Niall Ferguson on the Iranian UK-Hostage Taking

Distinguished Professor Niall Ferguson has authored an exceptional opinion piece in the Telegraph (UK) discussing the act of surrendering to the Iranians without a shot as emobodying traits heretofore not seen in the British navy, and the incompetency of Britain's Minister of Defence, Les Brown, a man with no military experience:

Captain Christopher Air of the Royal Marines declared after his release: "From the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so, then many of us would not be standing here today."

I have some sympathy with Capt Air, who has at least resisted the temptation to flog his story to the tabloids and Trevor McDonald. But can you imagine a Victorian naval officer talking this way? "Our rules of engagement stated," Capt Air explained, "that we could only use lethal force if we felt that we were in imminent danger of a loss of life." That's certainly how I would have characterised their predicament, surrounded as they were by RPG-toting members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. "In addition," added Capt Air, "any attempt to fight back would have caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region." Whereas being taken prisoner by the Iranians didn't cause these things?

. . . Having risen through the ranks of the Scottish legal profession, Mr Browne [the Minister of Defense] was handed the safe Labour seat of Kilmarnock and Loudon in 1997. His area of expertise - as befits a man who is "the Ruler of the Queen's Navee" - is child law. He has come into his lawyerly own in the row over who authorised Faye Turney to sell her story.

It is, of course, a great English-speaking tradition to undervalue military experience in politicians. In the days of Gilbert and Sullivan, frock coats were supposed to out-rank brass hats. Countries where the opposite was true - such as Prussia - suffered from "militarism".

Yet there is a lot to be said for militarism where military matters are concerned. The besetting problem of both the United Kingdom and the United States before 1914 and again before 1939 was the tendency to leave decisions about grand strategy to hacks like Sir Joseph. Neither Stanley Baldwin nor Neville Chamberlain, the architects of appeasement, had served in the Armed Forces. The same was true of their American counterparts, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. Their legacy was a near-fatal unreadiness for the greatest conflict of all time.

It was a different story in the Cold War. All but two prime ministers from Winston Churchill to James Callaghan had seen active service before entering politics, as had every president from Harry S Truman to Jimmy Carter. Significantly, five of them (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter) were naval officers. That helps explain why both Britain and America were able to maintain such a high level of military preparedness throughout the years from 1945 until 1989 - sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from all-out aggression.

Unfortunately, with the end of the Cold War we have lapsed into our old ways: politicians with no military experience whatever (Clinton, Blair) or, in the case of President Bush, military training without the hard test of combat. The effect on the Royal Navy has been especially disastrous. Anyone wondering why there was no fighting spirit - no vestige of the Victorian sense of honour - among Capt Air and his colleagues need only consider how the Senior Service has fared under New Labour.

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

The U.K. Military's Insane Folly

Britain is reeling in the wake of the Iranian hostage crisis. How Britain handles the aftermath of that crisis will have significant and lasting effects on national identity as well as the morale and effectiveness of the military. As you will see below, Britain is now off to an incredibly bad start.

The facts of the crisis are simple. Fifteen British sailors and marines are taken hostage by Iranians without shot one fired. Within days, they begin appearing on Iranian television spouting propoganda on behalf of their captors - and even an officer gets in on the bit.

In days gone by, a person captured by a hostile force was expected not to cooperate with the enemy. From the U.S. military, Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale and John McCain come immediately to mind as role models. They endured years of true torture and solitary confinement. At some point, these men, in refusing to cooperate with their captors, went beyond what would be expected of the average soldier, and clearly went into the realm of the heroic.

Nobody can expect those type of heroics from the average soldier, but the actions of the 15 sailors and marines in this instance were craven by any measure. The sailors and marines were held captive for thirteen days. They suffered "psychological pressure." They participated with Iran in a propoganda offensive against the country they were sworn to serve.

There is only one thing that ameliorates their horrid performance. That is that, no matter how you look at it, they were captured because of truly unconscionable negligance by the Commander of the HMS Cornwall in allowing them to operate outside of support at a time of heightened tension and in the same area where a kidnapping had occurred before. The first discipline in this case should have been - and should be - publicly relieving of duty the Commander of the HMS Cornwall. Such mistakes by those to whom we entrust the lives and well being of our soldiers cannot be countenanced. There are no second chances for that type of negligence by a Commander. The importance of relieving the Commander is to send a clear and unambiguous message to every officer in Her Majesty's navy that their first duty is to take care of their charges, and a message to every enlisted man and woman that their lives matter - that they are not pawns for an officer to move about with no consequence.

As to the hostages themselves, how to deal with them is a decision that should be left to anaval board of inquiry. In any event, the performance of the hostages while captives of Iran is not something that the UK military wants to be the model for future instances when a soldier is taken by coercion and confined by a hostile force.

So what has happened up to this point? The Commander of the Cornwall is still in place, Tony Blair has defended the Rules of Engagement (ROE), the First Sea Lord has fully supported the actions of the sailors and marines both in giving up without a shot and then their actions while captives. That is all very bad, but now it get's much, much, much worse. The 15 are being feted as heros and being rewarded with treatment reserved for Her Majesty's soldiers that have earned the Victoria Cross:

The 15 British military captives who were released by the Iranians have been authorised by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to sell their stories.

MoD officials claimed that the move to lift the ban on military personnel selling their stories while in service was justified because of the “exceptional circumstances” of the case. The hostages are expected to earn as much as £250,000 between them.

. . . The MoD said: “Serving personnel are not allowed to enter into financial arrangements with media organisations. However, in exceptional circumstances — such as the awarding of a Victoria Cross or events such as those in recent days — permission can be granted by the commanding officer and the MoD.”

Read the whole story here.

Now, to understand just how incredibly, utterly, supremely insane that is, the Victroia Cross is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Medal of Honor - which with Vice Admiral Stockdale was rewarded after lasting through six years of torture and hell while refusing to betray his country. It is awarded for incredible acts of bravery at threat of loss of life. As to the 15 hostages, beyond fully cooperating with the Iranians in all that they asked, what did these sailors and marines do? Absolutely nothing of bravery. They survived. That is it. And in surviving, they managed to display cowardice that brought humiliation upon their country - all within the record time of thirteen days of capture. I feel deep sympathy for their plight. That does not excuse their performance.

And now the Ministry of Defense is going to allow them to profit from their performance as if they were heroes or their actions otherwise so laudible as to justify their profit therefrom? Using extreme tact in my choice of words, I would describe that as a permissive act wholly contrary to promoting military virtues.

What messages have just been sent to every member of Britain's armed forces? Is a premium being placed on bravery and service to country? Are those who have spilled their blood while acting with bravery under fire being applauded and upheld as the model? I can imagine nothing worse for the morale of the British forces and for the parents of every child wounded or killed in combat then this craven lunacy. And its long term impact on Britain's national identity must be equally horrid if tales of the Falklands are to be replaced by tales of the Iran crisis told with tones of approval and acceptance. It is not a tale to be publicized. It is not a tale to be approved of in the national consciousness. It is a tale only to be told in the stiff verbiage of an official inquiry, and it is a tale whose ending should only be with the words "never, never again."

Their needs to be a purge of everyone in a leadership position between the Ministry of Defense, through the naval chain of command, and right down to the Commander of the HMS Cornwall. This insanity needs to end or Britain's military will not be a fighting force much longer. The legacy of Nelson will be but a dim shadow indeed.

Update: It appears the BBC has pulled the plug on a 90 minute documentary about a British soldier in Iraq who in fact earned the Victoria Cross for exceptional acts of bravery under combat:

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict. . . The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.

Read the story here. One, what does it say about a country that will not give publicity to its true heroes, but will give publicity to the story of 15 hostages who betrayed their country? Two, one of the first steps in restoring reality, sanity and morality to the UK has to be getting the news division of the BBC off of the public tit.

Update: The Telegraph has an op-ed that shows, one, that there is a segment of the population that understands just how wrong and inappropriate this action by the Ministry of Defense was. Unfortunately, it also shows why the conservatives in Britain will not be effective in addressing the problem. The Telegraph decrys the problem with what can only be described as a shrugging impotence. There is no demand that anything be changed, there is no call for people to be fired or relieved, there is no call for the public to organize and march on Downing Street. I cannot imagine how beaten down the conservatives must be in the UK only to criticize this situation and nothing more. Is their no leadership in Britain that will not just criticize, but challenge the insanity?

Update: Perhaps my criticism of the UK conservatives is not quite fair. The UK has reversed itself is now refusing to allow the sailors and marines who have not already done so to sell their stories, and there is an excellent op-ed in the Telegraph that fully notes the rot in the MoD and calls for change.

Update: As to the effect on the morale of British soldiers, see here.

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...

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...

INSURGENTS USE HUMAN SHIELDS and children to hide behind when attacking U.S. troops.

Boys on bikes cycle backwards and forwards on a footbridge over a small canal lined with houses and groves of date palms. Women in headscarves look anxiously in groups from windows. Men walk with shopping bags. A gunman, clutching an AK-47, bobs his head around the corner of an alleyway close to a school. Once. Twice. On the third occasion a child, a boy seven or eight years old, is thrust out in front of him. The gunman holds him firmly by the arm and steps out for instant into full view of the Bradley's gunner to get a proper look, then yanks the boy back and disappears.

"That is really dirty," says Specialist Chris Jankow, in the back of the Bradley, with a mixture of contempt, anger and frustration. "They know exactly what our rules of engagement are. They know we can't fire back."

A few minutes and a few hundred metres later the performance is repeated. A woman and three small children emerge uncertainly from behind a building, little more than a shack. They stare at the approaching armour. After a few seconds they retreat from view; then the process is repeated. The third time they emerge, a fighter is crouching behind them with a rocket-propelled grenade aimed at Jankow's Bradley. The group disappears.

There is a long pause, a moment of excruciating moral conflict for the soldiers and for the gunner in particular. Not to shoot would be to imperil their own lives or those of their colleagues, both American and Iraqi. To shoot would be to risk killing civilians who have been shoved in front of their guns to shield insurgent fighters.

Please read this excellent report from the Guardian. The utter callousness and depravity of our enemy will break your heart. Compare that with the morality of our soldiers.

Read More...

Summary only...