Someone Tell Nancy Pelosi, The British Hostage Crisis Is OUR Crisis

Do You Really Want Nancy Pelosi Leading The US?

The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the Mad Mullah's kidnapping of 15 British sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release." That was an appropriate response.

But what of Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives? A measure was indeed offered, but Pelosi refused to allow it to come to the floor for a vote despite personal appeals from Republican House members (see here). This decision by Pelosi and company was explained today:

Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.

"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.

More harm then good? You have got to be kidding. Is standing up to Iranian provocation by simply speaking out against it going to do harm? No, there is more going on here. While a Resolution condemning Iranian actions is symbolic and of no practical effect, Pelosi’s refusing to allow such a resolution to be heard on the floor of the House has significant practical effect. The message is clear. The Democrats in control of the House will not support our allies, nor will they support anything that might lead to retaliation against the Iranians, regardless of the provocation. She just handed the Iranians a free pass - for this act of provocation as well as for their continued meddling in Iraq. I am sure that message is being heard loud and clear in Terhan.

Let there be no doubt. Pelosi is keeping her eye on the prize – Democratic political gains in Congress and the Presidency - and all else is meaningless to her. She will fight tooth and nail to prevent the use of force against Iran for any reason, just as she is fighting to see us out of Iraq while the going is still tough, before Petraeus’ surge has any chance of succeeding. She is banking on the anti-war left in America carrying the day and insuring long term partisan political gain. This refusal to even condemn the Iranian actions is simply one more manifestation of that strategy.

Pelosi’s spokesman's assertion that this is “AN’ international crisis is both craven and false. This is “OUR” crisis – not just the Brits. There is no doubt that this act of Iranian aggression is aimed at the US and the UK, even though it was only the UK that was targeted. See here and here.

Pelosi’s refusal to acknowledge that this is a crisis shared by the US is simply more of the same type of dissembling she regularly engages in for partisan political purposes. On the day that the House passed HR 1591, legislating retreat from Iraq on a date certain, Pelosi claimed in a speech before the House that the war in Iraq was “not related to the war on terror.”

This is sheer lying to the American public. It is not spin. It is not opinion. It is a lie. It contradicts every pronouncement from bin Laden and Zarqawi since 2002 that Iraq is the central battle for al Qaeda. It ignores the reality that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. It shuts off any assessment of the likely ramifications that will arise from leaving Iraq without a functioning democracy.

I have posted on this insanity before, see here, and Charles Krauthammer has weighed in on the subject today. See here.

This is all just par for the course for Nancy Pelosi and company. Pelosi’s refusal to allow the resolution condemning the Iranian kidnapping of 15 of Her Majesty’s sailors and marines is a scandal. It needs to be portrayed as such by all people more concerned about our national security then they are about partisan political gain.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Addressing the Hostage Crisis, One of the First Steps Must be Publicly Addressing ROE and Force Protection

EU Referendum is reporting:

. . . As more details emerge of the snatch, it has emerged that only two boats were initially used by the Iranians. Video footage has been released by Iranian television showing close-ups of one of the vessels, a small speedboat with a crew of three, armed with what appears to be a single 12.7mm machine gun.

This was hardly a formidable force and one which, with the right assets in place and an alert overwatch, could easily have been seen off. Given the enormous repercussions of the kidnapping – to say nothing of the national humiliation – questions as to how the British service personnel were so easily ambushed now become increasingly urgent.

I had previously posted (see here) that Tony Blair needs to be called to the carpet for this, and the British ROE that allowed this to happen. Tony Blair's bald assertion before Parliment the other day that the ROE would have allowed for Her Majesty's sailors and marines to defend themselves and saying that they made the right decision (see here) is wholly insufficient. The fact is they did not defend themselves. The problem lies in that they saw surrendering without defending themselves as either the appropriate course of action or the only possible course of action.

I do not doubt the bravery of the 15 captured. So the reason for their allowing themselves to be captured must be a systemic one - and that inquiry has to start with the Tony Blair and the ROE. The former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West,has stated,

British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

It may be that that the British ROE is not as stated above, but rather would have been sufficient in this case, but that an altered ROE was communicated to the sailors and marines. This happened with the U.S. military, with the soldiers at ground level being given more restrictive ROE's by their immediate commanders because the commanders wanted to protect themselves from criticism. General Petraeus handled that by drafting new ROE and that included an order that his ROE could not be altered in any way. See here. In either event, whether the problem is as the Sea Lord has posited, or whether it is in translating the ROE to the troop level, there is a systemic problem that Blair needs to publicly admit and fix - not gloss over with praise for the decision forced upon the 15 sailors and marines.

And two, the commander of the HMS Cornwall needs to disciplined for dereliction of duty. Regardless of the ROE - these were his soldiers and marines and he is responsible for their safety and security. It is bad enough to have to lead troops into combat knowing that, despite your best efforts, some will become casualities. But to not reasonably protect them at all times during their deployment is unforgivable. That this kidnapping came on top of a previous kidnapping in the same place, and following recent warnings that Iran was likely to try and retaliate for the people they have lost in Iraq (see here), only adds more fuel to the fire.

There are several reasons these things need to be done. One, it is a necessary component of the myriad of things that need to be publicized to the mad mullahs that Britain will not tolerate provocative acts like this. Clearly establishing that Britain will fight back at the point of open provocation does not mean open warfare - it means self defense. The policy of de-escalation, if that in fact is the British navy's policy, is counter productive - it is what has allowed this kidnapping travesty. There is no need to provoke the Iranians, but there has to be an absolute line in the sand that the Iranians cannot pass without bloodshed. That line must clearly be drawn at the point of protecting from death or capture those who have volunteered to serve their country. Do you think for a moment that the Iranians would have tried this if they thought the British would fight back? We are much closer now to open warfare with Iran then we would have been had we engaged the Iranians and not let them take hostages.

Two, the troops who volunteer for Her Majesty's military need to understand that they will be supported and protected in the future. That means providing them with ROE that allow them to defend themselves and deploying them so that they can be reinforced or supported by fire in an event such as this kidnapping attempt. This whole situation has got to be horribly damaging to the morale of the British forces. Military leadership demands caring for and protecting one's troops. In the rush to get the hostages back - addressing why this happened and publicly correcting it must be among the top priorities.

Read More...

Summary only...

Good News Bad News & More News

Jules Crittenden makes a narrative of all the interesting news of the week relating to Iraq, Iran, and everything connected thereto.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Navigationally Challenged Mullahs

The UK Times is reporting that, over the weekend, Iran, provided "proof" to the British governement that the abduction of 15 of the U.K.'s sailors and marines occurred in Iranian waters by providing GPS data. The only problem - the coordinates placed the sailors and marines squarely in Iraqi waters. When the Brits pointed out this error and demanded the return of their sailors and marines, what they received intstead was a different set of GPS coordinates from the mad mullahs.

In response, the UK has released GPS data that shows the boarding party of 15 sailors and marines were 1.7 miles inside of Iraqi waters when they were abducted by the Iranians. See here. Their location was verified by the captain of the vessel the Brits were inspecting at the time of the abduction.

This will add clarity to the Britain's call for the return of their soldiers, though, in reality, the location of the abduction, either in or out of Iraqi waters, is really a red herring. See here. There is no legal justification for the Iranian action - it is Iran's rouge theocracy acting as it always has.

In addition to the GPS data, Britain outlined its course of action in dealing with the Iranians, and Tony Blair answered questions about the Rules of Engagement (ROE).

[T]he Prime Minister and . . . Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, . . . told MPs that Britain was immediately freezing all bilateral ties with Iran - except for contacts directly concerning the seized personnel.

"They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," Mrs Beckett said.

. . . Minutes after the MoD press conference, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Britain was mobilising international support to show Iran how isolated it was. Mr Blair described the seizure as “completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”.

Responding to a question from David Cameron, the Conservative leader, about the rules of engagement the patrols were operating under, Mr Blair said that the sailors and Marines could have used force in self defence. But he was was quite satisfied that they had taken the right decision in not drawing their arms after being surrounded by six heavily armed Iranian Republic Guard vessels.

"If they had engaged in military combat at the stage, there would undoubtedly have been severe loss of life," he said.

Mr Blair added by the time the crew of HMS Cornwall realised that the 15 had been detained and a Lynx helicopter dispatched to find them, they were already in Iranian waters - making intervention that much more dangerous.

As much as I like Tony Blair, I think this blithely passing over the ROE and acts of the Commander of the HMS Cornwall are very much in the wrong. See here.

This Iranian provocation is an act of war. For one, Tony Blair should clearly announce what steps he will take for force protection in the future -- i.e., that all boarding parties will operate within the support range of the fleet, and that future provocations will be met by overwhelming force. And two, while Tony Blair is taking the proper diplomatic steps, he should get the UN involved immediately, as this was a UN mandated mission the sailors and marines were undertaking. And last, diplomacy may not win out - and If this travesty is allowed to play out long, it will only further embolden the mad mullahs who already believe that, with the West, they are fighting a eunuch unable to defend itself. At some point, an ultimatum needs to be issued, backed up with all of the firepower that the UK and its ally, the US can provide in the Gulf. See here.

Update: The NYT is reporting (see here) that the Iranians have posted videos of the captured sailors and marines, including a video of the female sailor captured, now with her hair covered in Iranian style, praising her Iranian captors for their treatment and "admitting" that the sailors and marines were in Iranian waters when kidnapped. Further, the mullahs are now demanding that Britain officially "admit" that their sailors and marines were in Iranian waters.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dear Ali and Mahmoud, About Those 15 Hostages . . .

Some none too subtle messages are being air mailed to Iran today. The first and loudest was this morning's 'surprise' announcemnt from the U.S. Navy:

The US navy said on Tuesday it is staging major war games in the Gulf with two aircraft carriers for the first time since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at a time of heightened tension with Iran.

The manoeuvres involve the USS John C. Stennis, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and their battle groups.

They are being held as tensions run high between the West and the Islamic republic over Tehran's nuclear drive and the capture last week of 15 British marines and sailors in a waterway between Iran and Iraq in the northern Gulf.

"Two air wings from the aircraft carriers will conduct air warfare exercises while the surface components will conduct exercises in three general disciplines: anti-submarine, anti-surface and mine warfare," the Fifth Fleet said in a statement.

"This exercise demonstrates the importance of both strike groups ability to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the US long-standing commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in this region."

See also here. The second message is from Tony Blair,

Efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic moves fail, Tony Blair has said.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's spokesman, who should have simply remained silent, later emasculated Tony Blair's remarks, noting:

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair's remarks about a "different phase" did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.

Earlier, I posted my own suggestion here that Britain needs to move quickly, and that the first step should be diplomatic - i.e., an emergency meeting of the Security Council to condemn Iran's actions, etc. Jules Crittenden has posted the appropriate response if diplomacy does not quickly solve this situation. See here.

Hattip: Drudge

Read More...

Summary only...

Taheri on Iran's Act of War

Amir Taheri has an excellent article on Iran's kidnapping of the 15 British sailors and Marines. His point is that this was no simple act of border defense, irrespective of whether the Brits had strayed into Iranian territorial waters.

We may never know what actually happened. The area where the sailors were captured is at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a border estuary that has caused two wars between Iran and Iraq since the 1970s. Iraq claims ownership of the entire estuary, while Iran wants it divided between the two neighbors. It is possible that the sailors thought they were in Iraqi waters while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard's Marines believed them to be on the Iranian side.

What is certain, however, is that the sailors would not have been captured without Tehran's approval at the highest level. The Brits based in Basra have often strayed into waters that Iran regards as its own; Iranians have also often passed into Iraqi waters.

In other words, these are almost daily incidents. The standard procedure is to warn the trespassers and guide them back to their own side of the water. If that procedure was abandoned this time, the reason must be someone's desire to provoke an incident.

If trespassing were the cause of the incident, one wonders why the Islamic Republic turns a blind eye to American vessels often straying into its so-called continental-shelf territorial waters. A casual boat ride in the Persian Gulf would offer the visitor countless examples of this on a daily basis.

It is possible that the mullahs don't yet wish to provoke a direct clash with the United States, and have used the incident with the Brits as a means of testing the waters. They may also hope that they could force London to press Washington to release the Revolutionary Guard commanders held in Baghdad in exchange for the British hostages.

The mullahs' move cannot be fortuitous: The Brits were captured on the eve of a new Security Council resolution, drafted by Britain, to impose harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

It also came after months in which the Western powers have been exerting what is known as "proximity pressure" on the Khomeinist regime. A former deputy defense minister of the Islamic Republic, Gen. Ali-Reza Askari (Asgari), was kidnapped or defected and is presumed to be in the United States. Five senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its head of special operations, Gen. Mohammed Jafar Sahraroudi, remain under lock and key after having been arrested by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Tehran is full of rumors about supposed secret contacts established by the Americans with several senior political and military figures with a view toward a regime change. The contacts supposedly include a former prime minister and a former defense minister.

Not surprisingly, the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei appears to have concluded that the best defense is to go on the offensive. In a tough speech last week, Khamenei in effect put the Islamic Republic on a war footing. He endorsed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "no compromise" position on the nuclear issue and threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ever since it erupted on the scene, the Khomeinist revolution has always accompanied a hardening of its position by seizing hostages. In November 1979, just eight months after seizing power, the Khomeinist regime endorsed the seizure of American diplomats as hostages in Tehran.

During the following quarter-century, the Islamic Republic was involved in seizing more than 1,000 hostages from more than 30 countries in Iran or through its Hezbollah agents in Lebanon. These included a French ambassador to Tehran, Guy Georgy, two German bankers and eight American and French journalists - plus dozens of businessmen, priests and tourists from countries as far apart as South Korea and Italy. Right now, in addition to the 15 Brits, the Islamic Republic is holding a German hostage.

Western apologists for the Khomeinist regime have already started blaming the United States for having made the mullahs nervous. The argument of the apologists is simple: Don't do anything that makes the mullahs unhappy, or else they will do more mischief.

The truth, however, is that making the mullahs nervous may be the only way of persuading them to end their defiance of the United Nations and stop trying to export Khomeinism to neighboring countries.

Read the entire article here. Without going into extensive detail, I can attest, from my one year plus spent on the DMZ in Korea, of the accuracy of Taheri's description of how minor border are regularly treated between two countries without a clear border line and who are not in open hostilities.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Proposed Course of Action Against Iran

Jules Crittenden gives a thorough and sound analysis of the Iran problem and, in light of their abduction of the 15 British sailors, recommends an entirely appropriate course of action:

Typically in the past, in cases such as the Chinese detention of American naval aviators forced down in a collision with a Chinese fighter in 2000, and the seizure of British soldiers by Iran in 2004, the aggrieved party puts up with some public humiliation and plays it low key in order to get its people back alive.

The case here is different. The extent of Iranian interference in Iraq has become clear since 2004. The state of cold war that has existed between the United States and Iran since 1979 has turned into a hot proxy war as Iran floods weapons and cash into Iraq, training terrorists to fight there and even sending its own special forces in to support militias and insurgents. It is on the verge of turning into a direct military confrontation, though arguably with this act against an American ally and other acts against Americans, it already has.

Iran is a party to the intentional murder of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. There is also evidence that Iran is heavily involved in southern Iraq, and may well be responsible for the murder of British soldiers there. The British are our allies in this fight. The seizure of Britons is no different than a seizure of Americans. The Iranians have chosen to pick on them as the weaker party, calculating that Blair as a lame duck, with anti-war sentiment high, will do nothing. Iran calculates that new British leadership will want less to do with the United States in Iraq and may be more willing to deal on terms favorable to Iran. Iran’s timing is impeccable.

The question now is whether Iran has miscalculated, and if our leadership has the will to present a strong, united front against Iran in the interest of peace in the Middle East. The United States, conscious of political weakness at home, has been slowly building the case against Iran and acting in a measured fashion with the seizure of Iranian agents well inside Iraq. It has not attacked the supply lines and terrorist training camps in Iran. But it is increasingly clear that security in Iraq relies in large part on Iran’s respect for Iraq’s borders. But Iran has shown no desire to stop meddling violently in Iraq, and it is time for the next step in a measured response to Iran’s aggression.

The British crisis is a provocation that provides an opportunity to send a big-stick message to Iran. It is precisely the message Jimmy Carter should have quietly conveyed 28 years ago. You’ve had your fun. If they are not free in two days, we will blockade your country. Nothing gets in or out. Two days after that, we will destroy your oil-producing infrastructure. We then have a very long list of your military, political and civilian infrastructure that supports your terrorist and nuclear ambitions that we will begin destroying. We do not intend to invade you. We have no need nor interest in doing so.

When the ships and aircraft are in place and the cruise missiles have been launched, George Bush and Tony Blair can announce that in defense of Allied and Iraqi lives, to prevent further incursions and terrorist acts that are destabilizing Iraq, it has become necessary to reduce Iran’s capacity for causing further mayhem in the Middle East.

There may be a perception that Bush and Blair as lame ducks are incapable for forceful action. Bush has already shown that not to be the case, and in wartime, aggressive leadership in defiance of domestic political weakness is often called for. It should not be a political calculation … both leaders are increasingly immune from that concern. It is a military calculation. Do we have the capacity to reduce and contain Iran militarily? If that answer to that is no, then we need to develop it. Quickly.

There may be a public impression that precipitous action will endanger the lives of the British sailors and Marines and risk open warfare with Iran, at a time when the public is weary of war. This needs to be countered with the clear illustration that lack of action by the United States, Britain and the rest of the free world against Iran has cost, and continues to cost, thousands of lives, in open warfare from Lebanon to Iraq.

Iran can forestall this by releasing the prisoners. They may couch their magnanimous action in any face-saving terms they care to.

Should Iran see reason and release the British prisoners, an additional message needs to be quietly conveyed.

Any and all incursions into Iraqi territory henceforth will be met with overwhelming force, to include hot pursuit across the border and targeting of terrorist infrastructure there. We might finally then see a formal end to the Carter era of U.S.-Iranian relations and let the mullahs know: The party’s over.

Read the entire post here.

Read More...

Summary only...

British Rules Of Engagement Allowed For Capture by Iranians

I wrote here that I could not understand how a British naval force would allow its sailors and marines to be kidnapped by Iranians for a second time without firing a shot. It turns out that the British Rules of Engagement prevents their fleet from effectively defending themselves against the Iranians, even in response to such an incredibly provocative act as occurred with the kidnapping of the fifteen sailors and marines.

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

. . . Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Read the entire article here. I think it self evident that the best way to insure a belicose enemy acts ever more reckless is not to defend one's self when reasonably provoked. That is craven insanity.

This kidnapping occrured in almost the exact same place as the kidnapping of sailors two years ago. And in this instance, the British commanders allowed their boarding party of sailors and marines to conduct operations outside of the HMS Cornwall's ability to support it if, as happened, the Iranians made another kidnapping attempt.

The failures here are multiple. One, the rules of engagement for British forces are directly responsible for allowing this kidnapping to occur - and responsiblity for that starts with Tony Blair. And two, in light of the known threat, the commander of the Cornwall , in allowing his boarding party to operate outside of a range in which the commander could timely reinforce or support by fire - or even just by a bluff - is guilty of dereliction of duty.

There can be no aspersions cast on the bravery of the individual sailors and marines. In light of the ROE, and with no expectation of support, they really had no other choice then to go belly up without a shot fired. Were this the U.S. navy, I can assure you there would be at least one admiral's head on a pike by now. Let us hope that this leads to a revision of how Her Majesty's Navy does business in the Persian Gulf.

There is no need to provoke the Iranians, but there has to be an absolute line in the sand that the Iranians cannot pass without bloodshed. That line must clearly be drawn at the point of protecting from death or capture those who have volunteered to serve their country.

Read More...

Summary only...