previous post next post  

The Brits and their Press Conference regarding the captured boarding party..

This is one reason you haven't seen me commenting on this. I just knew there had to be a backstory we were unaware of. I think Ralph Peters has done himself a disservice in his relentless bashing of the members of the boarding party, to include todays shrill screed - whatever merit there might be in his commentary on the Brit government's handling of the situation.

From Mario Loyola at National Review Online:

Released Brits give a Press Conference [Mario Loyola]


In a press conference just concluded in England, the recently released British sailors and marines cleared up several things. Right up front, the commander of the group said that no matter what we may have heard them say while in captivity, they were definitely in Iraqi waters when captured.

The senior Royal Marine officer shed light on the tactical situation: They were conducting the search of an unregistered transport vessel when they saw Iranian fast-boats approaching. They descended to their own boats, but were quickly surrounded by the Iranians, who came armed with heavy machine guns and RPGs. The sailors report that they were surrounded instantly and rammed several times; the Iranians trained their weapons on them and seemed very angry ("unstable" was a word one of the sailors used). It was the Royal Marine commander who realized that there was no option but to surrender – to fight back would have been suicide for many of them and would have caused an international crisis. Furthermore, the base ship HMS Cornwall could not have intervened to save them because the waters in which the incident occurred were too shallow. [Intervention was probably impracticable for other tactical reasons as well]. The sailors said several times that it was clear the Iranian operation had been well-prepared and had clear intent.

They soon found themselves bound and blindfolded and put up against a wall; when they heard weapons being cocked in the background, several of them thought they might be summarily executed. The sailors were blindfolded in solitary confinement almost the entire time. They were interrogated nightly, and told that if they didn’t admit wrongdoing and apologize they faced seven years in prison.

The female sailor was the particular target of abuse. She was told by her captors that all the rest of her comrades had been released, and for several days she thought she was alone in Iran.

In general, they were clearly angry at the Iranians, and lamented the whole ordeal as a “media stunt.”


10 Comments

Okay. don't get me wrong, but it only took that chic less than 24 hours to do the first confession. That was pretty naive of her to believe that and to capitulate so quickly. Not that I didn't think these guys were probably isolated for most of the time and made to think that the others were already giving it up. Made even more believable because some of them were already giving it up. Not that I'd want to be imprisoned in Iran for 7 years, but, wow, that was just too d**ned easy to break them.
 
John, this does raise another question: Since the 15 Brits were treated, more or less, as all previous hostages of Iran have been treated since 1979, you would think the Royal Navy would make sure their personnel couldn't be caught with their drawers down and out-gunned (My synopses of the interview I saw with the 2 officers that were captured and I don’t mean the 15 as much as their leadership who sent them out on that mission with whatever assets they had). Therefore, I think we have to surmise 3 possible explanations of what led to the capture of the 15 sailors/marines: 1. Their chain of command naively believed that Iran would never do anything illegal or hostile outside of Iranian waters. 2. Arrogance in the chain of command led to a lackadaisical attitude towards mission planning and considering all possible scenarios especially operating close to a rogue nation that has already taken hostages in the past.. 3. The royal Navy has been so gutted by years of Labor Gov't, they no longer have the wherewithal to consider all possible scenarios and have to depend on luck to protect their personnel, hence there wasn’t a 2nd chopper to take up the slack when the one they had returned to the ship. If I’m missing something here, I’m sure one of the squids or jarheads out there will enlighten me. :)
 
Gonna play Devils advocate to Kat here (usually i agree with everything you say so please forgive me this once, pretty please? :) ) British Rules for POW's are different than ours. Considering Iran's...shall we say...lack of stability in Government affairs?....The team probably came to the conclusion that the best thing to do to ensure their survival was to play along with anything that was told of them, and get out of their with their skins so that they may live to fight another day. Further as the only woman in a region were woman are not very high on the food chain, and further being isolated, it's easy to see how she could have been used against the rest of the Sailors, as well she be the weak link in the chain (as in...do what we say or we kill her/main her/ pick your torture here) I figure they probably thought to themselves "These guys don't think the Holocaust happened, they are trying to treat us as invaders to their waters, there is no end to what they may try to do to us. Just play along and we may get out of here. We can deal with the media fall out after we get out alive.." When dealing with people who aren't exactly...well.... sane, sometimes the rules don't always apply. Just my thoughts :P
 
for the record when i say "weak link in the chain" that wasn't a reflection on feminism or of the sailor in general, but rather that she be used as leverage against the guys, as well as she be threatened personally by people she knows don't care about female empowerment. Ok PC Disclaimer done.
 
BloodSpite - The Brits are a good 20 years behind the US in assimilating females into their forces. They just recently started allowing women to stay in when pregnant. I can't quote statistics, but from my anecdotal experience working with RAF members, they do seem to have a more paternalistic attitude towards females than what is now common in the USAF or the US Army. Therefore, you are just stating the facts and PC is as PC usually is, irrelevant and pointless.
 
BTW - Even in the US Military, there would be greater concern for a female comrade captured by ME males as the thought of sexu@l assault will always be on their minds. Of course, in the ME, the men are as likely to be abused as the women...
 
The problem is, when these folks were captured, it seemed like they were acting as if they were the only people in control of their fate, the only ones who could get them free and the only ones who would bear any consequences. Even in their interviews they made that very clear. we aren't talking about people who were held for years, we're talking about people who were held for days and who should have known that their government was going to act on their behalf. Now everyone is trying to parse their statements made on Iranian TV to make it sound like they were being "vague" and did not apologize. This is how you re-write history that is recorded in video. You act like Goebbels (I know, Godwins law) and keep saying it means something else until everyone agrees with you.
 
But I submit...if your being held captive by people who deny basic history, you know are supplying weapons to a insurgency in one hand and denying it with the microphone in the other, ignore UN requests to stop paying with nukes, and basically are just your above average nutjobs in charge of a country....do you really want to push your luck and play games with your life by resisting them? Especially when you know you have a 98% chance of getting home alive and in one piece if you just nod your head repeatedly without giving them any state secrets? Versus go home, alive in one piece, and deal with the head nodding later? I got no defense for the parsing bit. Your 100% right there.
 
and, if you're statements are harmful to your nation or may, indeed, lead the capturing government to believe that future captives could be just as beneficial to their cause? How many have you put in danger by putting yourself and your safety above that? If, in fact, your statements put your government in a negative negotiating position that did, indeed, lead to the release of an Iranian agent responsible for supplying money, materials and training for people who are killing your people in Iraq? How many will die now? For your life? Or, at least, a quick release? It's not that I haven't considered your position on the matter. I thought about how our Viet Nam veterans would compromise to some extent in order to get on TV to let their families know they are alive, but we are talking years of captivity and true brutality. Still, I am interested in how this is being drilled down to the captives v. the captors instead of Britain v. Iran and all the parties acting in that regard.
 
The Brits have set a bad precedent. It say’s Kidnapping Pays! Appeasement just encourages more aggression. What will the Brits do when another 15 of their military get kidnapped? Will they just bend over and take it? Most likely. As for the British soldier’s actual performance – there was zero defiance. Bad show old Chap!
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.