I was under the impression that back in '82 Galtieri was suffering from declining popularity in Argentina, and like many heads of state before him (and several after) he decided that an invasion of a foreign controlled territory would distract the population, redirect their anger, and solve his popularity problems.
What I don't entirely understand is why Argentines cling so tightly to this event. The main reason I don't understand is because I don't want to ask and stick my tongue on the third rail. In addition to his intended distraction with it's waste of military and other national resources it would seem that Galtieri had no problem using Argentine soldiers as pawns and sending them off to die in battles they couldn't possibly win. Is it simply a case of Argentines supporting their fellow Argentines who served as opposed to Galtieri's failed domestic and military policies? Even simpler, is it just national pride for anything Argentina does/did? Since I don't ever bring it up or offer and opinion I can't say, but it doesn't strike me as 'support the troops but oppose the war' like you heard from many in the US after the (second) Iraq invasion. Another analogy would be the Vietnam War. Americans wanted to put that behind them ASAP and if there's any prevailing 'good' feelings about the war it's for the veterans who were predominantly drafted to serve in the folly, not the war itself.
Not having a dog in the fight I don't really care who controls the islands or how the islanders prefer to identify themselves. I am more interested in who the islanders would like to be aligned with. Generally speaking, I'm anti-Imperialist but also all for self-determination. I'm more interested in understanding why I never hear Argentines mention Galtieri's attempt to reverse his declining popularity and his use of Argentine soldiers as disposable chattel. I'll never raise that question outside of this forum and I'm 100% open to being told I'm completely wrong or ignorant of certain majorly relevant circumstances.
