Thursday, 5 January 2012

Planning considerations to recapture the Falkland Islands - or why the sky isn't falling on our heads today...

Planning considerations to recapture the Falkland Islands - or why the sky isn't falling on our heads today...

Following on from the earlier piece about the diplomatic issues surrounding the Falklands, Humphrey now wants to take a look at the reality of the challenge facing any potential aggressor, and to show the planning considerations that any J5 planning shack is going to have to think about when looking at a successful attack on the islands.

Firstly, a mild disclaimer - unlike many Falkland Island commentators (FI), Humphrey has actually been to the Falklands, and has a very good understanding of the military structure and capability on the islands. Because of this, the author is not going to discuss some specifics, and may seem vague in other areas. This is because he is one of the few people left who think that PERSEC isn't a dirty word.

Secondly, unlike some websites / publications, Humphrey has no time for the concept of 'ORBAT Porn', by which he means the lining up of two paper ORBATS between two countries, and deciding that as X is greater than Y, Y wins. It's pointless, silly and as seen in countless wars over the years, almost always an inaccurate means of predicting the outcome of a crisis.

For the purposes of this article, Humphrey is looking at the current balance of power as it stands NOW. Not in 10 years, not if Argentina gets new LPDs, not if the UK gets CVF, and not if the Death Star parks in orbit and uses its super laser to wipe out all penguins.

The first part of this article looks at wider planning considerations that need to be taken into account when considering an invasion. The next part will look at specific considerations relating to the islands defences.

The first, and most critical question that must be asked when considering an invasion is 'why'? The Falklands serve as a useful lightning conductor to Argentine leaders - whenever distracted by political problems at home, they can quickly rally support around the concept of the Falklands issue. Invasion not only removes this as a lightning conductor, but also opens up a range of longer term problems - a quick invasion without bloodshed followed by Argentine occupation is a good idea in theory, but a leader would have to be certain that this could be achieved. Failure would result in them losing office, power, and probably liberty as well.

Whenever considering the Falkland Islands, one has to ask 'what does the President of Argentina personally gain from an invasion'? The reality is that unless they have the most successful invasion in history, it's likely to be the end of their presidency. Few people willingly relinquish power until they have to - it is hard to envisage circumstances where an Argentine leader would do so over the Falklands.

Military Planning
But, assuming the go ahead was issued, then the first planning consideration when considering the invasion of the islands is what is the defined Argentinean end state? In other words, what is their view of campaign success? In 1982, the Argentines arguably defined their end state as the initial occupation of the islands militarily, and did not plan, nor assume any requirement to fight beyond this point. The author would argue that any future Argentine plan needs to define its end state as 'the successful capture of the islands, followed by the mounting of a sufficiently robust defence as to prevent their recapture in perpetuity'.

One of the problems with looking at this potential conflict is that everyone assumes that if Argentina invades, then the UK will immediately turn around and launch 'Task Force 2', followed by a short bloody war in which the UK either kicks Argentina off the islands again, or is sent home humbled and never again enters the South Atlantic. Humphrey would suggest that this is unwise to consider - after all, UK planning is based on holding the islands for perpetuity (where perpetuity means 'for as long as the Islanders want us to remain'), and that if Argentina seeks to capture the islands militarily, it needs to be ready to defend them in perpetuity as well.

So, the first thing to ask is whether Argentina has sufficient military capability to not only invade the islands now, but also defend them in the long term without a major increase in defence spending.

The next issue when planning such an invasion is the level of violence and casualties one is willing to inflict upon an enemy force to achieve mission success. In 1982, the Argentine attack was predicated on landing roughly battalion sized forces to take out a sub company (barely platoon) sized formation. Its often forgotten that Argentine SF made a deliberate attempt to destroy the marine barracks, presumably hoping to take out the marines in their beds, rather than have a fight.

The world has changed dramatically since 1982 and the arrival of 24/7 media coverage, global news and analysis and the internet & other social media means that any attack or use of force will be questioned. To force the UK defending forces to surrender will mean either denying them the ability to fight or to sustain, or inflicting sufficient casualties to make the ground commander decide further resistance is futile.

Let's put this in context for a moment. The FI are garrisoned normally by up to 1500 military personnel, and supported by a range of logistics and infrastructure that will enable the garrison to continue fighting for a considerable period of time without requiring external support. For an Argentine attack to put the UK garrison in the position where it has to surrender due to an inability to sustain itself, we have to assume the loss of air and maritime resupply for a prolonged period of time, backed up by an aggressive land campaign which reduces stocks. This would seem to require a maritime and air presence beyond that which the Argentines currently possess.

Similarly, to put the defending force in a position where it has lost sufficient casualties that it feels it has not option but to surrender, one would need to inflict realistically more casualties than the UK has lost in Iraq & Afghanistan combined in over 10 years of fighting, and inflict them in a time scale probably measured in days. This would again require a very aggressive campaign, and one which would be quickly portrayed in global media as an exceptionally aggressive and brutal attack by Argentine forces.

The reality would be for Argentina that any attack has to be done in such a manner so as to force a surrender, without causing a massacre. Unless this occurs, then global opinion will swing firmly against Argentina, and it is likely that UNSCRs, or even possible military support from allies may be offered to the UK in any attack. Argentina has to be seen to be a liberating force in the manner of the Indians in Goa in 1961, and not the Iraqi 'annexation' of Kuwait in 1990.  In other words, a short military attack, limited resistance and then general global apathy, despite anguished pleas from the defending power (in this case Portugal, which the author understands still technically claims Goa is a part of its empire).

So, even prior to the launching of an invasion, Argentina is faced with a series of high level policy & political challenges - these can be summarised below:
                a.            What is their justification for war?
                b.            What is their desired end state?
                c.             How do they recapture the islands using minimal force?
                d.            How do they hold onto the islands in perpetuity?
                e.            How do they manage international reaction to the invasion?
                f.             Can they afford an international crisis / incident on this scale?
                g.            Is it really worth it?

The next part of this article will look in more depth at how an Argentine commander would need to consider options, based partly on their ORBAT, but also partly on the defensive considerations


  1. "'the successful capture of the islands, followed by the mounting of a sufficiently robust defence as to prevent their recapture in perpetuity'."

    I think thats a bit of a push to be honest.
    The chance of the UK restarting a war is almost nil.

    We might wait 3 months of so for better weather, but we wouldnt invade 3 years after the initial one, not unless something major changes.

  2. Thanks for your comment - I agree we would be unlikely to resume hostilities - however, from an argentine perspective, they cannot be 100% certain of this.
    My own, strictly personal, view is that the UK would seek a UNSCR, possibly with the imposition of a peacekeeping force as a third party in this sort of situation, but the fact remains that until a peace treaty is signed, and Argentine occupation of the islands confirmed, the Argentinean military will have to plan on the potential for renewed aggression. The Falklands could quickly become a millstone round their necks from a defence perspective.

  3. This assumes that the threat to British control of the Falklands is military, what are the risks of a south american political push against UK ownership of the islands?

    We're already seeing some of this, with a number of south american countries backing Argentina politically on the international stage (at least verbally, how sincere and meaningful these statements are I don't know).

    With oil being found in the region I can only see political pressure growing.

    Also, what is the EU's position on the Falklands? If sufficient and economically viable oil finds are proven are they likely to back the UK on the grounds that it would be another resource of oil for the EU in general?

  4. NBS - try the first post here, a bit further down which looks at the political situation. In a nutshell, the locals support Argentina more because it keeps them quiet, than through any great expectation that they will support co-ordinated action.
    I don't know about the EU position - my gut instinct would be that France would be supportive of any UK position, more due to the status of French Guyana, and the wider french territories than anything else. I suspect the other nations wouldn't particularly care unless it specifically impacted on them.

  5. "The Falklands could quickly become a millstone round their necks from a defence perspective."

    Random Thought, what one takes, another can.

    Inmagine the political (and militarty) pressure Brazil could put on Argentina to hand the islands over.

    "I don't know about the EU position - my gut instinct would be that France would be supportive of any UK position, more due to the status of French Guyana, and the wider french territories than anything else."
    That was certainly the case last time.
    France wasnt interested in the Falklands, but it was very interested in a European Power who star was of questionable height setting precedent that tangling with said fallen star was unlikely to be profitable.

  6. Sorry Humphrey, read your first post after I'd asked the question.

    "In a nutshell, the locals support Argentina more because it keeps them quiet"

    This is the current dynamic, things are already changing in respect to the Union of South American Nations.

    In the longer term view how long until Argentina puts it's foot down and starts demanding a united response and political pressure on the British Govt over the Falkland Islands as part of it's price in concessions to other policies proposed by other South American states?

  7. What about the hobbyists? Do we rely on them?

  8. Very interesting articles.

    I think the only chance of any action by Argentina in the next few years is if the current war of words somehow escalated out of control, and moved beyond anything either side had meant.

    However I don't think I agree that if Argentina did invade the islands and did manage to defeat the UK garrison, that the UK government would try to get a UNSCR that involed the deployment of UN peacekeepers. I can't see them being able to get such a resolution that didn't also include a requirement for both sides to start negotiations for a long term solution. And thats is something that the UK government does't accept.

    So to accept that in a UNSCR would look to the UK population as a defeat.

    With the situation having gone something like:

    * Argentina invade the falklands island.
    * Argentina somehow defeat the UK garrison causing x number of UK casualties.
    * The UK government goes to the UN and spends a couple of days or so negotiating on the text of a UNSCR. While to the UK population it seems like they aren't doing much apart from dithering.
    * Resolution agreed and voted on.
    * Argentina accepts the Resolution and withdraws.
    * A UN peacekeeping force made up of mostly South American and some European forces deploy.
    * UK and Argentinian Governments start negotiating.

    I don't see how that would be seen as anything but a Argentinian victory. And unless the invasion caused a massacre like you said, I just don't see the UNSC agreeing to a resolution that was really favourable to the UK.

    To stop at the very least, a civil war in the conservative party, the UK government would have to be seen as being very tough and standing up for the falkland islands.

    However like yourself, I don't think that Argentina is likely to attempt to invade or likely to be able to capture the islands with its current forces.

    Also I don't subscribe to the view that the UK couldn't retake them without a aircraft carrier.

    Personally I think that most people who believe that, are replanning the last war that was 30 years ago, and not taking into account the current situaton or force levels or current technology.

    Of course Argentina could start rebuilding its armed forces and the situation could change but that would take years to do.

  9. Great comments - thanks for them. I keep meaning to do the last piece on this (the scenarios for consideration), but real life keeps interfering.

    I think the key issue is presenting a scenario where Argentina can invade with sufficient credible force to make a defeat or heavy casualties occur - this is something that I would describe as being exceptionally difficult to do in the current circumstances.

  10. you don't seem to point out that the 1500 troops are spread out and are non fighting arms. those that are from a fighting background are also spread out so an attack on MPA would be repulsed by 30-60 men depending on the RIC duty rota. they have no helicopters to transport the few troops about since they were sent to afghanistan and the typhoon pilots probably lack the ground attack training seeing as last time I checked we had 8 qualified pilots.

    do it right an less than a company could seize the airfield and assets disabling the typhoons before they even take off as all it takes is a few snipers or manpads

    there should still be enough kit for 2 reforger battalions to use which I'm sure will have been taken into account by the invaders who can save weight on the flights in - our main hope is the FIDF who train to destroy our kit so it cant be re-used against them. whatever though if they took it quickly they could very soon turn it around to support themselves.

    they only need to be lucky and have the guts to do it. just like we did but this time we would be unlikely to have chile uruguay and brazil on our side now they are all bessie mates over there.

  11. Namaste from a Beautiful Himalaya Nepal
    Nepal Base Camp Treks is government register agency (licensed trekking guide team) in the Nepalese Himalayas Ranges… After working 18 years (since 1997) on the tough trails for several years as a mountain staff crew, and working so hard to develop our fluency in English languages, We became a guide in the year 2000 to 2002. We have spent the past 18 years as a professional Himalaya trekking guide, working for several Trek & Expedition companies in Kathmandu; we have now decided to work as an independent guide and self leading to provide all our national and international clients, who like to enjoy their Himalaya trekking holidays tour with us (
    In the last 18 years working experiences, our team have become very well-known with many Trekking Destinations throughout the country, this includes: The Everest Base Camp Treks, Annapurna Regions and Langtang Valley Regions, As well as Upper Mustang Treks, Manaslu Circuit Treks, Annapurna Circuit Trek,Ganesh Himal Trek, Helambu and all non tourist regions. Our teams at Nepal Base Camp Treks have studied well the lay of the land & our knowledgeable about local flora and fauna, cultural history and environmental issues in the areas where we trek are absolutely sound today. Our guests truly appreciate our services. We are able to guide Trekkers hoping to climb high passes Chola, Renjo La, thorong La,Larke La, Kongma La and peaks, & can take them to show exclusive spots for any adventures across the Himalayas. Nepal Base Camp Treks experience also covers the well known peaks of Mera Peak climbing , Island Peak Climbing,Lobuje Peak Climbing, Phakchhermo Peak, Pisang Peak, Tent Peak Kalapathar Peak & Gokyo Peak, and we have led expeditions across many high passes in Nepal, covers some famous mountains: Manaslu Circuit Larke Pass, Ampu-lapcha Pass, Makalu sherpani col Pass, east col Pass, west col Pass, Chola Pass, Renjula Pass, Rolwaling Tashilapcha Pass, Ganjala Pass, Ganesh himal Pangsang Pass, Thorong Pass and Tilicho Pass…ON THE WAY, AFTER ALL THE TRIALS & HARDSHIPS…THE BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS…we are now an accomplished guide team who helps our guests unleash the best experiences ever in High Himalaya and Wild Adventures under their feet
    Treks come in many forms on Nepal's rugged Himalayas: ranging from the relaxed easy trekking where you can experience Nepalese Culture and Village life,Chitwan,Dhulekhel,Kathmandu Valley, Pokhara Ghale Gaun, to tea-house trekking in popular regions, Annapurna, Everest, Lantang, to unique treks into areas of Nepal that are off the beaten path and seldom visited by foreigners or remote non-touristic area Tawal Village, Chitwan Chepang Hill. All treks offer superb scenery and viewpoints into Nepal's exotic ancient culture. With our kind of experience, we can tailor your treks to meet your conveniences in any way that's comfortable to you.
    Nepal Base Camp Treks (Pvt. Ltd.)
    Post Box: 10114, Bhagwati Bahal Mark, Thamel, Kathmandu, Nepal
    Telephone: + 977-1-4436088. Mobile: +977-9851111874

  12. Trekking in Nepal Himalaya with
    Nepal and its Himalaya the most fascinating country in the world, although small in size offering awesome landscapes and panorama of more than 600 – 800 k.m. stretch snow clad mountains where world’s 8th highest mountains are located within Nepal territory Mt. Everest is known as Sagarmatha in Nepali world’s number one at 8,848 meters / 29,028 ft, world’s 3rd highest Mt. Kanchenjunga 8,586 m / 28,169 ft world’s 4th highest Mt. Lhotse 8,516 m / 27, 940 ft, world’s 5th highest Mt. Makalu 8,463 m / 27,766 ft, worlds 6th highest Mt. Cho-Oyu 8,201 m / 26,906 ft, worlds’ 7th highest Mt. Dhaulagiri 8,167 m / 26, 795 ft, worlds 8th highest Mt. Manaslu 8,163 m / 26,781 ft and world’s 10th highest Mt. Annapurna 8,091 m /26,545 ft with range of 7,000 -6,000 meters and below peaks which makes Nepal the most sought destination for all types of adventure sports from hiking, trekking, mountaineering.
    Nepal a delightful destinations for various kinds of trekking from soft, moderate, adventurous to extreme and challenging where it involves high passes of more than 5,000 meters, all these wonderful trekking destinations in and around Nepal Himalaya run and organized by professional and veteran trekking and adventure companies in Nepal, depending upon the safety and quality that can offer to its enthusiastic clients, one of the many local companies that organizes and leads various trips and marvelous trekking destinations around Nepal Himalaya and neighboring countries Bhutan and Tibet including North East India in Darjeeling and Sikkim.
    On popular trekking areas in Nepal Himalaya are Trekking in Nepal, Everest Base Camp trekking, Annapurna Circuit Trekking, Manaslu Circuit Trekking, Manaslu Tsum Valley Trekking, Upper Mustang Trekking, Everest Three Pass Trekking, Kanchenjunga Trekking, Upper Dolpo Trekking, Island Peak Climbing, Mera Peak Climbing, peak Climbing in Nepal and Tour in Nepal done in the comfort of staying in nice cozy lodges with good food menu throughout the trek accompanied by veteran and expert guides of guides who are very professional of the designated area of trekking, offering wide and deep information of the culture, religions, traditions of the local villages on route trekking including
    Contact Address
    Encounters (P.) Ltd.
    Tel No.: 977-01-4411142
    Cell: +977-9851090105
    GPO Box: 21952,Thamel Marg
    Thamel, Kathmandu, Nepal

  13. Welcome to Base Camp Trekking Tour! Hundred percent pure lands of highest Himalaya's adventures
    Trekking in Nepal is one of the best adventure government registered company operating all adventure holidays trip to world most popular mountains Everest Base Camp Treks, Annapurna Base Camp Treks, Langtang Treks, Manaslu Treks, as well Upper mustang trek, Ganesh Himal Treks, Langtang Ganja La Pass Treks and all popular sightseeing tour of Ancients Kathmandu Valley and relaxing Chitwan Lumbini Tour on your desirable local budget for national and international travelers to Nepal.
    Nepal Base Camp Treks (P) Ltd.( may be your next Trekking and Trekking Company in Nepal for any Trekking Agency in Nepal to highlander Himalayas Everest base camp, best mountain sceneries Annapurna Base Camp, recently promoting Manaslu Circuit Trek, several High passes Thorong La Annapurna Circuit,Gokyo Lake Chola Pass,Gokyo Lake Renjo La Pass, Chhukung Kongma La Pass, Rolwaling Tashilapchha Pass, Gosaikund Lake Pass, Kathmandu Valley Cultural trek and tour,Dhulekhel Namoduddha, Nagarkot trek, Bungmati Tour, Chiwan Chepang Hill Trek, Bandipur Tour,Pokhara Valley trekking tour,Ghorepani Poon Hill Trek, Annpurna Ghandruk Trek, Kanchanjanga north to south Pass,Langtang Ganja La Pass, depending small group travelers to joining group travelers on your desired budget to standard budget.
    Nepal Base Camp Treks offers you very popular non tourist destinations as remote regions of manaslu Tsum Valley Trek, Nar-Phu Valley Trek, Tamang Heritage Trail, Ghale Gaun Trek, Kanchanjanga Base Camp Trek, Rolwaling Camping Trek, Upper Mustang Cultural Trek, Lower Dolpo and Upper Dolpo Trek on very reasonable social trek in non touristic destination to better understand your holidays with our professional team
    Our team in Nepal Base Camp Treks is very profession of peak climbing experiences of most popular Island Peak, Lobuje Peak, Mera Peak, Phakchhermo Peak in Everest Region and Pisang Peak, Kanguru Peak, Chulu Peak in Annapurna Circuit Region and Tent Peak in Annapurna Base Camp.
    We guaranteed you best services and trouble less during your lifetime holidays journey with our professional mountain local team and wish you have a nice journey and see you soon in Nepal here to dream your adventure awaits you, as I remain
    Yours sincerely
    Sappa Lama (Sagar) and team

  14. is professional and Lengal Trekking Company in Nepal
    and Base Located Trekking Agency,
    and Most top Package is Trekking in Nepal
    With fair deal.


  15. Daily Departure as Short Packages Tour as
    Helicopter tour in Nepal,
    kathmandu Day Tour and
    Chitwan Jungle Safari in Nepal

  16. A One Nepal offer 2017 as Special Remote Treking route
    Kanchenjunga Trek,
    Nar phu Valley trek and
    Annapurna tilicho lake trek in Nepal.