Iranians Seize 15 British Sailors & Marines

[BNaylor]

It could be speculation but some news sources in the UK claim the actions of the U.S. in capturing the Iranians in Iraq was the catalyst for Iran taking the 15 British hostages.

If our British military partners are that vulnerable then they need to become invulnerable. When you do maritime operations like searching vessels in the Persian Gulf in contested waters the rule of thumb is to go in with maximum force. Otherwise call it quits and don't do the job at all. There was no military excuse for these Sailors and Marines to be lightly armed or to be put into a bad situation with no way out. It looks like the Commanders and Officers in charge had their heads up their rear ends.

The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2414760.ece

[replicant_008]

Originally Posted by bnaylor

It could be speculation but some news sources in the UK claim the actions of the U.S. in capturing the Iranians in Iraq was the catalyst for Iran taking the 15 British hostages.

If our British military partners are that vulnerable then they need to become invulnerable. When you do maritime operations like searching vessels in the Persian Gulf in contested waters the rule of thumb is to go in with maximum force. Otherwise call it quits and don't do the job at all. There was no military excuse for these Sailors and Marines to be lightly armed or to be put into a bad situation with no way out. It looks like the Commanders and Officers in charge had their heads up their rear ends.

Geez you guys make some interesting conclusions so quickly... take a step back and think about the rules of engagement in the theatre. The allied task force was there to search largely civilian vessels for breaches of trade embargoes - the use of inflatables and sidearms is consistent with personnel making routine searches of vessels in the Gulf for a long period of time (going back to the time Iraq was subject to oil/weapons embargoes). The general rule of thumb is use a force only necessary to carry out the objective of the mission and don't deploy assets without cause.

IMHO, The Brits made the best of the situation - didn't risk intervention that could have put their folk at risk and decided diplomacy is the right option rather than escalating or putting their guys and other guys at risk. Remember in Somalia in the Black Hawk Down incident, the pilots that were downed and supposedly being rescued were eventually returned after negotiations. A all guns blazing attitude could risk unnecessary casualties and conflict (as Sun Tzu pointed out) is the last resort.

Making forces 'invulnerable' takes the very real risk of escalating situations to a dangerous powderkeg. For example, if the allies had placed a carrier group within the disputed waters to 'protect' the task group then couldn't Iraq them claim that they were concerned about military presence that could attack with little warning - wouldn't they have a case for pre-emptive strike in the face of a clear and present danger to their sovereignty? If that sounds familiar, it's the same argument the US had about the Cuban missile crisis which nearly started a nuclear conflict.

Having a significant military force in close proximity to each other begs an accident. The US puts up AWACS and patrol aircraft in the air around the clock to protect the fleet, the Iraqis put planes in the air to keep an eye out on potential incursions in their airspace... and put SAMs within range of the coast, the US gets concerned about SAMs taking out their aircraft and considers pre-emptive strikes... you get lots of nervous folks on either side waiting to pull the trigger... you get the idea?

Pulling back from the precipice of war is usually a better way to than the mexican standoff. Neither party really wants a war and the current events show that both parties are taking calculated risks without overly provoking a course of action neither really wants.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by replicant_008

Geez you guys make some interesting conclusions so quickly... take a step back and think about the rules of engagement in the theatre. The allied task force was there to search largely civilian vessels for breaches of trade embargoes - the use of inflatables and sidearms is consistent with personnel making routine searches of vessels in the Gulf for a long period of time (going back to the time Iraq was subject to oil/weapons embargoes). The general rule of thumb is use a force only necessary to carry out the objective of the mission and don't deploy assets without cause.

IMHO, The Brits made the best of the situation - didn't risk intervention that could have put their folk at risk and decided diplomacy is the right option rather than escalating or putting their guys and other guys at risk. Remember in Somalia in the Black Hawk Down incident, the pilots that were downed and supposedly being rescued were eventually returned after negotiations. A all guns blazing attitude could risk unnecessary casualties and conflict (as Sun Tzu pointed out) is the last resort.

Making forces 'invulnerable' takes the very real risk of escalating situations to a dangerous powderkeg. For example, if the allies had placed a carrier group within the disputed waters to 'protect' the task group then couldn't Iraq them claim that they were concerned about military presence that could attack with little warning - wouldn't they have a case for pre-emptive strike in the face of a clear and present danger to their sovereignty? If that sounds familiar, it's the same argument the US had about the Cuban missile crisis which nearly started a nuclear conflict.

Having a significant military force in close proximity to each other begs an accident. The US puts up AWACS and patrol aircraft in the air around the clock to protect the fleet, the Iraqis put planes in the air to keep an eye out on potential incursions in their airspace... and put SAMs within range of the coast, the US gets concerned about SAMs taking out their aircraft and considers pre-emptive strikes... you get lots of nervous folks on either side waiting to pull the trigger... you get the idea?

Pulling back from the precipice of war is usually a better way to than the mexican standoff. Neither party really wants a war and the current events show that both parties are taking calculated risks without overly provoking a course of action neither really wants.

The facts are plain and simple. The British got caught with their pants down and the Iranians took advantage of the situation and capitalized on it.

Last time I checked there is war going on in the area where people are dying. IMO the British need to rethink their military posture. The truth will come out sooner or later once this debacle ends. And that will most likely include the actions of the Commander and crew of the HMS Cornwall.


Hopefully this is good news.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

[xeroinfinity]

From what I understand the british were not in the wrong but Iran made them say they were.

I would never admit gult in that type of situation.

Now they have been released & pardoned, about damn time.

And I just found this about the release of an Iranian diplomat in Iraq .
http://www.hindu.com/2007/04/04/stor...0405691500.htm

I think Iran found out they were wrong that the British were in thier water(s) and had nothing else to do but release them.
Or start an all out war and loose trillions when everyone stops buying thier oil.

[blazee]

Tony Blair says that they're free:

http://www.wftv.com/news/11518857/detail.html

[taranaki]

Glad that they're free,now I can pass on this joke with a clear conscience.

15 British sailors were arrested for being off course in territorial waters.
14 were men.
One was a woman.


Guess who was navigating?

[Shpyder]

Originally Posted by taranaki

15 British sailors were arrested for being off course in territorial waters.
14 were men.
One was a woman.


Guess who was navigating?

Hahahahaha, nice one!!

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Glad that they're free,now I can pass on this joke with a clear conscience.

15 British sailors were arrested for being off course in territorial waters.
14 were men.
One was a woman.


Guess who was navigating?

It was probably not a joking matter for the players involved to include their families but on the lighter humorous side of things that is not a bad joke. Good one!

And it is probably not that far off from the truth which in most circumstances happens to fall somewhere in the middle. However, we may never know the truth in this matter but I am quite sure there will be some more revelations subject to debate in the near future.

I just hope the oil prices start to come down. In my area the gas pump prices went up at least 15 cents per gallon for regular unleaded since since the start of the incident about 12 days ago.

[xeroinfinity]

Originally Posted by bnaylor

It was probably not a joking matter for the players involved to include their families but on the lighter humorous side of things that is not a bad joke. Good one!

And it is probably not that far off from the truth which in most circumstances happens to fall somewhere in the middle. However, we may never know the truth in this matter but I am quite sure there will be some more revelations subject to debate in the near future.

I just hope the oil prices start to come down. In my area the gas pump prices went up at least 15 cents per gallon for regular unleaded since since the start of the incident about 12 days ago.

Its just like a couple of little kids,
"you're on my side" ,"no you're on my side"

Why did it realy matter to Iran, thats the question that should be asked.
What are they hiding in those waters

I saw sat. photos on CNN last week and it clearly showed "a boat" in thier proper channel, but it could have been any sat. photo of any boat So I
It is clearly another attempt on Iran to start trouble over little BS.

I hear you on the gas prices Bob, they have been going up here for weeks now.
$2.65 for 85 Octane even at the cheaper places.
Glad my fuel tank is small and my driving can be limited or compinsated for.

remember stay on your own side!

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by xeroinfinity

Why did it really matter to Iran, thats the question that should be asked.
What are they hiding in those waters

ooooh... you want a conspiracy theory, huh???? Maybe Bin Laden is hiding in an undersea missile silo near there and is working on a death ray that only James Bond can stop?

Nah. here's a better one.


The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis

it was all Americas fault!

[replicant_008]

Originally Posted by bnaylor

The facts are plain and simple. The British got caught with their pants down and the Iranians took advantage of the situation and capitalized on it.

Last time I checked there is war going on in the area where people are dying. IMO the British need to rethink their military posture. The truth will come out sooner or later once this debacle ends. And that will most likely include the actions of the Commander and crew of the HMS Cornwall.


Hopefully this is good news.

Plain and simple? I think you're wrong - there was a US Naval vessel operating as part of the task force, this was a routine boarding of a civilian vessel that was accosted by a faster, more heavily armed patrol boat. Before you say they should have acted sooner, I'll mention the USS Cole.

You are proposing that the Iranians would be 'blown away' - at what cost, they already surrounded the British marines, what end would it have served except to put more lives at risk.

I think you need a geography lesson - the Cornwall may have been operating in the Gulf off Iran but as far as I am aware, Iran is not at war with the US or the British. Iranian forces have not killed anyone in the raid nor have the allies accused them of doing so. Sure it's a dangerous place but do you have gunships flying over every civilian ship and using a destroyer to search it? Sure it reduces the risk but is it necessary or feasible?

In terms of military posture, you missed the whole point of escalation and itchy trigger fingers. If the Russians parked one of their carrier groups just offshore of the oil fields in Alaska whilst they demanded to have a greater share of the oil fields, and parked in disputed waters between Siberia and Alaska and flew patrols that were just outside US airspace, how long do you think it would take for the US to get jumpy. Look they haven't done anything illegal, there's no shooting but there's lots of planes and vessels about.

Answer: We'd be at Defcon 3 in about a minute. There'd be a US Carrier Group deployed at haste and we'd have planes spooking other planes in bad visibility... boats getting awfully close to each other and lots of nervous folk at the UN. Not smart and the US knows this.

The Iranians returned the British because they had got all the propaganda they could out of them and they served no further purpose. They were always going to get returned after some grandstanding about territorial sovereignty and as a bargaining chip to get their diplomats back.

Same as the blackhawk pilots in Somalia who got returned several days after being shot down after some negotiations. Unlike the folk who died trying to get them back out - that was a very brave but unnecessarily risky operation that did not achieve its objective.

[drunken monkey]

there's a little part of me that can't hlp but think that the Iranians got the wrong people.

for some reason, I have a little scene playing in my head that goes a little like this

Iranian Militart Boss: we gotta get our men back
Iranian Soldier: How about we capture some people so we can exchange them
Iranian Military Boss: Good Idea!
Iranian Soldier: There's a patrol boat now, it's a good chance to get us some Americans.
Iranian Military Boss: They're Americans?
Iranian Soldier: Yes Sir! They're white and they've got guns.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Iranian Soldier: There's a patrol boat now, it's a good chance to get us some Americans.
Iranian Military Boss: They're Americans?
Iranian Soldier: Yes Sir! They're white and they've got guns.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by replicant_008

Plain and simple? I think you're wrong - there was a US Naval vessel operating as part of the task force, this was a routine boarding of a civilian vessel that was accosted by a faster, more heavily armed patrol boat. Before you say they should have acted sooner, I'll mention the USS Cole.

That is my opinion whether you agree with it or not. The Cole incident is irrelevant and comparing apple to oranges as well as not analogous to this particular incident. The HMS Cornwall was approximately 6-8 miles away from it's deployed Sailors and Marines. That is gross negligence so go figure. The Iranians seized the opportunity and reacted on it getting it's 15 minutes of fame. They will be discussing this matter at Dartmouth and Annapolis for years to come. For the British it was a military embarassment regardless of your reasoning and hyperbole.

Originally Posted by replicant_008

You are proposing that the Iranians would be 'blown away' - at what cost, they already surrounded the British marines, what end would it have served except to put more lives at risk.

That is your proposition not mine. When did I ever mention anything about the Iranians getting blown away and going in like "John Wayne"? All I mentioned was using "Maximum Force" which means going into a situation properly equipped to do the job and having proper force protection which was clearly lacking. That includes adjusting your tactics, if necessary. The Iranians saw this and clearly took advantage of the vulnerability of the deployed British troops. The best offense is a defense. You think the Iranians would have surrounded or even attempted to take the British hostages if they perceived it was not a winnable situation?

Originally Posted by replicant_008

I think you need a geography lesson - the Cornwall may have been operating in the Gulf off Iran but as far as I am aware, Iran is not at war with the US or the British. Iranian forces have not killed anyone in the raid nor have the allies accused them of doing so. Sure it's a dangerous place but do you have gunships flying over every civilian ship and using a destroyer to search it? Sure it reduces the risk but is it necessary or feasible?

I'm well aware of the geography of the area and what mission they were on. I spent quite a few years in the Persian Gulf area. Have you? Other than armchair quarterbacking I do not see any merit in your discussion other than laying blame on the U.S. and sheer speculation.

The Sailors and Marines were members of the HMS Cornwall crew. The British are members of the coalition in support of the War in Iraq and protecting Iraq's "black gold". It is quite obvious we are not at war with Iran. All you're doing is making excuses to justify your side of the argument. I definitely would not go into battle let alone a "routine" interdiction effort with you.

The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, together with American, Australian and Iraqi support, patrol some of the most important waterways in the world. Their mission is to protect the oil terminals that effectively keep Iraq's economy afloat.

Precise figures are rare but oil exports account for as much as 90% of Iraq's GDP.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6492705.stm

Originally Posted by replicant_008

In terms of military posture, you missed the whole point of escalation and itchy trigger fingers. If the Russians parked one of their carrier groups just offshore of the oil fields in Alaska whilst they demanded to have a greater share of the oil fields, and parked in disputed waters between Siberia and Alaska and flew patrols that were just outside US airspace, how long do you think it would take for the US to get jumpy. Look they haven't done anything illegal, there's no shooting but there's lots of planes and vessels about.

Answer: We'd be at Defcon 3 in about a minute. There'd be a US Carrier Group deployed at haste and we'd have planes spooking other planes in bad visibility... boats getting awfully close to each other and lots of nervous folk at the UN. Not smart and the US knows this.

Having proper military posture means many things which I am not going to explain or defend to some armchair Admiral/General. With your clouded judgment you missed my point. What if??? More speculation and hyperbole.

Originally Posted by replicant_008

The Iranians returned the British because they had got all the propaganda they could out of them and they served no further purpose. They were always going to get returned after some grandstanding about territorial sovereignty and as a bargaining chip to get their diplomats back.

That is quite obvious and no new revelation. For the second time. You'd figure the British would learn from prior mistakes.

In 2004, eight British servicemen were held for three days after their boats strayed into Iranian waters. They were freed after being blindfolded, interrogated, and forced to read apologies on Iranian TV. Some of the sensitive British equipment from 2004 has not been returned, British officials say.

Source: Washington Post

[xeroinfinity]

It very well could have been our fault, but I believe Iran has other motives.

Why have so many people been held hostage and then for no reason they get released. And I dont mean just this incident with Iran, Iraq too......

Who's to say these hostages arent exposed to something,
as a bio-weapon, and then let go

......a conspiracy theory for every event.