US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but the common perception here in the UK is that our troops, thanks to the work they have done in Northern Ireland and other places, are much better at peace keeping than their north American counterparts; and the British Press routinely cites this as the reason Basra is so much calmer than other parts of Iraq. Nationalistic nonsense I'm sure.
However, one US commander has piped up over the weekend to discuss the 15 British sailors that have been arrested by Iranians in disputed waters and he has certainly highlighted the different approach the US and UK have to the situation they find themselves in regarding the Middle East.
The British approach is that we find ourselves in a highly incendiary situation and we must go out of our way not to do anything that will exacerbate that situation.
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."However, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner, a senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.
I'm assuming that as he made these comments Lt-Cdr Erik Horner was in possession of the same facts as the rest of us, and if he was, this would certainly highlight a major difference between the approach of both of these allies.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 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?'"
The 15 British sailors were operating out of two small inflatable motorised dinghy's and were quickly surrounded by half a dozen large Iranian Republican Guard Corps Navy fast-attack speedboats mounted with machine guns. It's as clear a case of outnumbered and outgunned as I can think of, and yet the US Commander is expressing surprise that the British didn't try to shoot their way out of the situation?
That's not even a question of bravery, that's a simply suicidal way to approach the circumstances they found themselves faced with and a cast iron guarantee that the US would have ended up at war with Iran. Now, I know that such a war is secretly Bush's wet dream but I'm sure it's not for individual soldiers on the ground to decide when the US is going to expand it's conflict to include other nations. I rather think such matters are best left to Congress and the President to decide.
Perhaps this is simply a case of an American Commander's blatant machismo, but - if the US Commander is being serious - then there really is a fundamental difference between the way the two sides approach confrontation.
And perhaps the British press, who I have previously dismissed as engaging in jingoistic nationalism, really do have a point regarding the relative calm in Basra when compared with the rest of Iraq.
For we mustn't forget that it was America's escalation of it's war of words with Iran - through the capture of five Iranian diplomats - that led, consequently, to the arrest of these 15 British sailors in retaliation. And yet, the US Commander is saying that he would have escalated things even further by engaging in a suicide mission?
It really is time to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, before these nutcases start World War Three.
Click title for full article.
6 comments:
Considering that, in all likelihood, the UK troops were in Iranian waters, or that there is at least some dispute about that, for these US commanders to say they would have just gone in blasting is insane. But then, that's what they want, isn't it? Some reason -- any will do -- to start blowing some Iranian shit up.
And now, to be criticised by these Neanderthal American commanders that the Brits didn't put up a fight is beyond belief. Considering the friendly fire incidents, I really don't know how the UK forces have put up the Yanks all this time.
Bhc,
It really is simply too much to have someone outline an insane policy and imply that you are less than all man because you did not embrace it.
It would have led to war with Iran, which both the US and UK appear to be racing towards anyway.
Still might. How do you think the current administration are going to respond to a hostage crisis?
As a former military person, my personal reaction was along the lines of LTCDR Horner. I wasn't so surprised that the fifteen individuals surrendered given the circumstance, I was however astounded that the ships they were attached to did nothing to prevent the situation. That is inexcusable. There was a helicopter overhead and two British vessels in the immediate vicinity. There is absolutely no doubt that the Iranian vessels were tracked on radar as well as visually from the overhead helicopter, yet nothing was done to intercept the Iranian vessels as they entered Iraqi waters on an aggressive footing. Additionally, they could have called in air support from the coalition which doubtless had combat air patrols in the area. Based on history with the Iranian navy, I would think it likely that the US Navy would have intercepted the Iranians before they got anywhere close to one of our boarding parties
How can we be pretty damn sure the event took place in Iraqi waters? The Indian merchant vessel was anchored there for a few days to offload in Iraq and had not been accosted. There was an eyewitness account from an Iraqi putting them in Iraqi waters. Also, you have to realize that military operating in the region would have to know exactly where the no-go line was, and given that the two British naval vessels, the overhead helicopter, and probably the two rafts all had GPS units, the likelihood for error is non-existant. The other question you have to ask yourself is why it was Revolutionary Guard naval units that seized the Brits and not the normal Iranian naval or border guard forces.
It's quite clear that this was a premeditated action on the part of the Iranians and is by all legal definitions an act of war. I think it quite likely that they wouldn't have tried the same thing with American forces.
Regarding the relative calm in Basra versus the rest of Iraq... There was a reason British forces were sent down there and not to any of the more dangerous parts of the country.
Finally, the five detained Iranians that were referred to had no diplomatic status and in no way, shape, or form were they diplomats.
Stash, I think Ahmadinejad will probably hand them back after letting Blair sweat for a few days. I notice that Blair is today threatening to move things to a different level if they are not handed back immediately, although I notice he's being coy about specifics. The Brits have, however, ruled out military action or the expulsion of diplomats. They say they have proof that they were in Iranian waters which they have so far withheld so as not to exacerbate the situation. We'll see what that means soon enough.
Jason, I think you are making a large assumption when you say that the 15 sailors were in Iraqi waters. The British statements at the time seemed to concede that the Iranians might not agree with them.
And if you read the article that I link to you will see that the helicopter had left the area as soon as the 15 boarded the ship for inspection, it only returned later to find that the 15 had gone.
And I agree that, with modern GPS, the British knew exactly where they were. Although the Iranians have already said that they have examined this GPS and that it made clear to the British that they were in Iranian waters.
As I say in my intitial post, at the moment none of us have any idea who is telling the truth here.
As for the calm in Basra, I do think the British press engage in nationalistic nonsense over this point.
What proof do you have that the five Iranians captured "had no diplomatic status and in no way, shape, or form were they diplomats?"
It's just that the Iranians are stating that they were, indeed, diplomats.
I would say an educated deduction rather than a large assumption. And I'm sure the Iranians will disagree with that regardless of the truth. They made the same claims when they kidnapped the British sailors in 2004 and evidence has shown that they lied then too. The Indian vessel that was searched said it was in Iraqi waters, an Iraqi eye witness stated they were in Iraqi waters, the Iraqis said the Brits were in Iraqi waters, the US Navy states the crew was in Iraqi waters, never mind the fact that the British commander on scene claims they were in Iraqi waters. That's an awful lot of people who would have to be mistaken or lying, and given that it was IRGC elements who made the seizure and the timing of the seizure, it takes an awful lot of imagination and wishful thinking to give the Iranians even the slightest benefit of the doubt in this case.
Now let's say for the sake of argument that the British personnel knew they were in Iraqi waters, given that you agree that they knew where they were. If that's the case they would have been expecting the likelihood of a confrontation and would have been prepared for it. Likely too that they would not have had a helicopter up over that area since it would have been challenged from Iranian air forces.
There doesn't need to be proof to prove that someone isn't a diplomat. Diplomats carry credentials and are recognized by the laws of most countries (including Iraq) as having a certain status. Also, diplomats work out of diplomatic missions or embassies. These people were not working out of a diplomatic mission or embassy, nor were they carrying diplomatic credentials. More importantly, the US military knows exactly who it is they are detaining and that they are known members of the Quds force. Given your own link, not even the Iraqi Foreign Ministry (the ministry that would grant them diplomatic status) claims they are diplomats. Not even the New York Times, strongly anti-war and and anti-Bush, will refer to those five members of the Quds force as diplomats. Continuing to insist on referring to the five detainees as diplomats would seem to undermine even the slightest appearance of objectivity.
Post a Comment