| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| Britain Furious at Nixon Over 1973 Alert | |
| 2004-01-01 | |
Britain’s prime minister was furious at President Nixon for not telling him that U.S. forces were going on worldwide alert during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, according to records released Thursday. Prime Minister Edward Heath learned of the alert - considered a high point in Cold War tensions - from news reports, the papers said. They were released under rules requiring that some secret documents be made public after 30 years. Britain’s intelligence listening post, Government Communications Headquarters, had learned of the alert but did not tell Heath’s office or the Foreign Office because officials assumed Heath and Douglas-Home already knew about it.
Worked, too. The alert covered U.S. forces stationed in Britain. Heath wrote in a memo that he thought Nixon’s move, which came in the midst of the Watergate scandal, was unnecessary and harmful. "Personally I fail to see how any initiative, threatened or real, by the Soviet leadership required such a world wide nuclear alert," the prime minister wrote. "We have to face the fact that the American action has done immense harm, I believe, both in this country and worldwide." Gee, 30 years later we seem to have weathered it just fine. The spy chiefs said they did not know what intelligence the Americans possessed, but said "we are inclined to see the U.S. response as higher than necessary to achieve the desired effect." A British intelligence memorandum released late Wednesday said Washington gave serious consideration to sending airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi during the 1973 Arab oil embargo, The Washington Post reported. Now we know what .com was doing 30 years ago. The document reportedly said that if faced with deteriorating conditions such as a breakdown of the cease-fire between Arab and Israeli forces following the Yom Kippur War or an intensification of the embargo, "we believe the American preference would be for a rapid operation conducted by themselves" to seize the oil fields. Version 1.0 of the .com plan! It cited a warning from Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger to the British ambassador in Washington, Lord Cromer, that the United States would not tolerate threats from "under-developed, under-populated" countries and that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force," the newspaper said. And he’s still right! | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 Do I really have to connect the dots, folks? Have you ever heard of a guy named Newton? Action and reaction? If the U.S. did what you recommend, what would happen afterward? World peace? Benign hegemony? Well, maybe. Then again, it might well lead to another Clinton presidency, and the shackles of obeisance to Europe. |
| Posted by: Alan Sullivan 2004-1-2 7:37:23 AM |
| #9 ".com"--I have no idea what Alan's talking about either, but what could have "elevated Socialists" more than deposing Nixon with Watergate? If only the US had done this 30 years ago, we wouldn't have to do what we're doing now... Hindsight definitely is foresight. (And one man the Socialists hated far more than Nixon was Kissinger, whose shoes the Liberals aren't fit to lick.) |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2004-1-2 12:39:43 AM |
| #8 Alan - "course of action which would likely elevate socialists in the U.S. once again" WTF? I have NO idea what you are talking about or alluding to. You must've misread my comments. Please explain where this came from? Re: the Saudis and the idea of mere threat of force being enough -- please pardon me, but you need to pony up something other than those lean statements. I give specifics for why I think what I think -- please feel free to elaborate - extensively. Your little one-off comments above don't convey diddley-squat. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-1-1 7:53:44 PM |
| #7 Consider, .com, what was happening to Nixon at that time, and why, and what came afterward. Don't be so quick to commend a course of action which would likely elevate socialists in the U.S. once again. We don't have to seize the territory, only manage the rulers, which the U.S. has signally failed to do in Saudi Arabia. The credible threat of force should enough, and credibility has been enhanced of late. |
| Posted by: Alan Sullivan 2004-1-1 6:55:02 PM |
| #6 Damn right! What a pisser! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-1-1 5:11:43 PM |
| #5 And to think they been pumping our oil for 30 years! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-1 3:14:20 PM |
| #4 Anonymous - absolutely brilliant non-comment illuminating a non-thought of astounding non-profundity. Wow! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-1-1 11:32:52 AM |
| #3 Good Heavens! Some people in the U.S. considered some options 30 years ago! Whatever will we think of next... 30 years ago? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-1 8:20:49 AM |
| #2 What's even sadder is that we've already had our equivalent of Pearl Harbor, and we're not anywhere near fully mobilised. We should have had at least two more army divisions by now, and the JDAM add-on package contractor should have had a contract tripling production after Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-1-1 6:26:19 AM |
| #1 Ha! Dr Steve is teasing me, again! Heath, proudly renowned for bringing the UK into the EU Community / Common Market, was apparently a damned soft sort of Conservative. His N Ireland and labor troubles should have been enough to keep him more than well occupied - since they were his undoing. In his senility he derided Thatcher to whom he had transferred the Conservative mantle... I say this as a prelude to the fact that how the US chose to deal with the USSR over the 1973 war and their plans to resupply Egypt and Syria was out of his purview. Support for Israel was only a matter of words for him - Nixon did the right thing and Heath, an untrustworthy ally regards Israel in particular and the USSR in general, was welcome to piss up a rope. Nixon's action proves the point rather clearly. As for the 40km plan (!!!), what was obvious to Schlesinger 30 yrs ago finally became obvious to me only a few months ago - they were a helluvalot smarter than me! What hurts is how PCism has obviously eroded our national will in the intervening time. Compared to that SecDef, today we're a bunch of pussies and wimps. What a shame that people will have to die, ala Pearl Harbor, before the bullshit is washed away. Sad. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-1-1 4:43:58 AM |