|
|||
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
War’s painful legacy
The Argentinians had claimed to have sunk the 28,700-ton task force flagship on three occasions. But she had survived determined Exocet missile attacks and remained afloat throughout the Falklands War launching the Harrier aircraft which had played a vital part in victory. As the ship returned to Portsmouth, crowds lined the waterfront from Southsea Castle to the Round Tower cheering and waving flags and banners. Out in the Solent an armada of small boats escorted her into harbour. Throughout the summer of 1982, similar scenes were repeated in Portsmouth and other British ports as the task force ships returned home from the South Atlantic in dribs and drabs. Another of the most memorable receptions was for the emotional return of the liner-turned-troop carrier Canberra as she sailed into Southampton, again accompanied by scores of small craft. The nation watched with relief and pride. In a country plagued with the sense of becoming a second-rate power and which had recently suffered a deep and painful economic recession, there was at last something to cheer about.
The following year Margaret Thatcher's Tory government won the general election. It was a result forever afterwards attributed to the `Falklands factor', although this might not be the complete picture. While the `Falklands factor' clearly did play a part in the 1983 election, it is also true that by 1983 the economic picture in Britain had improved and this may also have contributed to the Conservatives' success. Certainly, the view that the government had seized the opportunity to go to war with Argentina as a way of restoring its popularity is unfair. It is beyond belief that ministers would pursue such a conflict for purely political motives when they would know that it could easily have a disastrous outcome that would spell the end for the government. As far as the armed forces were concerned, a number of lessons were learned from the conflict, some of which meant reverses in planned cuts. The sale of the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible did not go ahead and she has remained in service since including making an important contribution during the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. HMS Endurance, the ice patrol ship, was retained and has since been replaced with a new vessel which has carried on Antarctic patrols. In addition a range of new equipment was proposed. Navy helicopters, for instance, were to be equipped with powerful radars to give an aircraft early warning capability, the absence of which had prevented early detection of Argentinian attacks during the Falklands War. But the size and power of the armed forces has greatly declined since 1982, particularly in the wake of the end of the Cold War. The navy has fewer personnel, fewer ships and fewer submarines. The naval dockyards, including Portsmouth's, have seen wave after wave of redundancies. The number of merchant navy ships has also drastically reduced. It is doubtful whether an operation on the scale of the Falklands could be successfully undertaken today.
The lasting impact of the war is that the Falklands remain in British hands, in accordance with the wishes of the islanders. British forces are still stationed there and a warship is on constant patrol. But there is another painful legacy of the conflict - those who lost sons or husbands or fathers, whose lives will never be the same, those who were maimed, those who are still haunted by what they have seen. There is no easy answer to the question was it worth it? The Falklands was not a war about national survival. It was fought over an `ice-cold bunch of land' as President Reagan described the islands, 8,000 miles from Britain and occupied by only 1,800 people. At stake were vaguer notions than survival. The war was about defending principles. It was about standing up to aggressors and protecting the wishes of the islanders for the Falklands to remain British. It is impossible to calculate how many lives these principles are worth. It is easy to say it was worth 236 British dead when they do not include your son, your husband or your father. But if it is not worth standing up to aggression when it happens so far away and the victims number so few, when is it worth standing up to? Would the case be more compelling if there had been 100,000 islanders, or the islands had been 4,000 miles closer? Britain does not respond to aggression with force whenever and wherever it happens in the world. To do so would be impossible. But on this occasion it had a direct responsibility to the victims of aggression and the means to respond. It would be a soulless world if principles were not felt to be worth fighting for under such circumstances. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|