Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

No shite. Especially when compared and contrasted with the behavior of the Royal Irish Regiment blokes in Sierra Leone back in '00. How did the Brits handle it? They negotiated...for awhile... then sent in the lads from Stirling to get 'em out. Guess the Irish just have a bit more spine....

Posted by Andy at April 3, 2007 12:50 PM

It will be interesting when this is seen in retrospect, what effect having females in with the males had on the males. Since one of the women was the first to crack, presumably she was put under some pressure, and one wonders if further threats to her, or other women, played a role in the behavior of the men.

Posted by K at April 3, 2007 12:59 PM

2 captives apologized publicly. One - the commanding officer - was responsible for surrendering without a fight. That leaves 12, out of 15, who do not (as far as is known) deserve the harsh words in these two articles.

Posted by jjustwwondering at April 3, 2007 01:10 PM

They may also be following orders. I find it hard to believe that they would buckle under so quickly otherwise or as you note surrender without a fight. But it makes more sense if they were commanded to comply with Iranian demands. I think people are too easily throwing around accusations of cowardice here.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 3, 2007 01:26 PM

I'm glad no one is implying that Iran might have tortured the 15 Brits into confessing.

After all, that's the purview of fascist states like Amerikkka. Iran would never do that.

Posted by Lurking Observer at April 3, 2007 02:34 PM

Perhaps they had orders not to resist with the hope that their capture would fire up the British people for war with Iran. If that was the plan, it backfired.

Posted by Chess player at April 3, 2007 03:29 PM

The writer of the article is a moron. Yeah, it's pretty easy to criticize the marines for not getting themselves killed when your sitting safely on that comfy chair and pouring a latte down your fat face.

Posted by X at April 3, 2007 03:32 PM

Yeah, it's pretty easy to criticize the marines for not getting themselves killed when your sitting safely on that comfy chair and pouring a latte down your fat face.

Not to mention how easy it is to criticize the writer of an article who used his own name, hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

I really tire of these anonymous morons.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 3, 2007 04:47 PM

Britain simply doesn't have the wherewithal to do anything about it any more. Successive governments more interested in buying votes by recruiting legions of chair-warmers than in defending the country have left us in that position. And making empty threats just makes an individual, or a nation, look stupid.

The captain of HMS Cornwall is also almost blameless. He was doubtless under orders not to "escalate the situation". The error may have been in not pulling back the boats when the helicopter on guard had to retire.

What should have happened is that the Iranians should have been blown out of the water; but they were protected by the spinelessness of the UK Government of the day.

I hate to say it, but these soldiers and sailors should be thought of as casualties of war, and Iran reminded that the UK still has a boomer or two.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at April 3, 2007 05:05 PM

This Iranian situation has two recent parallels:

(1) The Chinese forcing down a US recon plane. Hmmm . . . Maybe we should have bombed 'em then.

(2) Hezbollah nabbing that IDF soldier. In that case, Israel should have "gone Okinawa" in southern Lebanon instead of dropping bombs on infrastructure.

Actually, the Iranian Republican Guard has been baiting the West for years, in part because a Western military response will strengthen the hardliners in Tehran at the expense of the moderates.

Its a tricky nuanced situation and Derbyshire calling the Brits "wimps" isn't too helpful.

Posted by Bill White at April 3, 2007 05:18 PM

This Iranian situation has two recent parallels:

(1) The Chinese forcing down a US recon plane. Hmmm . . . Maybe we should have bombed 'em then.

(2) Hezbollah nabbing that IDF soldier. In that case, Israel should have "gone Okinawa" in southern Lebanon instead of dropping bombs on infrastructure.

Actually, the Iranian Republican Guard has been baiting the West for years, in part because a Western military response will strengthen the hardliners in Tehran at the expense of the moderates.

Its a tricky nuanced situation and Derbyshire calling the Brits "wimps" isn't too helpful.

Posted by Bill White at April 3, 2007 05:18 PM

This Iranian situation has two recent parallels:

(1) The Chinese forcing down a US recon plane. Hmmm . . . Maybe we should have bombed 'em then.

(2) Hezbollah nabbing that IDF soldier. In that case, Israel should have "gone Okinawa" in southern Lebanon instead of dropping bombs on infrastructure.

Actually, the Iranian Republican Guard has been baiting the West for years, in part because a Western military response will strengthen the hardliners in Tehran at the expense of the moderates.

Its a tricky nuanced situation and Derbyshire calling the Brits "wimps" isn't too helpful.

Posted by Bill White at April 3, 2007 05:18 PM

Yes, this is a tricky situation. While it does appear that the US is keen on an intensification of the situation, it appears that Britain is not interested in moving us towards another war. The captain of the ship may have been under orders to do everything in his power not to escalate the situation, this instruction having been passed on to him while the Iranians were boarding the vessel. It is rather silly to ascribe cowardly motives to various individuals until the full picture emerges, which can only happen after the sailors are released. It's a good time to be patient and not put ones foot in said foot owner's mouth.

Rumor also has it about an air assault on Iranian nuke sites on Good Friday. I hope that's just a Russian April Fools joke, but this may be related to the orders to the crew. After all, the Iranian RevGuard General who disappeared in Turkey could have spilled all the beans needed for this assualt, and perhaps the US and Britain have diametrically opposed views on what happens next with said spilled beans.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 3, 2007 07:49 PM

However this happened it was a serious mistake by the Brits...a country that does not have an armed force which will fight to defend "itself" really has no armed force period.

Robert

Posted by at April 3, 2007 08:39 PM

T_n_T, I've seen those reports about a "Good Friday attack". Frankly, those same sources have been predicting an imminent U.S./British attack on Iran on a regular basis for about two years now, and it hasn't happened yet. They might be right this time, but I wouldn't care to put any money on it.

I'm tempted to say that eventually they'll have to be right just by sheer persistence, though.

Posted by Jeff Dougherty at April 3, 2007 08:48 PM

"I'm glad no one is implying that Iran might have tortured the 15 Brits into confessing. "

--No, both Peters and Derbyshire discuss that possibility.

Derbyshire writes: "Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I expect Marines to"
And: "The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days."

Peters writes: "Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo Rose for Tehran? The Iranians judged their victims well"

Posted by jjustwwondering at April 3, 2007 11:29 PM

Again, now that the US has thrown its hat into the torture ring, it's not in a good position to criticize Iran. Undoubtedly Iran is worse, moreover nothing that the US does remotely justifies torture perpetrated by any other country. The point is that what the US has done is a textbook case in losing the moral high ground.

In fact, consider this comparison. Nancy Pelosi went to Syria and wore hijab. The Bush Administration flew an apparently innocent Canadian citizen to Syria, where he was tortured for months. Which is worse, acceding to Syria's dress code, or borrowing its torture chambers?

Posted by at April 4, 2007 12:01 AM

As a UK citizen I would say the lack of fight from the Marines is more likely due to their political masters than not wanting to get stuck into the Iranians. It's 25 years since the Falklands conflict, where there was clear political and military leadership, that isn't the case now on both counts, with the military leadership allowing the politicians to tear the heart out of the armed services of this country. Prime Minister Blair (Neville Chamberlain ?) talks big and spends little as far as military spending concerned. We have Apache helecopters supporting the Army in Afghanistan, they should also be in Iraq supporting the Marines on their patrols, the only diplomacy Iran understands is at the point of a gun and the sooner the UK government understands this the better.

Mark

Posted by Mark at April 4, 2007 03:13 AM

I'm reluctant to admit it -- it smacks of the dreaded chickenhawkery -- but Peters and Derbyshire have a point. (Peters, having been in uniform shoes himself, seems to me to have a greater right to criticize than that intellectual onanist Derbyshire.)

I mean, when you sign up, you agree to give your life, if necessary, in defense of your country. Volunteering -- even under threat of death or torture -- to make highly damaging propaganda films for your country's enemies is betraying that promise. There's not much difference between what they've done and, say, being capture by the enemy in a firefight and then agreeing to tell them the secret codes that will let them lure your buddies into an ambush. The argument doesn't apply to civilians because civilians are understood not to have made that commitment. That's why the guy in uniform gets the extra veneration -- because he's made the extra commitment.

The only explanation is a sad one. There's nothing intrinsically less courageous about these men and woman than those in previous generations. What's different, I think, is how actions of courage are treated back home. If they did refuse to cooperate, resisted, fought back -- and maybe some got hurt or killed -- how would they be treated back home? As marble larger-than-life heroes? Would their actions be admired at face value? Or would they be probed by Oprah, Washington Post journalists, and other such pond-scum for some "humanizing" weakness that cuts them down to size? "But how did you feel as you watched them saw off the head of your buddy? You were scared, weren't you? Were you angry at the prime minister? Don't you feel you were the real victim here?"

In the face of general cynicism about the value of courage and duty, it's hardly surprising that the men and women singled out to perform it hesitate.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 04:33 AM

"The captain of the ship may have been under orders to do everything in his power not to escalate the situation, this instruction having been passed on to him while the Iranians were boarding the vessel."

By all accounts, the Iranians didn't board any vessels. Certainly not the HMS Cornwall. The Brits were in IBSs and were likely eskorted (for some reason, the blog won't let me post that word in its correct spelling) by the Iranians to shore, or perhaps the IBSs were towed.

At any rate, as others have posted, it didn't take long for the captives to capitulate. That in and of itself is a pretty damning indictment.

Posted by Andy at April 4, 2007 06:11 AM

I have similar feelings to those expressed by Ralph Peters whom I respect, however I believe that the chain of command, starting with the politicians is responsible for this fiasco.

Even though I also question the 2 soldiers' character for complying so easily I put it to this test. I've had a few beers overseas in bars with British SAS soldiers. Ask yourself, "Self, would I tell those SAS guys to their face up close and personal that the Brits were wimps?" I know I wouldn't and I'm not that wimpy.

Posted by philw at April 4, 2007 06:39 AM

Yup, blank space, you're right.

After all, witness how the entire world sealed off Iran after its outrageous takeover of the US embassy which violated every tenet of international law, long before anyone had heard of Abu Ghraib in the West.

Notice how the Iranians' treatment of their own women and gays and Sufis during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations stirred the world to shun them from the halls of power, at least until Lyddie England showed up.

The value of that moral high ground cannot be overestimated!

Posted by Lurking Observer at April 4, 2007 06:56 AM

Andy,

I stand corrected. There was no waterboarding.
;-)

Oh, I see that Ahmedenijadmanbad has just announced the release of the wimpy marines.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 07:44 AM

After all, witness how the entire world sealed off Iran after its outrageous takeover of the US embassy

Of course, Iran has been left with two major kinds of influence in the world: oil and thug power. And it is not completely closed society either; for example, it has 7 million Internet users.

But despite your sarcasm, you're not completely wrong. Iran has had to cope with expensive economic sanctions for a long time, precisely because its moral standing is in the basement.

Basically the Bush approach, which you guys have accepted, tries to have it both ways. On the one hand, the United States is the great bringer of democracy to the rest of the world. On the other hand, so what if it tortures some people, because moral standing isn't worth much anyway.

This is too hypocritical to work in the modern world. Most Iranians who want better democracy in Iran won't trust the United States if Americans torture Muslims. Syrians who want democracy in Syria especially won't trust the US if the US outsources torture to Syria. It's that simple.

Posted by at April 4, 2007 08:03 AM

While it does appear that the US is keen on an intensification of the situation, it appears that Britain is not interested in moving us towards another war.

Four words. Good cop. Bad cop.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at April 4, 2007 08:15 AM

Sounds like standing orders to me. They surrendered, they did what they had to to avoid confrontation and waited for diplomacy to take over. Just like happened a couple of years ago when this happened, which isn't being remarked upon.

I've not seen all the "confessions" but the one CNN just carried the commander "confessed" to being told he had trespassed on Iranian waters.

Not being in their situation, and not knowing what their standing orders were in the event of capture, it really is silly speculation from the perspective of these 2 rather ridiculous editorials.

But Rand linking to silly speculative rants???? Never I say! Never!

Posted by Daveon at April 4, 2007 10:39 AM

Especially when compared and contrasted with the behavior of the Royal Irish Regiment blokes in Sierra Leone back in '00. How did the Brits handle it? They negotiated...for awhile... then sent in the lads from Stirling to get 'em out. Guess the Irish just have a bit more spine....

It probably has more to do with the major differences in the two cases. Getting your people out of a known location from a group of "freedom fighters" who have known and weak miltiary characteristics is one thing.

Attempting a rescue from an unknown location in the capital of a hostile power with a strong military is quite another.

It doesn't matter how brave you are, intelligence suggests they didn't even know where in Tehran they were being held, which makes a rescue mission irrelvent.

Posted by Daveon at April 4, 2007 11:03 AM

I'm not even sure why this is still debated. It looks to me like the UK sailors followed orders, humiliating as they were.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 4, 2007 03:55 PM

I'm not even sure why this is still debated. It looks to me like the UK sailors followed orders, humiliating as they were.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 4, 2007 03:55 PM

There were significant mistakes made on board the ship by command and by the "Marines" (RM) when the Iranians showed up.

The performance of the RM and RN personel in captivity was embarrasing.

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 04:50 PM

"It probably has more to do with the major differences in the two cases. Getting your people out of a known location from a group of "freedom fighters" who have known and weak miltiary characteristics is one thing.

Attempting a rescue from an unknown location in the capital of a hostile power with a strong military is quite another."

My point was related to the behavior of the captives, rather than the probability/feasibility of a rescue attempt.

The RIR captives in Sierra Leone were under constant threat and fear of torture and execution, by a much more unstable bunch of characters. Yet, over the course of their captivity, and not knowing whether diplomacy would triumph, they steadfastly refused to capitulate to the demands of the West Side Boys that they speak pubicly to the BBC and the world at large.

Posted by Andy at April 4, 2007 05:31 PM

Andy, the standing orders and rules of engagement in the two situations would be completely different. The role of the British Armed forces in SL was also significantly different. The British were training and supporting the government and, I would assume, had a ROE for dealing with such situations.

I suspect they also have them for Iran a nation, I'd like to point out, we're not _actually_ at war with yet.

The two circumstances don't really match up.

I don't even see it as particularly humiliating either.

Posted by Daveon at April 4, 2007 06:01 PM

Sounds like standing orders to me.

I'm sorry, you think it's plausible that the Royal Marines had standing orders to, if captured, freely cooperate with their captors' demands that they make damaging public confessions of responsibility?

That totally beggars belief. What would be the purpose of those orders? To save the lives of individual Marines at all costs? But that's not the point of the Marines. The point of the Marines is to achieve the nation's political and military goals, even at the cost of their own lives. To sign up to be a Marine means to expect to be asked to give your life for your nation's honor (or at least interests). To give them standing orders to sacrific their nation's honor (or at least interests) to save their lives is totally bizarrely backward.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen. But if it did, it turns the concept of military service onto its Alice in Wonderland inverse, where the nation is expected to sacrifice its security and well-being in order to protect the lives of its troops.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 10:41 PM

The US turned Arar over to the Canadians who based
on a tip from the Syrian Mukharabat, who suspected
his brother who was a member of the Muslim Brother
hood. The tie of Syria-philes like Armitage,and Leverett made it possible. Two major facilitators
in Madrid and Hamburg, Hezdar Zammar, and Mamoun
Darkanzali were Syrian Of course, Pelosi didn't visit or even denounce the Mukharabat while there. While we were cooperating withSyria, they have provided men, & material, and access
for jihadi and Baathists in the current war.
Not to mention, sanctuary for remaining WMD
stockpiles. Supported Hamas,(the real chief in Damascus, not Ramallah) Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Ramadan Shallah, their director, & Sami Al Arian's USF colleague, is there) Hezbollah; they provide diplomatic facilities. Their supposed
opponents, the Jund al Shams, responsible for
the recent attack on the US Embassy; was used to
carry out the Hariri assasination, as a catspaw
for the Mukharabat.
So much for that.

Posted by narciso at April 5, 2007 06:56 AM

Oh yes. I think that's exactly what happened. They were probably instructed to cooperate fully in the event they were kidnapped by the Iranians.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 5, 2007 08:47 AM

I'm sorry, you think it's plausible that the Royal Marines had standing orders to, if captured, freely cooperate with their captors' demands

Ignoring the strawman tacked on the end.

Yes. I would be astonished if they didn't, especially given this has happened before and not all that long ago.

Posted by Daveon at April 5, 2007 09:26 AM

The point of the Marines is to achieve the nation's political and military goals, even at the cost of their own lives.

Yes it is. I'm not seeing your point here. *you* might thing there was a military or political goal to be gained by annoying Iran and getting agressive over this point, I don't. Not at this stage of our joint military position.

Quite the reverse. Having the troups capitulate and embarass themselves (as I expect they were by having to surrender) and hence not escalate the situation to one where more lives would be at state is exactly the kind of sacrafice I'd expect of Marines.

I don't know many Royal Marines, but I'm pretty sure they didn't like this one bit. However, if the alternative is escalating a situation with that bunch of nutjobs in Tehran? Quite right. Only option at this point.

Posted by Daveon at April 5, 2007 09:31 AM

"The point is that what the US has done is a textbook case in losing the moral high ground."

The story is: Iran takes British hostages.
The point of it is: the US is baaad.
Because, whatever the story, that is its point!

Posted by jjustwwondering at April 5, 2007 11:47 AM

Having the troups capitulate and embarass themselves (as I expect they were by having to surrender) and hence not escalate the situation to one where more lives would be at state is exactly the kind of sacrafice I'd expect of Marines.

Daveon, they didn't embarass themselves, they embarassed their country. Only you and I in the West can imagine they embarassed themselves, because only you and I think that of course the British didn't wander across the border through incompetence, or wanton aggression. And only you and I think that of course a British Marine is a tough sort who would not say anything to avoid being slapped around a little, or denied dessert at dinner. So only you and I think that of course their behaviour was just the most practical way to get them home, and avoid wasting military resources on a piss-ant Third World country run by a raving lunatic. You and I, with our shared assumptions about Britain, can interpret their statements as harmless buffoonery.

Much of the world does not share our assumptions, however. To them the question of British honor is still open, something to be debated, something about which evidence can and should be collected. Well, what happens when they view the evidence of these videotapes? What does it say, taken at face value, about British competence and honor, when you don't have pre-existing ideas about British competence, honor, and courage? Nothing good. There's the problem. If you think half a billion country Chinese are going to look at those videotapes, read the garbled subtitles, and automatically think oh Royal Marines would not lick the boots of their captors in so pathetic a way without a damn good reason, without direct orders from above, then you are naive.

I'm not disagreeing that quite possibly a quiet surrender was ordered, as a means of avoiding some kind of schoolground confrontation that would only please Ahmalookinforattention and cost the British many more Marine lives. In fact, that could arguably be good policy. (I don't think it would be -- I don't think any policy other than really excessive retaliation works with bullies. Civilized nations are another story, but Iran isn't one of them at present.)

But I can't believe they were ordered to comply with Iranian demands for making, in essence, propaganda tapes. What would have been the problem had they been ordered to give, and given, nothing but name, rank, and serial number? Refused to wear the stupid headgear, refused to perform on camera or sign letters, et cetera? Yes, they might have been tortured or killed, so that sucks for them. But what harm to Britain? Seems to me none. The only one who'd have been in a bad spot then would be Ahmawanker, who would be forced to decide between ignominiously handing them back or actually killing them, which would at the same time have given the Royal Navy every justification for initiating some very hostile action and deprived him of the protection of holding hostages.

Instead, Ahmadilly got to look all statesman-like by letting them go, after they crawled before him, while wagging his finger at the British for daring to take the short-cut across his front yard in the Gulf. The British got to look like wimps. It does not look good even on American TV screens, where we naturally think very warmly of Great Britain and the Marines. It will look terrible on Malaysian or Korean TV screens.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 02:48 PM

As an aside, I wonder whose idea the kidnapping was? Supposedly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had little part in the affair until the end when the captives were paraded in front of him (if I understand the above news report correctly) shortly before they were freed. And the action of freeing the captives was called a "surprise" (by most of the weatern media so it appears) which if true may indicate that Ahmadinejad preempted the negotiators on the Iranian side.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 5, 2007 10:06 PM

Ok, I heard the "press conference" where the commander in charge gave excuses for why they got captured and behaved the way they did. Eh. It doesn't look like "orders" to me any more.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 6, 2007 07:12 PM

Er, I mean "officer in charge" not "commander in charge".

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 6, 2007 07:13 PM

Post a comment