tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post5534146754266193156..comments2024-01-30T14:57:53.352-05:00Comments on Town Commons: Official Inquiries Into The Iran UK Hostage Crisis Leave Much To Be Desiredscotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05052920226349799408noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post-58775951363594677292007-06-23T17:14:00.000-04:002007-06-23T17:14:00.000-04:00Thanks, Scott - it's interesting to see how someon...Thanks, Scott - it's interesting to see how someone with some military experience (if in a slightly different culture) sees this. The strange thing is the Royal Navy has always had the reputation of being, if anything, far too ready to Court Martial its officers. A lot of the British news reports on this issue lead off with the famous Voltaire quote of how the British like to shoot an Admiral every now and again "pour encourager les autres". This was originally inspired by the execution by firing squad of Admiral John Byng in 1757 for nothing more than following the orders of his superiors. And it's not just a historical vice either. I was reading only a few weeks ago about the court martial of the captain of the British cruiser HMS Manchester, sunk by Italian Torpedo boats in 1942, despite many reports by his crew that he'd done everything possible to save the ship.<BR/><BR/>I guess things have changed now. Personally I blame America (no, seriously!). Britain tends to get most bad American ideas about ten years late and half as strong (the good ones mostly seem to pass by us entirely!) and we're just catching up with Oprah/Geraldo style confessional talk show culture. I've got no great nostalgia for the whole "stiff upper lip" thing but, really, this was probably taking things a bit too far.billm99ukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11652530649924159098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7148951396576155849.post-6571673448928622012007-06-22T04:52:00.000-04:002007-06-22T04:52:00.000-04:00A few passing comments:It's not (entirely) clear w...A few passing comments:<BR/><BR/>It's not (entirely) clear whether the personnel who sold their stories did so with the permission of the Ministry of Defence - and, in particular, the senior Navy command. However it is the case that permission was given for their stories to be printed and for them to talk to the press. I suspect that there was a degree of collusion nonetheless. I would regard the 'sale' as a separate issue.<BR/><BR/>Probably many in Britain would agree with the comments about the lack of official EU support. But it is worth mentioning that some EU countries are supporting the efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Then again, Britain has learned over many years of grim and bitter experience not to expect too much from those on the other side of the English (and Irish) Channel.<BR/><BR/>It's my view that the EU is not wholly dysfunctional. In fact it has been a roaring success. Whether that has actually benefitted anyone apart from its ministers, officials and their various cronies is another discussion entirely. However, many in the UK regard the EU as a dangerous encumbrance.<BR/><BR/>The Fulton report (and his exact Terms of Reference) should be published in full. There are precious few security considerations which are of real concern here. I do not believe that Fulton was expected to make recommendations, but he was certainly asked to carry out an investigation. The question there is, into what, exactly? So far we have merely had observations about the content of the report from various others, such as Stirrup, West, Band and others. Perhaps we should be allowed to judge for ourselves. In any event, it is not British soldiers who will benefit from this, but Britsh sailors. It's my information that the sole Marine involved was under Naval command.<BR/><BR/>Dannatt's position is slightly different. As I understand things he does not feel that he has sufficient resource to continue fighting in two separate theatres at this level of committment. It seems, too, that he's not convinced that a victory can be achieved. That may well be so, as how does one define 'victory' in either country? Given a military imposition of stability (and that is not looking too good at present), what process thereafter is planned to lead to complete withdrawal and at what cost over what period of time? Britain does not have that kind of cash, nor does it have that kind of motivation.<BR/><BR/>Finally, given the lack of resource and limited numbers of personnel (and this might support the Dannatt view), if our wrongdoers are indeed to be suspended from duty, we may no longer be able to field an army or send a navy to sea.Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.com