How effectively did the three armed services combine in the Falklands Essay

How effectively did the three armed services combine in the Falklands campaign - Essay Example Despite being over 8,000 miles away and at a tremendous logistical disadvantage, Prime Minister Thatcher sent an invasion force consisting of ships of all varieties, airplanes, helicopters, soldiers and one British Prince. Mrs. Thatcher wanted to prove to the USSR and communist governments throughout the world that western powers were not going to back down from a conflict, especially a colony or territory that contained a large number of western inhabitants. Thatcher was informed that Soviet intelligence reports stated that even if Thatcher were to go ahead with a military invasion, the English would lose if they went at it alone. Again, The Iron Lady took offence and set out to prove them wrong. The British Prime Minister realized the implications of this crisis. She knew that what ever she chose to do would be setting one precedent or another. It was in Thatcher's hands to decide which precedent she would set. For her, there was no question, she could not let it seem that the Sovi ets could freely choose a Western territory or colony and simply invade it without fearing the consequence of military action. In most of the renowned strategists’ opinion, the Falklands War has been referred to as like two bald men fighting over a comb. Neither country particularly needed the Falklands, and the Falklands had very little that either country coveted, but it was the symbol that was important. (Gordon 2006) Argentina lost the war in part because the comb wanted to go to England but more importantly because they simply were not prepared to fight a war against the whole world. How did British Royal Forces Show Leadership Styles The British royal armed forces used dramatically different leadership styles portrayed by British Officers at the battle of Goose Green. As regards to these two characters are the most prominent: the Battlegroup Commander Colonel H Jones who was famous for assaulting a trench single handedly and was subsequently killed. The second character is that of the B Company commander Major John Crosland who successfully lead an assault on Burntside Hill and demonstrated a markedly different style of leadership than that of Colonel Jones. These two characters have been chosen because of their almost polar opposite approaches to initially the orders process and then their own leadership style. They demonstrate just how subjective the orders process can be and the affect that a differing approach can have on the battle itself. Jones demonstrated how an autocratic style of leadership coupled with a positionalist approach to war fighting lead to near disaster, whereas Crosland showed how a slightly more Laisser Faire attitude and an understanding of mission command could prove successful. How could two such different approaches be present in what was to all intents and purposes was the same organization? The first - the orders delivered by Jones for the Assault on Goose Green and secondly his individual leadership style. These will then be contrasted with that of Major Crosland and his assault onto Burntside Hill. Colonel H Jones was a renowned figurehead of the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. He was known for his fiery temper, his embrace of the Parachute Regiment ethos and his dogged tenacity (Middlebrook, 1985). His actions