Am I the only one who has wondered why there have been a couple of incidents of British military personnel being captured by Iranians without any resistance from the British?
It seemed odd to me each time. After all, the British are known to be disciplined and fierce warriors. The British are certainly known to have one of the best Naval services in the world. That’s their reputation. It has been for centuries. The British Navy defeated the Spanish Armada for crying out loud.
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.
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?’”
The British had been warned by the CIA that the Iranians were looking for retribution for the capture of Iranian operatives in Iraq. Over the past two months over 300 Iranians intelligence officers have been captured in Iraq. The British did not raise their threat level in response to the Iranian threat.
Apparently, the British rules of engagement are even more restrictive than the American rules of engagement.
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.”
Can you just imagine what that kind of statement does for the morale of the British Troops!
Meanwhile, eight British Sailors and seven Royal Marines are being ‘interrogated’ in Tehran. One of them is a new mother.
No one questions the bravery, valor, gallantry and aggressiveness of the British military men and women. What I question is the rules of engagement under which they are having to operate. I thought our military had their hands tied, it’s nothing compared to this.
Would you want your son or daughter having to go to war without the ability to defend themselves?
I imagine Winston Churchill is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave.
Previous: Britain Demands Iran Free Seized Sailors
—————–
Disclaimer: trackbacks to this post do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of the Blue Star Chronicles.


March 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Good Stuff Monday…
Featuring posts from some of my favorite bloggers… Enjoy….
March 26th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
why am I not surprised?… or am I?…
So I, along with most of the local, regional, national, and global news agencies around the world, reported a few days ago that Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf effectively kidnapped, at the point of a set of very large-caliber firearms,……
March 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Rosie Still Ignorant And A Liar, Gals Are Shunning Her, and Joe Scarborough Seems to be Right about Barbara Walters…
Yes, Liar! On today’s show she said:
“But interesting with the British sailors, there were 15 British sailors and Marines who apparently went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say: Gulf of T…
March 26th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Mullah Cimoc say ameriki in this big troubling time now because him thinking his dick so big, but not so big after all.
big bragger have the small dick. but the ameriki soldier not so stupid for commit the suicide by resist the overwhelming force.
him wait for come home realize fight for nothing except master in tel aviv then him looking for the rope for end the guilty and the shame.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Ah, some CouragE Finally…
The widow of a man killed in the Madrid bombings attended the trial of Isl–amic radicals with a cartoon of the prophet Moh-am-med with a bomb on her T-shirt.
……
March 27th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Truth and Hope Report: Monday Night Talk…
Tonight on the Truth and Hope Report, I talk about:
-Why I decided to get a MySpace Account
-Why Mitt Romney is falling like a rock.
-Why Fred Thompson ought to come clean about his less than stellar past position on abortion
-The Religion of L…..
March 27th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Yep, your damm right Americans would have fought back, and guess what, more than likely be killed. Thankfully we think before we shoot, maybe if you thought abit more you’d have alot less dead American soldiers.
Believe it or not you don’t need a sledge hammer to crack an egg!!
March 27th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Ted Guinness, your cowardly tactic of think before shooting will only lead to more and more brazen acts by the Iranians. Jimmy Carter used this tactic when our hostages were taken in 79 which led to the Soviets invading Afghanistan because he was too careful, or as the Iranians gleefully said then, “America will do nothing.”
Our doing nothing eventually led to all other attacks on America during Clinton’s “think before shooting” regime. That worked well for us, do you think?
Your clever “thinking before shooting” in 1979 led directly to almost 3000 American deaths. You are right. In that very instant when you surrender there might be, might be, some deaths; but the policy you so admire only leads to eventual, certain death in even greater numbers.
Hezbollah has been completely re-armed by Iran yet they hesitate to kidnap another Israeli soldier. Why not? I’m certain they would love to do it again. Could it be that the last disproportionate response is holding them back?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:34 am
The Knucklehead of the Day award…
Today’s winner is The New York Times….
March 27th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Bernie - Your acts of shoot first ask questions later speak for themselves:
1991 – 9 British Soldiers killed by US A10
2002 – 4 Canadian Soldiers killed by USN F16
2003 – 1 British Soldier killed by US A10
Out of interest, the policy I so admire is that of intelligent warfare. By the way, I am a Royal Marines Commando, with 19 years of service including operational experience. Therefore, I do take offence to your use of the word ‘cowardly’. Which is a word I would use for the large number of so called Irish Americans, who financially supported the IRA armed struggle in Northern Ireland and main land Great Britain for over thirty years (One mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist).
In addition, those captured are my own… Fellow Royal Marines, so believe me your use of word ‘Cowardly’ is a slur on those men (and woman) currently held by Iran.