Iran attacks british forces

[simper]

"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?'" "


Fair play to Lt-Cdr Erik Horner. The British were very lightly armed and up against boats with heavy machine guns. Obviously any resistance would have resulted in the quick deaths of the British so its welcome that a senior US Officer is prepared to state that he expects his troops to commit suicide if they face a similar situation.

 

[simper]

So the UK troops get moved to areas that aren't secure yet! Why should they get to say "well, suh, our area appears to be quite contained, so cheerio and ta-ta, see you next war"? All I'm saying is that if they leave instead of staying to help us out with the much harder Baghdad area, they are not really supporting us that much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6388717.stm

"Extra British troops are to be sent to southern Afghanistan, Defence Secretary Des Browne has confirmed.
The move, which the BBC understands involves more than 1,000 personnel, comes as about 1,600 troops are being withdrawn from Iraq."

The British military has been stretched to its limit for the last few years. Comments from senior military generals suggest that they think the war in Iraq has already been lost but that Afghanistan is a war that can be won and a war that they cannot afford to lose. Given that other Nato nations are unwilling to put fighting troops into Afghanistan I dont think its unreasonable that the British want to withdraw from Iraq and reinforce Afghanistan.

 

[LawnOven]

I'm surprised no one is talking about that video Iran made of the female soldier they said they would release and now are refusing to do:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1635479.php

I found that video completely disgusting.

 

[Thunder]

If Iran really wanted peace, they would just release the hostages. Maybe the Brits strayed into Iranian waters, but the border is very murky and this kind of mistake is very easy to understand. If Iran wants to turn this into a provocation for war, then that is their choice.

 

[WildCat]

Fair play to Lt-Cdr Erik Horner. The British were very lightly armed and up against boats with heavy machine guns. Obviously any resistance would have resulted in the quick deaths of the British so its welcome that a senior US Officer is prepared to state that he expects his troops to commit suicide if they face a similar situation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt those inflatable boats traveled a hundred kilometers from their ship. Seems to me that there should have been a British warship close by that would have
1) Seen the Iranian vessels approaching and
2) Been able to intercept them before they got back to an Iranian port.

 

[WildCat]

I'm surprised no one is talking about that video Iran made of the female soldier they said they would release and now are refusing to do:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1635479.php

I found that video completely disgusting.

People don't care if 3rd world countries blatantly violate the Geneva Conventions. Frankly, the next time British or American forces fight a war against a country that respects the 3rd Geneva Convention it will also be the first.

 

[drkitten]

Frankly, the next time British or American forces fight a war against a country that respects the 3rd Geneva Convention it will also be the first.

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.

 

[LawnOven]

Well first they are British and not American, second they surrendered peacefully, third they are uniformed members of the military.

What is your source on the ball chewing?

I know that individuals in US prisons have been mistreated; frankly I find that disgusting too, but this is a little different. The British Soldiers weren't even engaged in combat.

 

[simper]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt those inflatable boats traveled a hundred kilometers from their ship. Seems to me that there should have been a British warship close by that would have
1) Seen the Iranian vessels approaching and
2) Been able to intercept them before they got back to an Iranian port.

You are right that the RN destroyer seems to have been incompetent for letting this happen but once the boarding team had been taken prisoner they probably had no option but to watch and wait. Lt-Cdr Horner however has said explicity that the boarding team should not have been captured as they should have used force to defend themselves. Assuming that a senior military commander would not say this without knowing the facts we have to assume that he would expect his men to die rather than be captured.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You are right that the RN destroyer seems to have been incompetent for letting this happen but once the boarding team had been taken prisoner they probably had no option but to watch and wait. Lt-Cdr Horner however has said explicity that the boarding team should not have been captured as they should have used force to defend themselves. Assuming that a senior military commander would not say this without knowing the facts we have to assume that he would expect his men to die rather than be captured.

As I said in my earlier post, LCDR Horner is being a bit of a back stabber to the Brits. His passing of opinion like that is bad form. He failed to recall rule number one: never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shut. The Brits are our Allies, Coalition partners, and good blokes. Playing "second guess the Brit CO of Cornwall" by XO of USS Underwood is not how you back up your team mate. Here is the apt Naval axiom: buddy is half a word, to some people.

I hope someone in Fifth Fleet makes sure the Fifth Fleet Commander (Vice Admiral Walsh) and COMCENTCOM Admiral Fallon, hear about this lack of discretion. I hope Horner gets his arse chewed for shooting off his mouth at the expense of the Brits. (VADM Walsh knows how to deliver a crisp butt chewing.)

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

The Iranian theocracy is posturing.

Any normal country would have apprehended foreign soldiers they thought were inside their borders and then would have sent then back.

Pure political posturing, presumably to remove attention from Iran's nuclear aspirations.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Fair play to Lt-Cdr Erik Horner. The British were very lightly armed and up against boats with heavy machine guns. Obviously any resistance would have resulted in the quick deaths of the British so its welcome that a senior US Officer is prepared to state that he expects his troops to commit suicide if they face a similar situation.

The US officer should have -- IMO anyway -- kept his yap shut on things like this, for a number of reasons.

 

[WildCat]

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.

Dogs were used for intimidation (and the handler was convicted for it btw). But I'm not aware of any case in which a dog actually chewed on a prisoners genitals. So this is where you provide an example...

 

[andyandy]

i'd be really interested to know what the armed forces protocol is for capture situations [both UK/US if they differ]

with the release of a second letter purportedly from Turney - it raises the question to me of what standard proceedure is in such situations -

it's obvious from the language that it's been coerced - but are soldiers told to resist all coercion for such propaganda purposes? To use their discretion about how damaging their co-operation would be/not be? To co-operate under certain circumstances [eg torture?] To agree to any coercion regardless of consequence?

 

[ceo_esq]

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.

Then again, my dogs chew on their genitalia all the time, and while somewhat off-putting to watch, it probably doesn't rise to the level of torture.

 

[Darth Rotor]

i'd be really interested to know what the armed forces protocol is for capture situations [both UK/US if they differ]

with the release of a second letter purportedly from Turney - it raises the question to me of what standard proceedure is in such situations -

it's obvious from the language that it's been coerced - but are soldiers told to resist all coercion for such propaganda purposes? To use their discretion about how damaging their co-operation would be/not be? To co-operate under certain circumstances [eg torture?] To agree to any coercion regardless of consequence?

No comment. How the Brits train their sailors or soldiers is for a Brit who knows, or doesn't know.

Remember, Iran and the Brits are not at war, so the PoW training is only partly applicable. As I understand it, it was in the form of an arrest, or a seizure in territorial waters. (Uh, if they were in territorial waters, which the position of the ship being inspected argues against. Anchor swing for fifty, Alex. ) Merely entering territorial waters without permission is NOT a de facto act of war.

DR

 

[RyanRoberts]

Here's an image showing the official UK position on the locations of the vessels involved:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/Rgr7uZ8V0MI/AAAAAAAAB-s/hSSmwm7Ick8/s1600-h/Slide1.jpg

The Cornwall was 8 miles away from the RIB when the incident occurred and communications were being relayed by the Lynx helicopter.

These particular people would not be trained in counter-interrogation techniques because they are not expected to be captured. But I think our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say, let's not be silly about it. Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: 'Say this', well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest.

So on the face of it, there may have been a pretty serious blunder here. Sending out boats full of tempting potential hostages without sufficient protection seems more than a little irresponsible given the heightened situation after the recent capture of Revolutionary Guard officers in Iraq. There was an incident a while back that required helicopter extraction of sailors from a merchant ship too.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm surprised no one is talking about that video Iran made of the female soldier they said they would release and now are refusing to do:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1635479.php

I found that video completely disgusting.

Agreed. I wonder if the Iranians really expect us to be so naive as to think that this was not the result of coercion, especially now that they're refusing to let her go. It's really an insult to our intelligence that they expect us to swallow this (on top of whatever coercion they used to get it).

You're right. The prisoners would be much better off in an American prison, with dogs chewing on their genitalia.

And yet again we have someone trying to imply that the US ignores the GC, when no one in the GC thread was able to come up with a single violation.

Remember, Iran and the Brits are not at war, so the PoW training is only partly applicable. As I understand it, it was in the form of an arrest, or a seizure in territorial waters.

Iwould think that POW protection still applies.

Oops, thanks for the correction, and the Rev Guard, Al Quds, and Iranian Air Force were happy to fly F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats, and to man Hawk missiles, against Saddam. Great Satan makes good hardware. Good soldiers know that.

But as far as I know, the F series doesn't have any backdoors. GPS is dependant on satellites in the control of the US, and the US can stop the transimissions, or send deceptive transmissions, at will. Iran would be idiots to use GPS in anything but an auxiliary role.

Now I'm being careful about drawing inferences this time, but in case you're wondering why they would have this convenient photograph: the ship that was raided is still at anchor where it was when the sailors were seized. They flew the Lynx out with the handheld GPS so they'd have a nifty photo showing all the elements.

Do you have more details? To whom does the raided ship belong? While is it still at anchor? So the GPS picture wasn't taken by the captured sailors?

 

[Azure]

If Iran really wanted peace, they would just release the hostages. Maybe the Brits strayed into Iranian waters, but the border is very murky and this kind of mistake is very easy to understand. If Iran wants to turn this into a provocation for war, then that is their choice.

Actually, they didn't.

Iran is full of ****.

 

[Daylight]

Looking at the video, isn’t it illegal to take her out of her uniform? What does the GC say about this?