another sad chapter....

Fiction, movies, alternate history, humor, and other non-research topics related to WWII.

Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil

Post Reply
pzrmeyer2

another sad chapter....

Post by pzrmeyer2 »

Wonder what Lord Nelson would think....



HOSTAGE SAILORS -- BRITAIN'S IMPOTENCE
By ARTHUR HERMAN


March 28, 2007 -- IT'S been a tough month for the British Navy. On March 7, it learned that Tony Blair's Labor government was going ahead with drastic cuts in its budget and number of ships. By this time next year, the once-vaunted Royal Navy will be about the size of the Belgian Navy, while its officers face a five-year moratorium on all promotions.
If that wasn't demoralizing enough, last Friday the Iranian Navy seized a patrol boat containing 15 British sailors and Marines, claiming they'd crossed into Iranian waters. They're now hostages and may well go on trial as spies.

The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.

There was a question whether the Blair government would end up leaving Britain with a navy too small to protect its shores. Now it seems to want a navy that can't even protect its own sailors.

For some time, Tony Blair has been trying to show that for all his support of President Bush, he is no warmonger. He has been a consistent "softliner" on Iran's nuclear program, supporting the Europeans' search for a diplomatic solution and repeatedly insisting that any military options be taken off the table.

Since January, the Blair government has broadcast its intentions of gutting the Royal Navy's surface fleet. At the same time, it also announced its plans for withdrawing 2,500 British troops from Iraq. The result? First, the Royal Navy is finished as a credible military force. Second, the British Army's redeployment from Basra has been widely interpreted as abandonment of the Iraq mission, rather than as moving on to Afghanistan after a job well done, as Blair insists.

And now the Iranians have hostages with which to wring more concessions from the British - including perhaps withdrawal of British vessels from the Coalition task force guarding the Persian Gulf.

The mullahs in Tehran clearly see the new pacifist trend in Britain not as a hopeful sign of future accord, but as supine surrender. Just as clearly, they have singled out Britain as the latest weak link in the Coalition fighting in Iraq and in the War on Terror.

If the Iranians can force Britain to join the other European powers on the sidelines in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan (where most NATO nations devote their time to finding excuses for not risking their soldiers' lives in combat), they will have virtually completed America's isolation from the rest of the world community. In effect, America's only reliable ally in Iraq and the War on Terror will be Australia - and a change of government there could well mean the loss of that ally, as well.

This will be a tragedy - but not for America. The United States has grown used to doing the fighting and dying the other industrialized democracies refuse to do in order to defend themselves and their interests.

Britain has been an exception. In places like Bosnia and the Persian Gulf, and in operations like Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, its help has been solid and genuine, as well as important in a symbolic sense. America always looks better when a couple of frigates flying the Royal Navy's White Ensignare side by side with those flying the Stars and Stripes. U.S. sailors also know that in a real fight, the men of the Royal Navy, which our navy men still call the "Senior Service," will never let them down.

That contribution has never been vital to America - yet it was a badge of honor for Britain. It had echoes of past glory as an empire, of course, but also of Britain's historic role as protector of a civilized and stable world order, and specifically the role of the Royal Navy. The British navy had wiped out the slave trade; it had single-handedly defied tyrants from Louis XIV and Napoleon to Hitler; and it served as midwife to the ideas of free trade and the balance of power.

Now those days are gone for good. Yet, if today's Britons thought that by shedding that historic responsibility they could buy themselves some peace of mind, the current hostage crisis has just proved them wrong.

Seventy years ago, another generation of British politicians believed that disarming themselves would help ease world tensions after World War One. Farsighted and progressive planners cut the Royal Navy by nearly two-thirds and ceased the fortification of vital naval bases like Singapore so as not to alarm other powers. In the name of international peace, Britain signed treaties formally limiting the size of its fleet, and as late as 1935 reached an accord with Adolf Hitler allowing him to build the submarine fleet that the Versailles Treaty had denied him.

Six years later, Hitler's U-boats were turned loose to harry British shipping and the Japanese stormed into Singapore, forcing the greatest mass surrender in British history.

Today, British politicians seem determined to make the same mistake. They exude the spirit not of Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher but of diplomat and Labor Party stalwart Harold Nicolson, who used to sigh to friends in the dark days after France's surrender in 1940: "All we can do is lie on our backs with our paws in the air and hope that no one will stamp on our tummies."

The capture of 15 British sailors should serve as a warning. Nations cannot "opt out" of their responsibilities in the War on Terror when they feel it, like players in a pickup basketball game or cricket match.

Enemies like the mullahs and their terrorist allies recognize no time outs, no neutral ground. They see only strength and weakness, those nations they can manipulate and those they have to fear. Today they clearly feel they can pull the British lion's tail with impunity.

If the hostages are finally released unharmed, it will have a lot more to do with the presence of two American carrier groups off the Iranian coast than anything Blair is doing - and the British will have learned that what they really lost when they gave up their fleet and abandoned the fight in Iraq is their own self-respect.

Arthur Herman's latest book is "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World." His next book, on Gandhi and Churchill, is due out next year.



phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Oh I don't know - Royal naval personnel being assaulted while boarding a ship to search it for contraband?...now where have I heard that before? the words "Jenkin's, The, Ear, War, of"...come to mind JUST at the time when the fuss with Iran over her aid to Iraqi insurgents and her nuclear programme ramps up day by day....

One could get quite disappointed at Tony Blair....or does he just not have a couple of big skyscrapers to bring down??? 8)
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

And before anyone leaps in - no i don't believe ANYTHING any British politician says about ANYTHING to do with the Middle East any more LOL LOL They didn't say "No, George," when they should have, so why should I accept what they say now? :D :D :D
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
pzrmeyer2

Post by pzrmeyer2 »

so in your opinion, Germany is not the only country to pull a "Naujocks"?
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

To quote the recently deceased Ian Richardson....

"You might think that...but I couldn't possibly comment!"
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Hi guys,

Mr Herman makes a very good point very badly.

Cuts to the Royal Navy are undoubtedly ill conceived and could have dire consequences for the UK’s national interests.

However to use words such as “softliner” “weak-link” and (most bizarrely) “pacifist”, in relation to Britain’s stance on Middle East issues is, quite frankly, laughable.

As for his jibes about the Royal Navy being unable to protect it’s own sailors, this is again rather wide of the mark. Talk of blasting Iranian ships out of the water is rather cheap when you are writing from a cosy office. However when you are on a frigate in the Gulf with complex Rules of Engagement to contend with, not to mention the possibility of killing your own men, such decision are not quite so easy.

Everyone likes to sling mud at Blair, sometimes it deservedly sticks. However, to criticise him and his government over it’s handling of a incident such as this before it has reached anything like a conclusion seems to be throwing mud for the sake of it.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Reb
Patron
Posts: 3166
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Post by Reb »

My question is simple - who gave the British navy the right to board other people's ships? Takes me back to 1812. Back before Americans started acting that way.

Sadly, my own boys are probably doing it too.

These fools in London and DC are desperate for a war with Iran. So are the Iranian leaders. Why? Because they have about two years before their own people boot them out.

Why can't we just mind our own business!!!!

cheers
Reb
lwd
Enthusiast
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Post by lwd »

They are boarding and searching the ships in Iraqi waters so as to who gave them the rights at this point I'd venture to say the government of Iraq although I think they also have the UNs sanction to do this.

From what I've read on another forum they had the firepower present and the rules of engagement were clear enough that they could have forcibly prevented this. On the otherhand the political situation there is complex enough that I won't fault the on the scene commanders for not engageing. Indeed it may well have been the objective of a radical branch of the Iraninan government to start the shooting. Not doing so may in the long term have been the better course as far as Britain and her interests are concerned.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

They were enforcing the original UN mandates on Economic sanctions against Iraq - but NOW with the purpose of trying to stop materiel reaching the insurgents in Iraq from Iran.

As for the "manufactured incident", The BBC had video of the vessel in question from a helicopter flyby - there was a journalist on HMS Cornwall - and its a single-skin rust bucket carying second-hand cars LOL The Navy put FIFTEEN men aboard...and they were "surrounded". So that means at least fifteen and preferably a lot more squirrelled away...about five times the normal complement! A good trap well sprung....?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

phylo_roadking wrote:They were enforcing the original UN mandates on Economic sanctions against Iraq - but NOW with the purpose of trying to stop materiel reaching the insurgents in Iraq from Iran.

As for the "manufactured incident", The BBC had video of the vessel in question from a helicopter flyby - there was a journalist on HMS Cornwall - and its a single-skin rust bucket carying second-hand cars LOL The Navy put FIFTEEN men aboard...and they were "surrounded". So that means at least fifteen and preferably a lot more squirrelled away...about five times the normal complement! A good trap well sprung....?
What exactly are you on about Phylo? Is this yet another of your bizarre, unfounded, non-provable, factless conspiracy theories? I sincerely hope not.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Have you by ANY chance been watching the television AT ALL in the last five days? The BBC had a correspondent and camera crew on the Cornwall. Saturday and since theres been nothing on the Beeb except shots taken from the Cornwalls chopper with the BBC crew aboard, of the ship they were overflying and about to board. Its a 3-4 man coaster, a complete rustbucket with her openhold piled with a couple of containers and cars on pallets. The BBC had no comment (operational details) as why the Cornwall's captian opted to put a party aboard from two zodiacs, but something made him.

Going by the video there was NO sign of ANY additional personnel on board, but the comments that have been made ever since were that the boarding party was "surrounded by Iranian soldiers" So how many people does it take to "surround" fifteen armed boarders??? Certainly more than the crew. And given the heklicopter overflight - the "Iranian soldiers" were hidden - so QED

Work it out for yourself. The RN has been conducting this kind of manouver in the Gulf for DECADES. Its a well-ordered drill - has to be to both make it foolproof and reduce the risks to the boarding party, the risks that are always there but to date apart from the obvious ranquor and bad feeling nothing has happened....
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Phylo,

I still haven’t a clue what you are actually on about. The sailors were kidnapped after they had successfully completed a routine inspection under the UN mandate:
The incident occurred mid-morning when a boarding party left HMS Cornwall, the flagship of the multinational task force in the northern Gulf, in two small craft to inspect an Iranian merchant ship.

When the inspection was completed the British were surrounded by six larger vessels from a Revolutionary Guards naval unit.

The Iranian ships are normally armed with heavy mounted machineguns while the British had only side arms to protect themselves. The British personnel were then escorted at gunpoint into Iranian territorial waters, where they have now disappeared.

Commodore Nick Lambert, the commander of HMS Cornwall, said that a helicopter monitored the boats being moved up the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which demarcates the Iran-Iraq border, towards an Iranian base.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 560788.ece

Are you seriously suggesting that the British colluded somehow in the abduction of its own forces?

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

Reb wrote:My question is simple - who gave the British navy the right to board other people's ships?

cheers
Reb
Reb,

The answer is also simple - the UN.

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

A tad different from how the Beeb reported it for three days! They reported the Iranians surrounded at sea while the boarding party was still onboard and being held at gunpoint, zodiacs and crew alongside. I'm more inclined to the BBC reports as they were on the spot. I suppose a minor spin on the releases given to the agencies is expected lol

It's a fine diffference in sea law - but one is questionable....while the other is Piracy! LOL
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Cott Tiger
Associate
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:44 am
Location: England

Post by Cott Tiger »

phylo_roadking wrote:A tad different from how the Beeb reported it for three days! They reported the Iranians surrounded at sea while the boarding party was still onboard and being held at gunpoint, zodiacs and crew alongside. I'm more inclined to the BBC reports as they were on the spot. I suppose a minor spin on the releases given to the agencies is expected lol

It's a fine diffference in sea law - but one is questionable....while the other is Piracy! LOL
Phylo,

I’m sorry Phylo I’m lost again. Surely the Iranians, not the British, have perpetrated the “piracy” in this instance.

So to answer my question: Do you believe Britain colluded in the abduction of it’s own forces? If so what evidence do you have to support such a bizarre claim.

Also do you agree with Mr. Herman’s description of the British as “Softline”, “weak-link” and "pacifist" in the Middle East.

So far you have failed to directly respond to these issues in my posts..

Regards,

Andre
Up The Tigers!
Post Reply