But when will the giant rouse? When? We've been wondering that since 9-11, and most of the free world has gone back to sleep. The Spanish and British weren't roused by their 9-11 equivalents.
I believe it is our western elites (including much of the media) that have been actively trying to keep us asleep. Will it take them being slaughtered in an Islamic terrorism attack to rouse us?

I also remember from my history that Athens found a new silver mine and their far-sighted leaders used the windfall to build a navy. That is what allowed them to beat the Persians at Salamis and save Western civilization. Does anyone think our Western leaders would do the same today?

That was an Italian hostage who said, "I'll show you how an Italian dies."

I have forgotten his name, unfortunately.

Dafydd, I think that the hostage who died valiantly when being butchered by Al Qaeda terrorists was an Italian, not a Pole. I'd have to look it up, though.

Am somewhat loath to criticize the captured Brit seamen and Marines, but it does seem as if their participation in propaganda footage for Iran, Arabs and the world was somewhat along the lines of “Give me dubbery and give me breath!... If this be treason, make the most of it...”

Dafydd, it was an Italian who defied his terrorist captors and died with his dignity intact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrizio_Quattrocchi

His name was Fabrizio Quattrocchi.

Thanks, Bostonian and Piraticalbob; I made the correction. But that actually makes my point even stronger, as Quattrocchi was a Western European security guard working for a U.S. company in Iraq.

Why can't British sailors and marines show as much intestinal fortitude as Quattrocchi? Or for that matter, as much as the American hostages seized in 1979.

Dafydd

Already seeing official military reaction to this incident, there is a good article in Navy Times about it:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/04/navy_britain_iran_070406w/

Notice the story told by the P-3 officer who was among those captured by the Chinese in 2001, and contrast their behavior with those of the Brits. The Brits look bad in comparison.

"There are alternatives to fighting."
- Obi wan Kenobi

I'm just saying...

It appears you would have preferred this to be a suicide mission and have 15 dead Brits?

I think, Trickish knave, that most people would have preferred something other than smiling, apologetic British military personnel on Iranian TV. I've yet to see anyone to say the would rather the British had fought to the last person rather than surrender, but once they were captured they should not have been so accommodating to the propaganda wishes of their captors.

I agree that the first responders (and the US military) would not exercise the option the Brits did. This option appears to be the one advanced all the way up the chain of command from the reports in the media. One might easily believe that the situation developed the way it did with the 15 sailors and Marines because of the lack of foresight from the top. No ROE covering their task; the what ifs where not asked. That is what bothers me. I trust our first responders but not those in political positions that give direction and set the tone. The bureaucracy will not make decisions; they kick it up stairs. By the time a decision can be made, well too late; sorry guys.

The USS Pueblo incident with North Korea is a good American example for comparison. In that incident the Captain did a bit more than what the Brit officer did to escape his predicament. The Pueblo did try to outmaneuver the North Koreans until it was attacked. No help came for the Pueblo either; the decision had been kicked all the way up to President Johnson. By then it was under North Korean control and still no attempt was made to stop the spy ship and its crew from reaching port. The captain of the vessel, Commander Bucher, followed his orders to not start any international incidents, and he later stated that he felt that while a ship could be replaced, lives could not. One crew member was killed regardless. Commander Bucher was subjected to a court of inquiry by the Navy. A court martial was recommended, however the Secretary of the Navy intervened on Bucher's behalf and no action was taken against him. The Brits should be so lucky.

Since the West appears to be allowing Iran to go nuclear, I wonder who and what decision will be made if a device is exploded in Israel as is promised. Ah, take it to the UN for resolution as is now the norm. Yea, that will work.

Well you know back in 79 the Marines guarding that embassy in Tehran did not fight to the last man.

I doubt if the Iranians would have gone after Americans for the simple reason that there would have been a fight and so I am not saying I support the ROE the Brits have or anything.

However, there is something unseemly about a lot of people sitting at their keyboards talking about how those Brits should have done this or that.

Believe it or not, the fact that they are alive is not a bad thing.

I am prowar, I have been called a chickenhawk, a fascists, a Bushbot and all manner of names by lefties, so do not question my bonafides as a jihadi hater. The mad mullahs are nuts, they are quite capable of publicly hanging those people and we were not there. We really don't know what we would have done, or what they should have done.

But to state that Western civilization is gone because some Brits decided that being nabbed was better than being shot, well that seems a tad extreme to me.

And WW2 was full of POW camps of soldiers who laid their arms and went somewhere they did not want to go to.

Somehow I can't find it in me to condemn Marines and Sailors armed only with small arms for surrendering to a gunboat armed with machine guns and RPGs and as Americans we don't have any moral highground on this issue, unless we block out the memory of the

USS Pueblo

As to the Marines in Iran, they were ordered to not fight by the Ambassador. However they did not go silently into the night during their 444 days of captivity. And yes American’s have surrendered before, but my historical mind’s eye can not come up with an instance such as the Brit’s surrender, and more important, the Brits actions afterwards. And the initial contact was reported as 6 Iranians vs. 15 Brits with the Iranian heavy weapons reported as coming with the later 6 patrol boats. But there is no good public time line to determine who was there when. We all can, I hope, agree that you don’t shake the hand of your captor’s leadership when released.

Trickish Knave:

It appears you would have preferred this to be a suicide mission and have 15 dead Brits?

Are you not strangely eager to assume they would have lost that fight? And strangely eager to surrender without a shred of resistance?

They had select-fire rifles themselves. They were ensconced on a steel-hulled merchant vessel. They had air support about ten minutes away from Basra. And they were under the guns of HMS Cornwall... which, by the way, can almost certainly outrun those damned Iranian swift boats.

I think they had a very good shot at winning the firefight -- which means it would not likely come to that; the Iranians have no desire to be humiliated before the world.

Terrye:

I'm sorry, but the idea that only those physically present during an incident are allowed to judge the response is nonsense on stilts. Let our motto be "Judge and be judged."

We judge people's response to crises all the time:

• We judge cops in a shootout with a drug dealer;
• We judge Marines in Haditha;
• We judge the president's performance at a summit;
• We judge the response of a cruise-ship captain in a storm.

There is nothing wrong with being judgmental, so long as you are not hypocritical and stand for judgment yourself (and so long as your judgment of others is sound). Often, a person in the middle of a crisis is the person who knows least what's going on.

Two of the hostages (Dean Harris and one other unidentified sailor or marine) evidently refused to go along with the propaganda videos, thanking the Iranians, or shaking their hands. Those two were not killed, tortured, or beaten. Evidently, their judgment agrees more with mine than with Faye Turney's.

Your thesis supposes that those actually present will necessarily have a special insight (lacking in those not present), and therefore, they will come to the right decision.

Yet Harris and Turney were both present during the kidnapping, and they came to diametrically opposing judgments of how to respond. Which one's decision should be discounted?

Dafydd

To my mind there were several options on the table at the time the incident occurred:

1. Fight it out while calling for help from the frigate and the helicopter, which were both over the horizon at the time. If they didn't have radio communications with the frigate/chopper, that is a failure by the upper levels of the Royal Navy/Marines.

2. Mexican Standoff with the Brits on board the ship they boarded, the Iranians below in their boats.

3. Brits attempt to return to their frigate, either on the boarded ship or in their zodiacs. Force the Iranians to take action to show that the incident is not a game of "chicken."

The second phase of the incident took place after the Brits decided to surrender. That should have been the sole decision of the senior officer present, and not a "team decision." You either have a chain of command, or you don't; the military is not a democracy. The officer making the decision to surrender gets all the blame or glory for his decision, as is traditional. This officer should have briefed his people in the minutes that he had available as to behavior expected of them in captivity. I don't think this was done, as is obvious from the videos of the captives smiling, eating and smoking. If the captives took a few lumps for minimal cooperation, that at least looks better than being pals with the Iranians and accepting "goody bags" from them at departure.

My conclusion: the sailors/marines don't deserve to be stood against a wall and shot like Admiral Byng (see Wikipedia for bio), but they aren't deserving of medals, either. (apparently they've all been allowed by the Brit government to sell their stories to the tabloids, though. WTF?) The officer in charge of the captives will probably have to face a court of inquiry, at the very least.

There's really two aspects to this whole incident -
1. Could the British seamen have avoided initial capture?
2. Their behavior while being held prisoner.

For the first question, it's hard to give a definitive answer since we don't have all the information about the tactical situation. Even if they weren't allowed to use their weapons due to the ROE, they could have at least attempted to escape. The Iranians may have fired their guns off their bow (or they may not have) but it looks far worse to be captured with no shots fired whatsoever. Even in the Pueblo incident the North Korean were forced to fire on the USS Pueblo, killing one sailor, before the ship was surrendured.

As for the British behavior after capture, most of them did not exactly cover themselves in glory. From appearances they didn't even attempt to resist either physically or psychologically, but were willing to go along with whatever the Iranians wanted. There's a continuum between total resistance and abject cooperation, and the behavior of the captured British paraded in public was near the abject end. And yes, here I'm judging them even though I've never been in the same circumstances. But others have been and they managed to resist becoming complete propaganda pawns. See this account by an American Marine held by the Iranians during 1979-80, and these accounts by American sailors held by the North Koreans in 1968. I'm sure there are stories of British soldiers and sailors resisting the enemy even after capture but I just don't happen to have any links to them.

Their failure to fight back certainly increases the chances that the Iranians will do this again.

Then again, our failure to fight back in 1979 means that we have been in an undeclared war for nearly thirty years, which has given Iran cover to wage war on us for all that time, unopposed. It's a perfect asymmetrical war. They do whatever they like, and we can oppose them only via covert means. We should have bombed them a long, long time ago.

Dafydd:

I tell you what, the next time something like this happens I think all these arm chair hostages should get together and offer to trade places with the people being held.

I think that those sailors were in a vulnerable position. They were carrying out a UN mandate to inspect ships for contraband. They were not in a state of war with the Iranians. So their mission was quite specific and it did not include any suicide missions. It seems to me that they were outnumbered and outmanned. Maybe they should not have been in such a vulnerable position, however, for people to wonder whether or not this incident means western civilization is coming to an end seems a little hysterical to me.

And it also seems to me that people have decided the Iranians won, because the Iranians said they did. All those crazy people have to do is strut on TV and we take the bait. What are you expecting an apology? Ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Now, if the intent of the Iranians had been to drive a wedge between the US and the Brits because a lot of Americans can not stop acting put out because the sailors are not dead right now instead of free...well I guess they got what they wanted..

So what was the alternative? Was Blair supposed to get a declaration of war against Iran? Was he supposed to ask the US to bomb Terhan for him? Was he supposed to let the whole thing drag on and on with those people being paraded in front of the cameras until he lost what little politica support he had left and then where would that leave the mission in Iraq?

No, I am sorry, but I think there is something tacky about calling the sailors cowards or trashing the Brits in general, just because the Iranians want us to.

But my point is that the sailors who did not take part in the video, also did not shoot it out with the Iranians when they were taken. So it seems that even the good Brits we have decided not to judge quite so harshly were not prepared to die when the Iranians confronted and kidnapped them.

And remember when Hezbellah took the Isrealis. When that incident began the Israelis had the moral high ground. When it ended, they still did not have their soldiers back, conservatives were attacking Olmert and the world felt that the Israeli response had been disproportionate. And southern Lebanon was pretty much destroyed. And of course, Hezbellah claimed a victory. That is what these people do.

It is Easter and the Brits are home. I think that is a good thing. Sorry.

Well, hell's bells on Easter. Let's all capitulate and make nice to our captors/ betters, b/c there will still be ribbons of distinguished service, lucrative book deals, and armchair moralists who think our smiling for propaganda footage is AOK.

Because we survived, physically, and that's all that counts. Never mind overarching principles and the war team's efforts.

Terrye:

I tell you what, the next time something like this happens I think all these arm chair hostages should get together and offer to trade places with the people being held.

What is the point of this? You know such an offer wouldn't be accepted, couldn't be carried out, thus would be meaningless.

It certainly seems as if you're implying, without any evidence, that anyone who castigates the hostages for their speedy surrender and enthusiastic cooperation with their captors must therefore secretly be a coward himself.

This is nonsensical, as I think you will realize if you stop and think about it. We compare the behavior of these hostages with the resistance to capture and refusal to cooperate of other hostages in circumstances at least as dire (usually more so) as this one.

So their mission was quite specific and it did not include any suicide missions.

You have said this several times now, that resistance would have made it a "suicide mission."

Why are you so quick to assume that resistance was futile and would necessarily result in the deaths of all the hostages? What are you basing that on?

In 1979, our Marines and embassy personnel -- everyone except one Army soldier -- resisted the Iranians and refused to cooperate. Remember, they were held at first, not by a official Iranian forces (who must worry about international standing), but by a mob of terrorist "students" with little or no check on their behavior.

Yet not a single one of those hostages was killed. They were beaten and tortured, but they eventually left Iran alive... and with their honor intact, save for the one person who coooperated.

John McCain was held for five years in the Hanoi Hilton; he was tortured repeatedly and believed he would ultimately be executed.

But when he was given the opportunity to leave (when the North Vietnamese discovered he was the son of CINCPAC), he refused... because the offer did not extend to his fellow prisoners. He stayed -- and not once did he give his captors any propaganda footage or sign any usable documents.

(The one document he signed -- after long torture -- was written in Vietnamese, hence unusuable as propaganda; when they tried to force him to sign a second "confession," this one in English, he refused... leading to more torture.)

John McCain survived and today is a sitting senator and candidate for the presidency.

The Brits were in a stronger position than you realize; they could have held out for quite some time. And in a seige situation, the UK would have had no choice but to come to their aid: Not to do so would have been the gravest humiliation in the Royal Navy's entire existence.

Don't be so quick to dismiss their chances, Terrye. "Outnumbered and outmanned" soldiers have survived and even won battles in the past.

Maybe they should not have been in such a vulnerable position, however, for people to wonder whether or not this incident means western civilization is coming to an end seems a little hysterical to me.

I think you should reread the post, this time with a more open mind. I was in fact disputing with Dean Barnett, who asked if "fighting back was not an option" would become "the epitaph of the Western world"... and my conclusion was that, No, it will not: That the motto would instead be "Let's roll."

And it also seems to me that people have decided the Iranians won, because the Iranians said they did.

No. The Iranians won because they kidnapped British sailors and Royal Marines without provocation, held them for days, got them to "confess" that Britain had invaded Iranian territorial waters (as if they own the entire Shatt al-Arab Waterway), and then released them "as a gift to the British people," all without paying any price whatsoever. (Hezbollah and Hamas paid a very big price for kidnapping a total of three Israeli soldiers.)

All those crazy people have to do is strut on TV and we take the bait.

You're referring to the hostages?

What are you expecting an apology? Ain't gonna happen. Ever.

No; I was expecting a response from our chief ally in the war on global jihadism that was somewhat more aggressive than quiet acquiescence and tacit acceptance of Iranian hegemony.

So what was the alternative? Was Blair supposed to get a declaration of war against Iran? Was he supposed to ask the US to bomb Terhan for him? Was he supposed to let the whole thing drag on and on with those people being paraded in front of the cameras until he lost what little politica support he had left and then where would that leave the mission in Iraq?

I will assume you want a serious answer to this question of alternative ways to respond to this act of piracy in Iraqi waters, that your question was not rhetorical. Here:

1. The sailors and marines should not have been operating in a theater of war without proper rules of engagement;
2. Regardless of (1), they should have resisted to their utmost ability the attempt to take them captive;
3. Even if eventually captured, they should never have cooperated in producing enemy propaganda;
4. The captain of HMS Cornwall should have had authority to defend his men when threatened, rather than have to speak all the way up the chain of command to the Minister of Defense to beg permission to use his warship as a warship;
5. Regardless of his own ROEs, he should have moved swiftly and decisively to protect his men, no matter how it might affect his future career;
6. He should have engaged the Iranians, pursued them if necessary, and called for air support from the Harrier wing in Basra;
7. The British government should have issued an ultimatum for the release of their men;
8. When that was ignored, they should have taken much more aggressive action, including...
9. Withdrawal of diplomatic recognition of Iran;
10. Withdrawal of all ambassadors and diplomats from Iran;
11. Expulsion of all Iranian diplomatic personnel from the UK;
12. Freezing Iranian assets throughout the Commonwealth, and demanding the United States and the European Union to do the same. We would have cheerfully cooperated (to the extent we haven't already done so); and even if the EU rejected the call, Britain would have appeared stronger than merely asking them for a condemnation;
13. Sending a fleet towards the Persian Gulf. While they would take a long time to arrive, it still shows resolve;
14. Working with the U.S. to blockade major Iranian ports until the hostages are released.
    
    (I suspect you are about to object that this would be "an act of war." I assure you that the unprovoked seizure of troops from a nation with whom you are ostensibly at peace is itself an act of war. The fifteen were not grabbed by student terrorists; they were grabbed by sailors in Iran's official Republican Guard.)

That is what Great Britain should have done; but in reality, they would not have needed to do. The seizure was a test: Had Britain responded more forcefully from the beginning and made clear there was to be a fight, the Iranians would have quickly backed down.

Iran would have suffered a black eye in the international arena, the hostages would have been released quicker (if they were even captured in the first place -- ours were not when the Iranians tried this against Americans), and the Coalition would have gained "face" in the eyes of the Moslem world... which would also mean more allies and fewer terrorist attacks.

Actions have consequences, Terrye... and so does inaction.

Finally:

And remember when Hezbellah took the Isrealis. When that incident began the Israelis had the moral high ground. When it ended, they still did not have their soldiers back, conservatives were attacking Olmert and the world felt that the Israeli response had been disproportionate. And southern Lebanon was pretty much destroyed. And of course, Hezbellah claimed a victory. That is what these people do.

And what they will continue to do until and unless they are met with force and resolve, Terrye.

What conservatives (and non-conservatives, such as myself) complained about during the Israeli-Hezbollah war was exactly what we complain about now: a lack of proper resolve. The Israelis never fully committed to war; they went in half-heartedly and withdrew prematurely.

But even that effort was enough that they have not been attacked in any meaningful way by either Hezbollah or Hamas since. Even their limpid feint was enough to destroy enough equipment and kill enough terrorists that those two organizations drew back -- well, not a stump, but at least a hand less two or three fingers.

They still haven't released the soldiers (who were probably dead within hours of being captured anyway), but they also have ceased firing scores of rockets every day at Israeli cities, they haven't conducted any cross-border raids, and they haven't committed any terrorist outrages against Israel. In fact, the Palestinian terrorists are busy fighting themselves, and Hezbollah still has not managed to rearm back to where they were.

This should teach us a lesson, Terrye: The best need not be enemy of good enough. We don't need perfection, merely a solid show of force, to gain at least some advantage over the jihadis. They're not Nietzschian supermen... like adolescents, the terrorists probe and test; and when slapped down hard, they withdraw and act sullen.

Terrye, we can judge, because we have men and women who have undergone exactly such assault and captivity, and whose honorable and effective response sets a standard that the Brits' flaccid reaction fails to live up to.

What Man has done, Man can aspire to do. The British need to pull up their socks and aim higher, if they want to stay a free people.

Dafydd

Terrye,

Well you know back in 79 the Marines guarding that embassy in Tehran did not fight to the last man.

No, but despite the fact they were outnumbered 1000 to 1, they held for twelve hours in the vault, destroying classified document and equipment.

At one point, an Iranian held a gun to a diplomat's head and demanded that the Marines open the door; the Marines did not comply, and the diplomat was not shot.

Eventually, the Iranians pried open the door, and the Marines were overwhelmed. But the classified documents were completely destroyed.

Mission accomplished.

Dafydd

Are you not strangely eager to assume they would have lost that fight? And strangely eager to surrender without a shred of resistance?

I never implied any of that and only suggested that perhaps people are doing a little too much crystal ball gazing. If you are going to invent a position on what I wrote and then attack me on it at least make it a good argument.

I understand your position, dafydd. You have spent a lot of time researching past conflicts to show how people have fought back and history leans in your favor with the excerpts you have chosen. I don’t know what the headlines would have read if the Brits fought back- I guess that’s been my point all along. Nobody knows what could have been and to throw around weapons specs, proximity of support, etc. is folly, in my opinion, because none of us were there.

What we haven’t heard, so far, is a recount of the situation from the people who were kidnapped. I am eager to hear their side of it. If it turns out they are the pussies you are painting them as then your assumptions will have been justified.

Britain on its Knees, Melanie Phillips:

“…You would scarcely believe, to hear them justify their behaviour by recounting how frightening the whole thing was, that these individuals were members of the Royal Navy.

“The statement they made when they were released was deeply troubling. It revealed that all they wanted to do was get home. As one of them said:

We were interrogated most nights, and presented with two options. If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a plane back to the UK soon. If we didn’t we faced up to seven years in prison. We all at one time or another made a conscious decision to make a controlled release of non-operational information… We were made to line up to meet the president, one at a time. My advice to everyone was not to mess this up now - we all wanted to get home.

“In addition to being bound by rules of engagement for a country on its knees, these Royal Marines seems to have absolutely no idea of what it means to be in a war. This is surely the Diana-fication of the British military. And just look at how they behaved. It is dismaying enough that, as we now learn, the rules no longer require the British military merely to give their name rank and number when captured, unless they are actually prisoners of war, but allow them explicitly to tell their captors what they want to hear provided they give away no secrets or betray their colleagues. But these sailors went much further. In their desperation to get home – their overriding objective, rather than the defence of their country — they abased themselves before the Iranians, falsely ‘confessing’ to having trespassed into Iranian waters, thanking Ahmadinejad and asking for his forgiveness. When they were prepared for release, they fooled about in front of the video cameras, dressed in what we now learn were the off-duty suits of the Revolutionary Guard instead of their Naval uniforms to drive home the propaganda gift they had given the Iranians.

“Most astounding of all, they arrived home clutching the goodie bags of sweets, CDs, books and trinkets they had been given to cement the grotesque impression of Iranian benevolence, for all the world as if returning from a children’s party. Why didn’t they leave these ‘gifts’ behind? Why didn’t they leave them on the plane? Was there simply no-one in the Royal Navy or MoD who thought that maybe it might not be an entirely wonderful idea for servicemen released from captivity to retain and flourish ‘gifts’ from their manipulative captors, thus actively assisting the propaganda coup? Is there simply no-one with any sense at all left in the British defence establishment?

“And now, to cap it all, they are actually selling their stories, as has been observed as if they were contestants in a reality TV show instead of the instruments of a military debacle and national humiliation. The fact that they have been allowed to do this is in itself astounding…”

Trickish Knave:

Everything I have said about the actual actions of the sailors and marines -- and everything said by Melanie Phillips -- is based upon the captives' own accounts, both in the press conference after they were released and in subsequent interviews.

The location of HMS Cornwall is known by prior reporting. The radar and armaments system on Cornwall-class Type 22 Batch 3 frigates is readily available through public sources.

Basra Air Station is the primary Coalition air base for the provinces of Basra, Muthanna, Najaf, and Karbala; it's run by the RAF, and in addition to British air forces hosts Danish, Norwegian, Australian, and American air forces.

Do you have a source that disagrees, saying either that the Brits fought valiantly for their freedom, or that the Cornwall had no means of defending against swift boats, or that there are insufficient warplanes at Basra Air Station to deal with a few little boats whose entire armament consists of a mounted machine-gun?

Dafydd

Everything I have said about the actual actions of the sailors and marines -- and everything said by Melanie Phillips -- is based upon the captives' own accounts, both in the press conference after they were released and in subsequent interviews.

Understand, but you disagree with the captors in your post saying that they should have fought and you base that claim on a string of historical accounts. My whole argument with your post was clearly stated and had nothing to do with past actions of military. You take what the captors say about there being no option to fight and you disagree with them. I'm saying you weren't there and nobody has the perspective on whether or not to fight it out except for those 15 Brits. It's armchair analysis and is on parallel with the morning after the Superbowl.

The location of HMS Cornwall is known by prior reporting. The radar and armaments system on Cornwall-class Type 22 Batch 3 frigates is readily available through public sources.

Again you are correct. I have easy access to Janes also. I never said the Cornwall was incapable of fighting off the Iranians.

Basra Air Station is the primary Coalition air base for the provinces of Basra, Muthanna, Najaf, and Karbala; it's run by the RAF, and in addition to British air forces hosts Danish, Norwegian, Australian, and American air forces.

Thanks for the geography lesson.

Do you have a source that disagrees, saying either that the Brits fought valiantly for their freedom, or that the Cornwall had no means of defending against swift boats, or that there are insufficient warplanes at Basra Air Station to deal with a few little boats whose entire armament consists of a mounted machine-gun?

No I don't but that is irrelevant and you can't seem to grasp the fact that although there was support nearby to the kidnapped Brits they chose not to use it. I agree that there was superior fire power available from air, land and sea and that they could have blown the Iranians to smithereens. But the facts are clear by the accounts of the Brits and they were taken at a vulnerable time of debarkation. What were the planes and Cornwall to do, blow up the boats with the Brits in them?

To be fair, I heard sound clips from the Brits after they were released and I would have to conceded that they were pussies. One of them said that if it weren't for the female being there he probably wouldn't have made it through the ordeal. Another sound clip had the Brit saying they were fed 3 times and day but when they tried to talk to each other the guards told them to shush. John McCain is rolling his eyes I'm sure.

Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that there was a plethora of support available to bail out the Brits- why didn't they use it? I'm saying nobody knows the answer to that except the 15 Brits and they said that fighting was not an option.

Trickish Knave:

You take what the captors say about there being no option to fight and you disagree with them.

Yup.

I'm saying you weren't there and nobody has the perspective on whether or not to fight it out except for those 15 Brits.

Nope. Many others have.

It's armchair analysis and is on parallel with the morning after the Superbowl.

Yup. Are you really prepared to argue that one cannot watch a game and conclude, after the fact, that the quarterback made a terrible mistake?

[Y]ou can't seem to grasp the fact that although there was support nearby to the kidnapped Brits they chose not to use it.

Not grasp it? That's just what I'm complaining about!

What were the planes and Cornwall to do, blow up the boats with the Brits in them?

You mean, after the lengthy period of discussion between the Iranians and the Brits that preceded the surrender, during which they could have radioed for support? You're only talking about after they finished arguing, surrendered, and got into the Iranian boats?

If the Harriers didn't arrive until then, I would suggest they start buzzing the Iranian boats at Mach 0.8 about 20 feet off the deck, coming in from different directions. That'll rock their world.

In the meanwhile, the Cornwall should be steaming to intercept the Iranians. Once HMS Cornwall is on scene, it can fire across the bow of the lead swift boat.

If that doesn't work, launch the Lynx, which can fly up and rake the bridge with machine-guns or pump a Sea Skua into it.

(Being like a PCF, the bridge is probably set high enough you won't seriously injure anyone held down on the deck. But if you're worried about it, rake the rudder/screw assembly instead.)

If all else fails, ram the lead boat and rescue the crew and any prisoners. Meanwhile, the Lynx heads for the next boat in the convoy.

But honestly, your best chance is before they get into the boats in the first place... which is when their American equivalents would have resisted.

I'm saying nobody knows the answer to that except the 15 Brits and they said that fighting was not an option.

Is it just barely possible that they have some incentive for denying that they were cowards who failed in their duty? <g>

Dafydd

Hello,
I have been in combat and contradicted rules of engagement so, I do think I have legitimacy to comment on this. I was wounded in the first gulf war, first I was shot, then I called in a missile strike on my position to save other soldiers. Technically I acted against the rules of engagement, as the unit I was attached to was a Marine Corps long range reconnaisance patrol and we were supposed to avoid contact where possible. But rules of engagement are guidelines, you are allowed to contradict them if the situation dictates. I called in the missile strike so that the Iraqis who shot me would think we were all dead and would go play somewhere else instead of discovering the location of the others.

Here is what I think about the "fighting back was not an option" comment. The British sailors were aboard a steel cargo boat of some kind, the first Iranians to arrive were in small rubber boats. The British soldiers could have refused the order to stand to and be boarded. Anyone attempting to board the cargo boat could have been kicked off. Now the Iranians have a problem. They can open fire, wait for reinforcements, or go away. The sailors are in a good position to win a firefight from the steel cargo boat firing down on rubber boats. In the meantime they can call on their own reinforcements from the Cornwall.

The British Navy has a 300 year tradition of not surrendering or running away. A British admiral refused a direct order to withdraw his ships from Crete, the Luftwaffe was pounding the British ships, because the admiral was evacuating British soldiers remaining on Crete who were in the middle of embarking on the admiral's ships. The admiral's reply to the order to abandon the British soldiers because he might lose another ship was, "No Sir, it takes 3 years to build a warship, it takes 300 years to build a tradition, I will complete the evacuation come what may". This admiral faced court martial for disobeying a direct order during combat. I seriously doubt that the British sailors/marines were under orders to surrender without at least attempting to avoid capture.

For argument's sake I will give the sailors "on the scene" the benefit of the doubt for a moment.

Now we come to their behavior during captivity. A soldier is permitted by military code to give their name, rank, and serial number. That's it. Any film of the captives should have shown angry people with very sullen faces. Glares, not smiles. There should have been no cooperation with the captives in making any films. Look at pictures of American POWs during WWII. They aren't smiling. How many propaganda films did the NAZIs make where American soldiers apologized for trespassing on NAZI territory?

At one point the Iranians are using the British sailors/marines in making a propaganda film where they are all standing around the Iranian President. THERE WERE NO GUARDS BETWEEN THE IRANIAN PRESIDENT AND THE SAILORS. Now, here is a known terrorist who has vowed to wage a war of genocide against Israel, who is actively arming and training fighters to fight the British army in southern Iraq, and who has just had the British marines kidnapped. He is in arms reach. Marines are trained to kill with a single blow. Had I been standing there making that film I would have killed Ahmadenijad. So much for the propaganda film.

There is no way that a senior official of the Third Reich would have stood around with a bunch of US POWs without guards where the official could have come within arms reach of a US soldier. Because the outcome of that would have been certain, one less official of the Third Reich.

Rather off-topic, and I'm not even certain you're still checking comments here, but I think this article makes a nice counter-point to the actions of the Royal Navy and Marines:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/british-forces-at-war-as-witnessed-by-an-american.htm

Binder:

Oh, I read that. I didn't mean to imply that all the Brits are cowards... just the lot that surrendered without a fight. Or to be more precise, they were misled by a poltroon of a commanding officer.

When the British have good leadership, they're very good in a fight. I wish we could invite them to train with our troops and embed with American units, without them feeling like we're insulting them or being condescending.

Dafydd

Are you really prepared to argue that one cannot watch a game and conclude, after the fact, that the quarterback made a terrible mistake?

There is a difference between concluding that a mistake has been made and throwing around amatuerish scenarios (based on what can be gleaned from one's limited experience) as to what he should have done. Just like the multimillion dollar quarterbacks who play the game and not the armchair quarterbacks, so it is with people who do not fight for their country and criticize those who do.

I'm saying you weren't there and nobody has the perspective on whether or not to fight it out except for those 15 Brits.

Nope. Many others have.

Correct, thousands of others have perspective, including Big Bird, but no one except the 15 Brits knows if a fire fight was the right thing to do.

/towel throw
/wrist

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...

I usually give up on these kinds of discussions a lot sooner but you usually have fair insight into matters like these. You call them cowards because they didn't fight it out and I think that is unfair to the Brits. However, their actions after capture, in my opinion, are far more cowardly.

Dafydd:

I completely agree with you, and posted the Michael Yon story mostly to prove that very point, in case people are getting overly disgusted with the British.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)