| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| 'To Fight Would Not Be Clever' |
| 2007-03-25 |
| BBC interview with Admiral Sir Alan West. Noteworthy excerpt: Q: What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation? A: The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there. So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away. |
| Posted by:Dave D. |
| #17 The famed Brit MASTIFF is famous, in part, for barking little but possessing a huge, powerful body the Hulk would be proud to call his own. The Mastiff doesn't move unless it wants to move. Iff there's one thing that riles the Brits its international, diplom treatises being violated, espec LAWS OF THE SEA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-25 23:29 |
| #16 Sir West must be a butt-buddy of Olmert; where else can such stupidity run so deep? Yes to quickly retaliate may have played into Tehran's hand; but I agree with others; set a timeline and then have the balls to execute if necessary. And the point / place that the retaliation starts is not shared with Dinnerjacket and company. So they have no idea when or where the fecal material will begin to impact the rotary air movement device. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-03-25 20:47 |
| #15 The Brits screwed up, pure and simple. First off, we are dealing with a regime which will take and keep prisoners. Second, we have a big group of them already captured. Third, 'No one gets left behind.' If I were an Admiral, and one of my ships returned from a task missing crewmen, I'd soon be promoting another Captain, 'cause that one would be discharged. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-03-25 20:44 |
| #14 gorb: As you can see from the other thread about the encounter between the US and Iraqi border guard and the Iranians, it might not be wise to assume that there aren't a lot of guns trained on you at the moment. Remember that the Iranians have had a heavy Corps of soldiers on the border with Iraq for well over a year now. They are also very conscious of the US presence. I would not be surprised if they start sending ground and naval probes into Iraq and Afghanistan, just to see what happens. They have very little intelligence gathering capability that ground or water. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-25 18:54 |
| #13 The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. /It's all right, honey. Those men don't really want to hurt us but they will if we try to fight. All they want is to draw attention to their cause and they can't do that if they hurt anybody. Soon the plane will land and then we will take you to Disney World just like we promised. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-03-25 18:01 |
| #12 If the enemy can goad you into striking at a time and place of their choosing, they can easily ambush the snot out of you. Moose: Personally, I think they were bluffing and weren't prepared to handle a full-on attack by the Brits. I do think they were counting on the Brits sitting on their hands. I don't think the scenario you have in mind applies here. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-03-25 17:41 |
| #11 It's up to them if they want to be civilized or die. I'm starting to believe that only one of those options is actually attainable. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-25 16:40 |
| #10 Anymoose, your reasoning is fine if it's based on the tactical situation (i.e. potentially sacrificing the lives of 15 of your finest is necessary because you are not able to handle hostilities when Iran chooses to open them) AND there is a time and a place of the West's choosing in which hostilities will commence. Otherwise, your just getting ready to pay the Danegeld. Personally, I think Iran is running scared and wants to change the game by provoking an attack. However, I disagree with that, had the Brits shot back and it had escalated, this would have played well for Iran. Their supreme leader is dying, Amaninejad's economic policies have failed, the Russians just pulled out of the reactor program, people don't like the gas rationing, a bunch of their terror network has been rolled up and/or defected and the UN just sent the strongest possible (if still ultra lame) message of diplomatic isolation. If I was Blair I'd make an open statement to the Iranian people to the effect that they have a week to overthrow the mullarchy and rescue my marines or the US and UK will destroy their Navy, Air Force, shore batteries, nuke sites, troop concentrations and oil refineries and blockade their country. If they do overthrow the mullarchy all options are on the table including Western support for their nuke program, diplomatic relations with the US, etc. It's up to them if they want to be civilized or die. Of course, I am daydreaming. They'll pay the Danegeld. |
| Posted by: JAB 2007-03-25 16:35 |
| #9 Nah, Moose, you're wrong here. This is not a case of discretion being the better part of valor. The Brits are too clever by half, which is to say, not clever at all. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2007-03-25 16:00 |
| #8 This time I have to agree with the Admiral. If the enemy can goad you into striking at a time and place of their choosing, they can easily ambush the snot out of you. While it might have been emotionally gratifying to have ordered the British ship to engage the enemy, they might have been very ready not only to sink that ship, but to engage several other targets. Right now they are doing what Muslim pirates have always done, take hostages to bargain with. There is a long standing protocol for doing that among them. The trick will be to convince them you are going to kick their ass, and this can be unusual, such as the election of Ronald Reagan resulting in the immediate release of the Iranian hostages. This is all diplomatic ritual, and the US State Department and British Foreign Office will have much better luck getting those sailors back than will the DoD. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-25 15:41 |
| #7 The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. Not even against our most dire enemies. That persistent high pitched whirring sound you hear in the background is Churchill spinning in his grave. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-25 15:39 |
| #6 Civilians run away from things cos they dont have guns!!! ARMED forces. What does that suggest, £20 billion a year for this crap! |
| Posted by: devilstoenail 2007-03-25 15:39 |
| #5 there's a fine line between clever and stupid |
| Posted by: Nigel Tufnel 2007-03-25 15:32 |
| #4 The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting Don't I recall the British general doing this over in Europe when the Russians ran ahead of everyone to cordon off an area and claim it as their own? I believe the American general was Wesley Clark, and he told the British general to take them out and they refused citing the same excuse. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-03-25 15:30 |
| #3 And thus, Britain goes quietly into that dark night. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-03-25 15:03 |
| #2 The End of The End of The End. Fool Britannia! |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-03-25 14:54 |
| #1 You sir and The Captain of that ship should resign. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-03-25 14:46 |