From: Toledo, Ohio
Adm. Woodward details the presence of Soviet 'sigint' trawlers at Ascension, where his flotilla was assembling for the voyage south. but those trawlers were only present for Sov 'sniffing' purposes, they were most certainly not aiding the Argentine effort. Let's remember that Galtieri's junta was virulently anti-Communist & lined up completely w/ contemporary US policy. IMO, both the US & USSR were unprepared for the Falklands flare-up, which had no place in either country's ColdWar stance, it was a local prob between US allies, the USSR had no horse in the race. the Argentinian military was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US, w/ French, German & UK additions.
the idea that USSR would've actively intervened in the Falklands conflict is laughable, as is the idea that the US would've (or could've) shown up in 'quick order' to prevent the initial Argentine descent on the Falklands & South Georgia. (2 or 3 CVBG + full USMC assault div w/ CAS, i say NFW).
some US policy (Haig's abortive diplomatic efforts notwithstanding) was essential to British efforts - SecDef Caspar Weinburger was golden, allowing British access to the airbase at Ascension, & providing supplies of the AIM-9L Sidewinder missile (19 kills from 20 launches).
so let's posit that the 'special relationship' trumped the Monroe Doctrine in this conflict. US diplomatic efforts to mediate the conflict followed UN efforts, both were rejected by Thatcher's UK government. US military efforts were limited to base-access & ordnance supply to the the Brits, but did not extend to active intervention against the Argentine side.
I was not suggesting that my proposed alternative was possible. The Argentines were not dumb. They tried to play the Hemispheric Alliance card. The US with Nicaragua and communist uprisings in Costa Rica, Guatamela, and El Salvador was in a bad place. While no one outright supported them (besides Castro), they did have some sympathies within the Latin American community who all had axes to grind with European Colonialism. So I don't think Reagan really had a choice other than appearing neutral while backing the UK covertly. Any other stance would have undermined the pro-democracy (read anti-communist) efforts in Central America
I was only pointing out that direct US intervention may have led to fewer casualties for both sides.
BTW, from what I read, Haig was truly dispondant over his failed efforts. He really had a desire to leave his mark on history ala Kissinger/Carter
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry