Tammy Bruce: Iran's British Marine Hostage Drama Deepens

Iran's British Marine Hostage Drama Deepens

Several serious developments today.

First, Britain had asked for access to the kidnapped marines and sailors. That has been denied.

Britain does not know where sailors are held; says access denied

LONDON -- British officials do not know where Iran is holding 15 sailors and marines captured in the Persian Gulf, and requests for access to them have been denied, the Foreign Office said Sunday...The Foreign Office said Sunday that British requests for access to the 15 Britons have been denied...U.S. News and World Report, citing a U.S. Army report out of Iraq, said the capture of the British soldiers was not the first time Iranians have taken Western forces by surprise in the border area.

According to the news magazine, American troops working with Iraqi border guards within Iraq were attacked by a much larger Iranian military unit in September. U.S. News said no Americans were hurt in the incident, but four Iraqi soldiers, an interpreter, and an Iraqi border policeman remain missing.

Sure sounds like more "Iraqi civil war" proof to me.

In the meantime, Blair convenes the UK's "Cobra" team to address the issue.

The clutch of VIPs will gather in an operations room several floors below Downing Street as early as this afternoon to plot an escape from a military spat that now threatens to become an international incident...The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

The order to show restraint has been observed throughout the forces and the British government in the 48 hours since, but it is unclear how long both sides will be able to maintain control...The smaller-scale precedent, the taking of six British marines and two sailors on the same waterway in June 2004, was a painful lesson. The personnel were only returned after they had been paraded blindfold on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally. Three years on, the government is still pressing Iran for the return of its boats and kit, including valuable radar equipment...

COBRA is an acronym for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, where its meetings are held. Tony Blair, senior ministers, police and security chiefs all take part. It is called after events such as 9/11, 7/7 and can evoke emergency powers such as suspending Parliament or restricting movement.

The UK's Independent has a story about how we would have shot back, highly critical of the British apparently not doing so. Shooting back is nice. Hey, I have an idea. Let's actually start doing that ...in Baghdad, and at least in the general direction of the enemy--al-Sadr and that Iranian Death Squad of his. There's also the consideration if we actually dispatched that freak and engaged Iran as we should have, the British marines wouldn't have been taken hostage in the first place. Just a thought.

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'

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..."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?'"

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."

It seems those easily removable velcro stick-on balls are available in Washington, DC and England!

Posted by Tammy · March 25, 2007 06:53 PM · Permalink
Balls, Lack Of | Military | Politics | Terrorism | War on Radical Islam

Comments

The Iranian thugs have been very successful "bullies on the playground." Who is surprised by their bold actions? This is what you get for trying to be the nice guy; for trying to be reasonable with the completely UNreasonable.
When will we learn??

Now is the time for a response with some actual teeth. (Balls with some teeth! That would scare 'em.)

Posted by: Kimj7157 at March 26, 2007 02:39 AM

By being timid the UK/US have lost and lost big. Just like whenCarter stabed the Shah in the back 30 years ago - in the same place.
We should have sent in teams of commandos/SEALs Sat and got them out. Iran has once again exposed us for the paper tigers we really are!

no guts no glory! Bush and Tony no longer (if ever) have any guts. Talk is cheap. JFK or Jimmy can talk. Another defeat in the War on Terror for the Western Allies!

Posted by: Rod at March 26, 2007 04:24 AM

Ok Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair...we are waiting for a response to this act! We are waiting...still waiting...waiting...sigh...

Posted by: SLABBOTT at March 26, 2007 05:50 AM

Why hasn't this worthless Democratic Congress passed a resolution in support of the Brits? They want to stick their nose into everything with these non-binding resolutions, how about showing some backbone (one time) and condemning Iran and showing support for the Brits. Or do they only have enough velcro when it comes to embarrassing a lameduck President. Either they pass a resolution of support or they are gutless cowards.

Posted by: SteveOk at March 26, 2007 08:31 AM

So where is our President? Aren't the British one of ours? Why don't we go get our guys? While we are at it, let's send in a few dozen cruise missles to take out their nuclear development facilities. We could say that we are striking "critical infrastructure" and we could even invite the Israelies to play! Bush would go up 15 points in the polls and Chris Matthews would have a stroke!

Posted by: SLABBOTT at March 26, 2007 02:08 PM

Slabbott, indeed, under the NATO Charter, this act of war against the UK was an act of war against all the members of the alliance, and as such we have a right to respond to it.

Posted by: Dave J at March 26, 2007 02:41 PM

Unfortunately the Iranians are well aware that Bush is a lame duck President and impotent and that Congress (led by the Democrats) are a six-pack of weinies without the manhood to even pass a non-binding resolution of condemnation. They can't even pass a resolution saying we support the Brits, for crying out loud. I guess we are remaining "neutral" in this thing. Brother does that stink to high heavens.

Posted by: SteveOk at March 26, 2007 02:58 PM

A few questions:

1. Since when is a Navy lieutenant commander (O-4) a "senior American commander in the Gulf"?

2. Do either US or UK rules of engagement require suicide? The 15 UK sailors and Marines were in two rigid inflatables and were armed solely with sidearms (maximum effective range: ~50 meters). The six Iranian fast inshore attack craft are generally armed with heavy machine guns.

I doubt that either LCDR Horner or Ms. Bruce -- Zen archers though they must be with the 9mm pistol -- would have enjoyed much success attempting to shoot their way out of such a predicament.

Posted by: BelleauWoodsman at March 27, 2007 10:34 PM

BelleauWoodsman - -
Are you a Fifth Marine?
I was 40 years ago.

a 1/5
Nam
1967 - 1968

Posted by: Rod at March 28, 2007 01:35 PM

By Category

By Month

Iran's British Marine Hostage Drama Deepens

Comments

Post a comment