreement, and by acquiescing Khrushchev was emboldened to install missiles in Cuba convinced the US President was weak.

Neither did the US threaten the Warsaw Pact over the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 by 2 million soldiers.

We have a fag end government which faces humiliation on 3rd May in elections and which is thoroughly discredited. It is hardly worth them testing the nation's patience much more....let Blair take the rap for this debacle

[Jon Gale]

"based on BBC reporting, the average viewer probably wouldn’t know that Iran “corrected” its coordinates when confronted with the GPS data."

He should do, since the BBC (10'o clock news) reported exactly that.

All this macho posturing is all very well, but if we (Britain) threaten Iran with military action they cannot back down because they would look craven - any more than we would back down if Iran threatened us with military action.

Economic sanctions might be possible, though.

[Londoner]

Steevo at 3.08am says "Not to mention setting a dangerous president." Freudian slip perhaps? Do you mean "re-elect"?

The British haven't fundamentally changed in 25 years, albeit we had a great PM then and we don't now. Nor have the US people despite their present low grade President compared with Reagan. The British temperament is generally fairly pacific and instinctively non-interventionist (hence the Iraq involvement is against character) but, once provoked, we are resolute and not to be messed with. This was shown in 1982 and, more recently, in the failure of recent terrorist activity to shake us. If steely resolve is needed again, it will not be found wanting but, unlike some, we realise that there is more than one way to catch a monkey.

[Steevo]

Well no not a Freudian slip, spell checker inadequacy, unfortunately I can't always rely on it and I suck with the language.

I never suggested going in gun-hoe. Hold back on that easy stereotyping and sarcasm card with us Yanks who like Reagan believed in a carrot and stick. Because unlike some London, we realize that there is more than one way to catch a monkey.

I think some of you mates need a thicker skin. An American agreeing with a given Brit perspective that you may be in more of a fix than you want to believe and in return receiving hurt feelings doesn't look very promising. My opinion like many is you folks have changed in this past 25 years. Too much? I don't know. I think Americans have too, but fortunately we're a bigger nation and can absorb it better tho our turn to become mush may be just around the corner if the Left takes over next election.

If you really believe you had a great Prime Minister in Thatcher than realize you have an ally and friend in non-liberal Americans. People like me really, really believe Iran is wrong here: 100%. And your guys are in the right. If we disagree on a particular point or set of circumstances on how best to reach a desired outcome then fine, but don't find reason to disagree because of nationalism.

[davod]

Londoner:

The British temperament is generally fairly pacific and instinctively non-interventionist (hence the Iraq involvement is against character) but, once provoked, we are resolute and not to be messed with."

Sorry. You have already been provoked and been found wanting. The media and politicians in the UK have not served you well."

Check href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/">eureferendum (go down to The Mysteries Grow) for a further view on this matter.

[davod]

Sorry:

Correct link is
Eureferndum

[London]

Steevo, the thing that got up my nose about your original post was your statement: "Still, it is so very revealing using the Falklands as an example just one generation ago of resolve that frighteningly, does appear to be the result of a completely different nation." Sure, there is always change but we are not a completely different nation. There is no evidence in the present situation to say we are. Further, if you are referring to opposition to our involvement in Iraq, the only difference is that previous Govt's were too smart to get involved in such wars, e.g. Harold Wilson never put us into Vietnam (which may well have had more justification than Iraq actually).

I don't understand what you mean by: being "An American agreeing with a given Brit perspective that you may be in more of a fix than you want to believe" as the original article was by an American. I have heard no-one in the UK drawing this false analogy between now and the Falklands. We may be in all sorts of fixes but a spontaneous disintegration of the British character is not one of them.

[davod]

Sorry again.

I will leave the address instead.

Third times a charm.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com

[davod]

London:

More justification for going into Vietnam than Iraq. Please review the history on this you may find the circumstances much closer than you would like.

[Londoner]

The BBC are reporting that the seamen are being released, with no apology having been given by the British Government. So maybe the critics on here would like to eat their words and Davod who posted "You have already been provoked and been found wanting. The media and politicians in the UK have not served you well." might like to withdraw his comment. I somewhat suspect that if the Argentinians had withdrawn from the Falklands after ten days that we might not have used force.

Re Vietnam, there is an argument that going in there was to stop the spread of Chinese communism throughout the region, which would have thereby risked upsetting the whole world balance of power - it did not succeed in that, but it delayed the spread and the tide was turned. There was little or no sign that the SH's Iraqi political model was going to take over his region or was a central part of a worldwide ideological threat, and both the Saudis and Iran were powerful counterbalances in situ. You may not agree but that is my belief. Whether the US gets out of Iraq any quicker than it got out of Vietnam (4 years and counting) remains to be seen...

[Steevo]

Yes it was an American drawing the analogy... my mistake. I suspect authors of this site and 18 DoughtyStreet will find much to agree with as would Melanie Phillips etc.

You're not self-destructing over night. As in our country the root causes have been in play for decades. Criticism goes well beyond this one incident. It goes into another subject(s) much of which has been discussed in other articles here and elswhere for quite some time. The forces behind multiculturalism and left-wing ideology are eating away at the fabric of your society; just like mine. Sordid anti-Americanism, anti-Israel, anti-traditional Western values, sympathizing with radical Islam etc. If you cannot see its pervasive significance weakening the nation then I believe you're in denial.

Well I do hope what the BBC is reporting turns out indeed to be true, but lets wait for all factors in a final outcome to be revealed as I have my doubts Iran will accept any humiliation of guilt. Lets hope there will be no concessions and no question they were wrong. If that is the case, then you can be proud of Tony Blair :-)

[Steevo]

I read this yesterday...

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: "What is disturbing about the Iranian piracy is that it establishes a warning of what we can come to expect when Iran is nuclear, and how organizations like the UN, the EU, and NATO will react. If a few Iranian terrorists in boats can paralyze an entire nation and the above agencies, think what a half-dozen Iranian nukes will do. This was the hour of Europe to step forward and show the world what it can do with sanctions, embargoes, and boycotts, and how such soft power is as effective as gunboats-and it is passing."

[Teddy Bear]

Londoner - Re "There was little or no sign that the SH's Iraqi political model was going to take over his region or was a central part of a worldwide ideological threat, and both the Saudis and Iran were powerful counterbalances in situ."

There was little in mainstream media about Saddam's hegemonistic agenda, which is possibly why you say "there was little or no sign", but in fact it was highly apparent. I can recommend a book by Yossef Budansky called 'The High Cost of Peace' that will enlighten you. He was the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. In addition, he is the director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association and a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of Publications. The author of 8 books on international terrorism and global crises, he is a former senior consultant for the US Depts of Defense and State.

Anyway, it will 'turn your head around' about which Presidents knowingly preferred to look the other way while the Islamic menace was growing, and what Saddam was really about.