Subscribe to Desicritics
Why is Argentina Boosting Air Force Spending?
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
Argentina has been in a spot of economic trouble, well, for many years now. This week's Economist had this to say:
Argentina is worse off on all three counts ... provoked a tax revolt by farmers ... lost its most important new face when Martín Lousteau resigned as economy minister over a policy disagreement. ... The price of Argentina's bonds has plunged as investors show little confidence in the government. ... According to unofficial calculations, inflation has reached 25% (officially, it is 9%). ... But overheating and inflation are already bringing Argentines some of these woes. ... The statistics agency has stopped releasing poverty figures. Using an independent estimate of inflation, the poverty rate has risen from 27% in 2006 to 30%, with 1.3m Argentines descending into poverty last year. ...Pretty much standard for a Latin American country, and I did not worry about it that much. But this raised serious worries for me when I got to read about the fact that more budget and aircraft were promised for the Argentine Air Force (Hat tip: DefenceTalk).
You know that the United Kingdom is not going to be able to mount another Falklands-style campaign, not with most of our troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bosnia and other places. (Graphic). Those 1,300 soldiers in the Falklands will not be able to stop the Argentines if they attack. At the most, they are supposed to provide a speed bump till reinforcements arrive. How will they arrive? Our main heavy-lift aircraft, Hercules, is up on the blocks because it has cracks. Our naval aviator Harrier pilots are no longer fully trained or up to date on carrier landings. Our political system is currently undergoing massive upheaval and the economy is whimpering. If the Argentines wanted to pick a time to attack the Falklands, then they couldn't have picked a better one. Am I crying wolf? I might be biased because my supervising professor is the official historian of the previous campaign and wrote about it in two volumes, here and here. But remember what happened the first time around? They went to war because the country had economic difficulties and the military government tried to divert attention by launching into a war. That nebulous link with neighbours, as mentioned in the Uruguayan newspaper, is worrying. Is that a reference to Venezuela? If not that, why or which other neighbour will have Air Force links with Argentina?
Dont know, but not getting a good feeling about this.
Why is Argentina Boosting Air Force Spending?
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Politics: War
- » Politics: United Kingdom
- » Desicritics.org articles by Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
- » All News articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Ayan Roy
May 6, 2008
08:15 AM
Why doesn't the U.K. hand over the Falklands to Argentina? Like it gave up Hong Kong to China? It does not make much sense to me, for a country spend so much to keep a few tiny inconsequential islands in the South Atlantic, tens of thousands of miles away.
I feel geographical proximity, logistical difficulties and common sense should win over imperialistic and nationalistic blindness.
Love and peace to all,
Ayan
bd
URL
May 6, 2008
06:58 PM
people are a bit strange about stuff like that, Ayan. For example, we wouldnt like to give up Kashmir now, would we? despite all those aspects being ticked off as you mentioned... :)
but then, there is the small matter of the falklands people wanting to stick with UK. Mind you, that never stopped them from doing what they want, such as they did with the diego garcia islands...
Ruvy
May 7, 2008
09:58 AM
In one of my articles about how Israel has managed to undo the miracle victory of 1967 over the Arabs, I included this Barry Chamish interview with an Argentine Jew who is wanted by the Shabak. The following is Chamish introducing a man named Henry Gluksman, who now lives in Norway.
Just one of those "by the way" discoveries made on route to researching an entirely different issue.
Hmmmm.....
Ayan Roy
May 7, 2008
11:30 AM
I knew you were going to mention Kashmir :-)
Well, Kashmir is too straegically close to the Indian mainland, unline Falklands and the U.K. The political implications are too strong.
By pure profit and loss theory, I actually believe that India could and should hand Kashmir over to Pakistan/make it independent IF AND ONLY IF the long term LOSSES (or GAINS) of such an action are LESSER (or higher) compared to the losses (or gains) of keeping Kashmir (constant army expenditure, terrorism, lack of peace).
However, for India, I feel the long term socio-economic losses of giving Kashmir away to Pakistan would be greater than the heavy expenditure that India now incurs to keep Kashmir. Because Pakistan would feel emboldened and try to cause further mayhem and disintegration in India.
That's one major reason why India is not willing to give away Kashmir to Pakistan.
I agree with you on the part of the citizens of Falkland Islands not wanting to be a part of Argentina, and wanting to stick to the U.K.. That makes the score an even 1:1 probably (U.K.: Argentina)
Love and peace to all,
Ayan
Temple Stark
URL
May 7, 2008
04:46 PM
A great, timely, "realPolitik" look at this, made all the more interesting because 1) Few others are talking about it and 2) Seems plausible.
The UK, for a number of reasons wants the Falkland Islands to remain British, but one obvious one is that in times of war, or heck even commerce, having a nearby outpost of your territory is VERY beneficial.
bd
URL
May 8, 2008
01:53 AM
Ayan,
well, if we are talking about cost benefit analysis, then all bets are off, my friend, i can make CBA jump through hoops to justify what i want, lol.
But in terms of costs, take this for example, given the sea bed treaty underway, those falkland islands could be worth more than the british isles themselves given the possibility of POL around those islands. Now why would the brits let it go? :)
#5, thanks, Temple. Who knows, lol, just idle rumninations...
Add your comment