Tammy Bruce: Pancakes Versus Resisting the Enemy

Pancakes Versus Resisting the Enemy

Leading Seaman Faye Turney 'confessing' to the Iranians

At the risk of seeming insensitive and accusations of being politically incorrect, I must share with you my initial impressions of the Iranian propaganda video, letter and interview involving the British sailors and marines. I am disturbed primarily by the criminality of the Iranians, as we all have been for decades, but I am also concerned about how malleable the British captives seem to be.

We're now seeing the Iranian footage of the kidnapped British sailors and marines on a veritable loop in the media. All of them are sitting in a room, looking healthy and unharmed physically, tucked into what looks like a meal of pancakes. We are also seeing constant footage of an 'interview' given by Turney, wearing the headscarf, and the text of her letter back home.

What does she write? Exactly what the Iranians wanted her to--she's been treated well, they have food and drink, her captors are warm and kind. She also noted in her letter home that she has written a letter to the Iranian people apologizing to them for "apparently" trespassing into Iranian waters. All the GPS coordinates, and even the first announced position of the ship by the Iranians themselves, contradict that claim. The Iranians have since reversed themselves moving the coordinates just inside the demarcation line. And what is she getting for this cooperation? She is being released either today or tomorrow.

People are already claiming she did not write the letter. That is belied by the fact that she has given this interview, saying essentially the things she says in the letter. Is she under pressure? Yes, of course. But the question becomes, exactly how much pressure is required to get a British sailor to cooperate with the enemy these days?

Let's ask: What happened to the concept of resisting the enemy? I realize everyone has a breaking point, but shouldn't soldiers at least make their captors use extreme force before issuing propaganda for them? The British marines and sailors could refuse to eat, could refuse to write and could refuse offers to go home, if only you will write this, that and the other thing. But the opposite is happening. We are certainly sympathetic to POWs, but their soldierly duty does not end at capture. Their discipline and commitment to their mission continues, as should their fighting spirit as they come face to face with the enemy.

I do expect the sailors and marines to claim they were under duress, and obviously they are. I do not expect them, however, to say they were tortured. Not that I want them to be, but let's get real here. Are these troops not trained to resist completely? That is their job, it is supposedly what they're trained for.

John McCain, crippled at the hands of the enemy

John McCain notes in his biography that, while a POW, he eventually did succumb to torture inflicted by the North Vietnamese enemy and consequently signed 'confession' letters and told the enemy more than he should have. But he was pushed to his breaking point--literally. Regular beatings, broken bones, no food and water. He didn't sign letters and give information after a harsh talking to, basic threats, a plate of pancakes and a promise to send him home.

This new hostage footage, of course, is used internally not only in Iran, but across the Middle East to further the lie that the coalition is the Bad Guy, and that Iran is the gentle put-upon victim. It worries me that these soldiers appear to have been so easily manipulated and so quickly did the bidding of the enemy.

Let me remind you as well, it's one thing to be a private citizen in this situation, someone who is not trained to withstand an enemy. We are looking in this footage at British marines and sailors. Being captured becomes part of the war theatre. They are trained for warfare. They are trained to defend their nation and themselves. They are trained to not let themselves be used by the enemy.

Or at least I thought they were.

Posted by Tammy · March 28, 2007 10:54 AM · Permalink
Military | War on Radical Islam

Comments

I think that Sat morning when the looked to the sky and did not see teams of commandos/SEALs they realized their fate. Bush for the umpteenth time the last 2.2 years and Blair for the second time I am aware of, are both doing their Jimmy Carter acts. These folk realize that neither their country nor America is going to do anything for them. Just like Carter 30 years ago- in the same country!
It is depressing to seem them giving up.. But, think how depressing it must be for them to know that the “leaders” of the War on Terror consider them to be expendable! How would you react?

Posted by: Rod at March 28, 2007 01:29 PM

I couldn't agree more, Tammy.

I'm not sure what the British military subscribes to....but as a US Navy veteran, I can tell you that the six articles of the Code of Conduct were drilled into us during boot camp.

Posted by: The Ugly American at March 28, 2007 01:52 PM

I'm curious, why it is the U.S. Navy's job to rescue Royal Navy personnel who were taken under the nose of one of their warships? Obviously they are under different ROE's than we are and I am not about to second guess the OIC.
I will say the Iranians would not have tried this on an American boarding party; the warship on scene would have interceded between the Iranian boats and the boarding party long enough to recover them. And despite their bluster they know at the end of the day we would have been underway to rearm and refuel leaving an oil slick and assorted body parts.

Posted by: fleet sailor at March 28, 2007 01:58 PM

I think you're spot on Tammy. I read the letter the seaman woman wrote and was just watching clips of the group brunch on the news thinking that something is very wrong with this picture. They could have at least looked like they weren't actually enjoying the food so much. And perhaps the seaman woman could have put up a fight when they tried to put the scarf on. But, not a hair out of place... .

I know it's easy for me to be critical of the British marines sitting in the comfort of my livingroom. But this all looks pretty neat and tidy. I hope there was some kind of struggle at some point; some kind of resistance.

This seems to fit right in with the pervasive posture of appeasement that is currently filling the air. Just backdown. Don't make any waves. Just sweep duty and honor under the rug for now.

Posted by: Kimj7157 at March 28, 2007 02:04 PM

I'll try to sound coherent considering the amount of rage I feel after seeing this video. These british sailors have probably seen what happens when Imperial Islamic savages play with video cameras (e.g. Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Paul Johnson). We don't know what is being pointed at them behind the cameras. It's possible that they could be force-feeding them for the "hostage reality show" and starving them the rest of the time. I also don't believe a damn word of the statement that they are going to release that female sailor.

What makes me more angry than any resistance the sailors could have offered is the response from the British government that this is "unacceptable." It was "unacceptable" when Iran took these hostages and now this video is "unacceptable." Oh really, Great Britain? It looks like you are accepting this quite well considering it has gone on for almost a week. What are you going to do next? Write Iran a mean letter saying that this is "unacceptable"? I'm sure they're terrified.

P.S. If any Islamic mutant ever tried to put a scarf over my head, you'd see quite a different picture when the video camera started rolling.

Posted by: ashleymatt at March 28, 2007 02:06 PM

Rod: They certainly didn't appear all that depressed to me, given the level of their appetites.

They're supposed to be conducting themselves like soldiers...regardless of all the political bullsh*t going on back home [which btw is nothing new in the world of soldiering].

I'm sure the survivors of the Hanoi Hilton would've enjoyed getting a pancake breakfast. A welcome change from their daily torture sessions.

Posted by: The Ugly American at March 28, 2007 02:09 PM

If any Islamic mutant ever tried to put a scarf over my head, you'd see quite a different picture when the video camera started rolling.

Amen, sister.

Posted by: The Ugly American at March 28, 2007 02:12 PM

Didn't the world have it's knickers in a wad about the Geneva Convention and our Gitmo prisoners? The Brits are uniformed members of a nation's military. There's no argument they are covered under the Convention and cannot be paraded around on TV like that.

Posted by: pat_s at March 28, 2007 02:39 PM

The British Navy is scheduled in July 2007 to become smaller than the French Navy for the first time in over 400 years. Facing that, perhaps the apparent indifference of the captives to behaving like British military men and women is understandable. The abject cowards in Parliament and among the British people have turned the mighty British Lion in a broken toy French Poodle.

Posted by: St. Thor at March 28, 2007 03:10 PM

Why doesn't President Bush just put on a goofy button down sweater, come on TV and tell us that it's OUR fault because of malaise and be done with it! Then go build some houses for Habitat and let's get a leader in the WH for a change! Good grief! Go in a kick these pricks in the stones!

Posted by: SLABBOTT at March 28, 2007 03:41 PM

"I'm curious, why it is the U.S. Navy's job to rescue Royal Navy personnel who were taken under the nose of one of their warships?"

As I've mentioned before, this act of war against the UK constitutes an act of war against the US under the terms of the NATO charter. That's why.

Posted by: Dave J at March 28, 2007 04:23 PM

Before jumping onto the 'Brits have gone soft' wagon, I will just say this: I agree w/ some on this post that we do not truly know what is going on behind the camera view. We do not know if one of the other sailor's lives would be sacrificed if Turney did not write the letter or say certain things on video.

Of course, we know the Iranians are not treating them well. Whatever 'acts of kindness' on the part of the Iranians is all for show. All we have to do is go back to 1979. As I recall, the hostages were forced to read messages to America & their families, and we learned upon their release just how horrifying those days were (as if we didn't know - obviously, some did not).

Having interviewed people in the past who have been persecuted by terrorists/militarist regimes, I heard their powerful stories in which some revealed they submitted to terrorists and did so because if they did not comply, they would see their children burn before them, be forced to watch the females in their families raped or would have to endure another night of being forced to listen to their son being suspended from a ceiling and beaten. Granted, the people I met were not in the military service, but we do not know what those service people are being threatened with. It could even be the threat of forcing the British prisoners to witness an innocent person being tortured to death unless they comply w/ their requests.

What I will say is that I am, indeed, angry with our president and Tony Blair for not backing up all their tough talk with even tougher actions - or 'reactions' I should say. I've said before in a previous post that if our president had backed up all his Toughspeak in the past, we would not have this situation upon us.

Posted by: artgal at March 28, 2007 05:19 PM

as Artgal explained so well, we don't know the whole of the conditions.
And yes, there needs to be reaction, while the political climate precludes a direct military intervention. I would be dismayed to hear that any tanker has docked or left any Iranian facility until all hostages are returned. (I would prefer a massive missle strike but alas)
Also, we can hope that the Brits have changed their policy and will in the future defend themselves and not get taken.

Posted by: botg at March 28, 2007 06:45 PM

"It was announced that a woman in the group would be freed, but (this development) was met with an incorrect attitude. Naturally, (the release) will be suspended and it will not take place."

This is what we've come to: terrorist regimes 'disciplining' us for 'attitude problems'. Next, they'll be advising us to take Ritalin. They lie about releasing a hostage to look like they've "softened their stance" (that phrase is getting really tedious btw) and then they don't (I almost swooned when that news broke. NOT) because Britain said mean things to them. I guess I don't blame Iran for taking hostages; they're only going to end up benefiting from it, if from nothing else than making the West look totally impotent, incompetent, and, yes, childish.

Posted by: ashleymatt at March 29, 2007 06:47 AM

Could be that some form of coercion is being applied to the captives. I wonder how much is necessary. We do know the West has gone soft. We can see it in the timidity of the British government. They prefer waffles—with lots of syrup. They actually thought they were getting tough by going public with the story that the GPS coordinates first supplied by Iran confirmed the boat was in Iraqi waters. Take that! With little exception, the British press shows no spine. For the most part their opinion is this would never have happened were it not for Blair's gigantic Iraq mistake and the belligerence of America.

And now the latest from Ashley. You can't ever appease these people enough.

Posted by: pat_s at March 29, 2007 07:01 AM

I don't think Margaret Thatcher would have stood for this sort of thing. But I could be wrong.

Posted by: PeteRFNY at March 29, 2007 09:12 AM

Rob, you could be completely right about the lack of leadership coming from both the British and American Governments but it should make no difference. Remember that during the Vietnam War, our POW's resisted with everything they had despite their commander in chief being Johnson or Nixon.

When Admiral James Stockdale knew he had reached his breaking point and no longer had the strength to resist his captors, he deliberately disfigured himself rather than go on camera and spew enemy propaganda. He received the Medal of Honor for this action which he considered no more than his duty as a member of the US Navy. He never gave a thought to whether or not the leadership in Washingon was worthy of such sacrifice. Our men and women don't fight for an administration. If they ever do, all hope is lost.

Posted by: mlp at March 29, 2007 09:23 AM

Pat_S says: "Didn't the world have it's knickers in a wad about the Geneva Convention and our Gitmo prisoners? The Brits are uniformed members of a nation's military. There's NO ARGUMENT they are covered under the Convention and cannot be paraded around on TV like that."

Au Contraire! there's an argument all right. The Belmont Club explains:

"As currently interpreted the Geneva Conventions only apply to individuals bent on destroying America. Individuals who blow up elementary schools, kidnap children, attack churches and mosques, kill invalids in wheelchairs, plan attacks on skyscrapers in New York, behead journalists, detonate car bombs with children to camouflage their crime, or board jetliners with explosive shoes -- all while wearing mufti or even women's clothing -- these are all considered "freedom fighters" of the most principled kind. They and they alone enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. As to Americans like Tucker and Menchaca or Israeli Gilad Shalit -- or these fifteen British sailors for that matter, it is a case of "what Geneva Convention?"

From: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/name-rank-and-serial-number.html

Posted by: AntonK at March 29, 2007 10:30 AM

Oops, you're right ANTONK. I had a memory lapse and forgot the world morphed into Crackistan.

Posted by: pat_s at March 29, 2007 05:54 PM

MLP - ”…. during the Vietnam War, our POW's resisted with everything they had despite their commander in chief being Johnson or Nixon.” Is right but it misses the point and overlooks a very important fact. Both Nixon and LBJ did not consider the prisoners to be expendable. As a Nam vet (a 1/5 1967 + 1968) I knew a few Jarheads who died in vertical envelopments attempting to free POWs. Both Bushes and Carter have shown that the POWs or hostages are on their own. Which is what Blair has done for 7 days now. Going to the UN is BS!

Nam POW’s knew that we were doing what could be done, including sacrificing the lives of other warriors , to get them out. Except for a very short period of time (1981 – 1988) this has not been the case. I have several friends/relatives in the military (Jarheads or SEALs) They understand this only too well. If they get caught they are on their own. Just like the Brits have been the last week. They do not fight for Bush they fight for the flag and for us. If they were fighting for Bush they would have quit already just like he has.

Posted by: Rod at March 29, 2007 07:06 PM

Yes, when captured by the enemy, soldiers and sailors are supposed to resist, but let's not forget this: "Britain exported over $700 million in goods to Iran last year and is one of their major trading partners." Don't sound like "enemies" to me.

And Tony Blair's response to all this:

"The important thing for us is to get them back safe and sound, but we can't enter into some basis of bargaining," Blair said. "What you have to do when you are engaged with people like the Iranian regime, you have to keep explaining to them, very patiently, what it is necessary to do and at the same time make them fully aware there are further measures that will be taken if they're not prepared to be reasonable."

Yes, he's prepared to explain to them, very patiently, how very naughty they've been. If that doesn't do it, he'll throw a horrible pout.

I remember when it was "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Now, it's 'Speak interminably and carry no stick at all'. I think the Iranians figured this out quite awhile ago, so let's not be too hard on the sailors left in the lurch by this feckless bunch. They don't want to lose one of their major trading partners.

Posted by: Swen at March 29, 2007 08:05 PM

I will say one thing: the Germans may know how to make beer...the Swiss may know how to make cheese and chocolate...the Russians may know their way around a vat of vodka...the British may wow us with fish and chips...the Italians may have beautiful cities and delightful food...but nobody - and I mean NOBODY - knows how to take and exploit hostages quite like the Iranians do.

They need to work that angle into their official flag or something like that.

Posted by: PeteRFNY at March 29, 2007 09:25 PM

exactly how much pressure is required to get a British sailor to cooperate with the enemy these days?

What enemy? Could you find a single British politician who would unambiguously state that Iran is an enemy state? Clearly the MoD doesn't think so, or it wouldn't have ordered the HMS Cornwall to stand down.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 30, 2007 10:58 AM

From the Grasping at Straws Department, the Timesonline tries hard to parse the statements of the hostages in a feeble attempt to portray them as more stalwart than their happy-go-lucky, pancake guzzling behavior informs us.

What they said . . . and what they meant
The televised statements made by the captured British servicemen contained information and clues that might be interpreted as follows:

"I have served in Foxtrot Nine Nine"
Leading Seaman Faye Turney
Royal Navy sailors would not normally use a call sign when referring to their ship in public

"As we had apparently gone into Iranian waters"
Leading Seaman Turney
She is careful to state this is the Iranian claim rather than the British position

"Representative (sic) of the House of Commons"
Leading Seaman Turney
Not a phrase used in Britain to refer to MPs. Evidence that the statement was dictated by someone else

"This has caused even more distrust for the people of Iran, and the whole area of the British"
Leading Seaman Turney
She has not corrected the glaring grammatical error of the "whole area of the British"

"At approximately about 10 in the morning we were seized, apparently at this point here on their maps, and on the GPS they have shown us"
Captain Chris Air
Refusing to collaborate the Iranian position of the seizure and providing information that would help the Royal Navy to pinpoint the patrol's exact position

"Yes, I would like to say to the Iranian people, 'I can understand why you are so angry about our intrusion into your waters' "
Lieutenant Felix Carman
Evidence that the statements by the sailors and Marines is being controlled by their captors

Posted by: pat_s at April 2, 2007 02:47 PM

By Category

By Month

Pancakes Versus Resisting the Enemy

Comments

Post a comment