Does anyone else feels the way I do that the response to this outrage has been all around timid at best? Even Blair yesterday called this "fundamental"...what the hell does this mean?
This is a clear act of war and no one is really doing much.
I get the feeling that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye and that we are going to find out soon that this most likely was some kind of UK commando operation gone wrong or something.
Any thoughts?
It's all but impossible that they strayed into Iranian waters. Are you telling me the RN is going to deploy a couple of £180m frigates to the Persian Gulf and neglect to equip their boarding parties with £200 handheld GPS receivers?
The ship has radar and tactical tracking systems to let it know where the MIO patrol boats are. If the Cornwall's commander thought they were in Iranian waters he certainly would have ordered them back.
Chris is right. If Aunt Sally's Honda Odyssey can tell her exactly what street she's on, the Marines will certainly know their location when patrolling a hot border.
Posted at 2007-03-26 07:56:38 [PermaLink]From the original article [External Link]it's not really clear where the frigate was but it does state that they'd lost contact with the inflatables.
GoogleEarth the Shatt al Arab waterway and it'll become clearer just how confusing the border is and how tight the navigation is. Perhaps the Cornwall needs to remain in areas that have been mine-cleared and draught concerns might also come into play.
Having said that, you'd think the Allies would have
foreseen this scenario being as it isn't the first time it's happened.
Sounds very much like the wrong equipment in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Why are tough questions not being asked?
If the Brits were in Iranian waters by mistake, then someone should get their ass kicked for failing to provide a $200 GPS device.
If they were in Iraqi waters, then how the hell did an Iranian force get there in sufficient numbers as to kidnap the Brits with complete impunity and no opposition at all?
Something is really fishy and that's why the overall silence on this.
"If they were in Iraqi waters, then how the hell did an Iranian force get there in sufficient numbers as to kidnap the Brits with complete impunity and no opposition at all? "
They took their gunboats into Iraqi waters (which they claim are theirs) and forced the outnumbered and outgunned Brits to surrender. Really, I'm getting the feeling we're getting into Truther territory with some of the questions.
It is possible they were Iranian waters, but the most likely scenario is that the Iranians decided to snatch some Brits. And it certainly isn't one of those "how the hell did" issues. It's simple. They used boats.
And they're getting exactly the response from Tony Blair I would have expected, plenty of bloviating and no action, which gives them credibility for standing up to the western imperialists.
I expect the roughly 300 Iranians who were captured in Iraq will soon be headed home.
Au contraire, it is one of those "how the hell did" issues.
The frigate's responsibility is to ensure overwatch while one of her boarding parties is on another vessel. The boarding party, after all, only has small arms and can't offer much in the way of serious resistance. In practical terms it means the frigate keeps the other ship under her guns and if the boarding party comes to any grief, then things get interesting.
Presumably Cornwall had her helicopter up performing overwatch. The helo and the frigate would have had responsibility for keeping anybody else away from the detained vessel until the search had been executed.
How these six Iranian boats managed to get inside the exclusion area while overwatch was being diligently conducted is the big "how the hell did" issue. Unless, of course, the overwatch left something to be desired or was distracted from their proper duties.
I see. So the Iranians pull their gunboats up alongside British rubber boats used for inspecting commercial traffic and the frigate is supposed to do what? Start firing and endanger the lives of the 15 servicemen?
Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's turn an incident into a war and make sure that there are at least 15 British casualties. Does the frigate commander have the authority to fire on the Iranians? I thought not.
According to The Guardian:
"A London-based Arabic newspaper, Asharq al-Awsat, citing Iranian sources, said the two-boat British patrol had been seized to exchange Iranian captives.
It claimed the Iranians want a prisoner swap for senior officers of the al-Quds brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who were captured by US forces in Irbil, Iraq, earlier this year."
I think that explanation satisfies Occam's Razor. [External Link]
Of course, I haven't been to Mikey Rivero's site to find out What Really Happened.
You are missing the point, Bruce. Go battle your conspiracy strawmen elsewhere; I am not implying that there is any great conspiracy here -- I am implying that the overwatch was piss poor. Yes yes, the Iranians had gunboats. Big deal. They should have been sunk while approaching the MIO patrol.
The frigate maintains an exclusion zone around the targeted vessel so that no associates in smaller boats can get in and offload whatever contraband cargo they think is aboard. The approaching gunboats should have been spotted by the overwatch, and firing on them ought to have occurred at THAT point, before anyone was in Iranian custody. The problem could have an should have been solved much, much earlier in the chain of events.
Seeing as piracy is an act of war, it would indeed be entirely appropriate to respond with arms when someone is warring against you. War doesn't start when Cornwall responds; war started when the gunboats ignored whatever warnings came from the overwatch and proceeded to take the sailors and marines captive.
"They should have been sunk while approaching the MIO patrol."
And the frigate commander has the authority to start a war with Iran?
Iran is the one starting the war by sending patrol boats outside of their waters to harass a frigate lawfully engaged in MIOs under UNSC 1723.
The frigate captain would be merely ensuring the safety of his crew in the performance of their mission, and may invoke their right to self-defense which requires no authorisation. Fire across their bows with instructions to alter course, and if they do not, then destroy their ability to interfere with your mission.
He'd have to answer for it afterwards, naturally, but given the similar 2004 kidnapping incident it would not be hard to justify as a sound preventative measure.
Iran claims the waters are theirs and presumably exercises the right to have their boats in those waters.
No one gives a frigate commander authority to fire at foreign naval vessels unless they're alread at war or are fired upon first (or in imminent danger of being fired upon). Think about how quickly the Cold War would have turned hot had that not been the case.
The Iranians wouldn't have attempted this if they weren't fairly certain they'd get away with it. There's a reason they opted for a British vessel. There's a point at which the British will react to a provocation, but this isn't it. Even acting to reclaim the Falklands was highly controversial at the time.
And you wouldn't consider six gunboats closing on your two RIBs, engaged in a compliant boarding, to be something that might herald the imminent danger of them being fired upon?
How do you think the USS Cole ended up with a hole in its side?
"How do you think the USS Cole ended up with a hole in its side?"
Did Iranian gunships operating in water they consider their own put a hole in the Cole? This wasn't al Qaeda, it was the Iranian military.
And of course they always drive easily-identified boats of a distinctly national origin, displaying the appropriate naval jack at all times.
Posted at 2007-03-26 13:15:53 [PermaLink]Given the Iranians used gunboats, I doubt there was much confusion as to what they were.
Posted at 2007-03-26 13:20:14 [PermaLink]I think we will have to agree to disagree, Bruce. You may think that this little act of piracy is no big deal. I'm afraid I don't share that conclusion. I am certain it is related to the detention of many Iranians in Iraq, but it is not as if Coalition forces went waltzing through Iran to grab them.
The larger problem is that Iran has done this before in 2004, and will certainly do it again, unless the Coalition demonstrates that the taking of allied sailors is simply not worth the hassle. The IRGC and Iranian Navy, certainly, must pay a price for taking these liberties.
I do consider this to be a big deal, but I think the commander of the frigate didn't have much choice as to what he could do.
My own view is that the British should give the Iranian government an ultimatum. Either return the servicemen unharmed pronto or there will be no Iranian gunboats to carry out further acts of piracy.
But I also know that isn't going to happen. The servicemen are being used as hostages to secure the release of Iranians captured in Iraq - who will almost certainly be returned as part of a quid pro quo.
"The Iranians wouldn't have attempted this if they weren't fairly certain they'd get away with it."
Exactly.
I think the Brucemeister has this one right.
If the Iranians thought it was a safe bet the Brit commander would do what Chris believes he should have done, but did not do, this wouldn't have happened.
I don't blame the Cornwall's commander in the least, and the ramifications from killing Iranians in this context would almost certainly have included a significant increase in insurgent style attacks on British troops in Southern Iraq, attacks which would certainly result in some British deaths. Perhaps many.
The talk about starting a war with Iran is silly.
Iran has started a war with several nations and has been granted the right to call the tempo and to get away with practically anything.
A response by the Cornwall resulting in the deaths, or, if warning shots worked, the withdrawal of the Iranian sailors might have caused an uptick in terrorist attacks. Which is to say, caused the Iranians to choose to uptick now instead of some later time of their convenience. Those attacks will come, however the Cornwall responded. People will die. But letting Iran have its way will cause more to die. It's just that some people would prefer to think that backpedaling is safety.
Richard:
I understand and sympathize with your desire to see Iran receive a much deserved, humiliating ass-kicking.
But said ass-kicking would be extremely detrimental to the "Big Picture," Coalition success in Iraq.
We know Iran is aiding and abetting anti-Coalition factions and militias in Iraq. Killing Iranian military personnel in the Persian Gulf will inevitably lead Iran to retaliate by dramatically escalating it's involvement in attacks on Coalition forces. This will certainly translate into a significant rise in Coalition casualties. Such an increase could be the tipping point for a complete Coalition withdrawal from Iraq by 2008. In other words, defeat.
We're already precariously close to the tipping point, as a result of the combination of the weight of American public opinion against the war and the Democratic Party's determination to ensure an American defeat in Iraq. The Brits have already committed to a troop withdrawal time table.
If the incident with the Iranians had occurred in 2003 or 2004, I'd probably be in agreement with you. Unfortunately, because of the current situation in Iraq, the impulse to give Iran a black eye is something the United States and Britain can't afford to indulge in at the moment.
It's take a number time.
Mike H. Your post seems to indicate you believe the Iranians have some capacity for mischief they haven't yet used. Do you think it will stay on the shelf forever?
Would you prefer to let them pick their time and place? How would that do better than dealing with it now?
You also presume that US actions against increased Iranian activity in Iraq would remain shooting at the guys who get over the border.
The increase in US casualties, which may or may not happen, would be damaging to the effort due to democrat glee at the prospect. But if it were accompanied by kicking Iranian butt, the downside might not be so down.
"Mike H. Your post seems to indicate you believe the Iranians have some capacity for mischief they haven't yet used. Do you think it will stay on the shelf forever?"
I do, in reply to question one. Because the Bush Administration has been so inept at making its case and defending its policies, it's easy to forget that the Coalition's military presence in Iraq has the unequivocal backing of the UN. This makes it exceedingly difficult for the Iranians to engage in the level of subterfuge they'd actually like to employ.
Question two depends very much on Coalition responses to incidents like the one under discussion. Courtesy of the anti-Bush, anti-regime change media, the Iranians have been the beneficiary of semi-plausible denial in terms of their current level of anti-Coalition "mischief." If the Iranians want to up the ante (escalate the "mischief") and at the same time continue to benefit from the supposed "objectivity" of the previously mentioned media entities, they need their casus belli. Shooting up their gunboats and killing Revolutionary Guards gives them it.
"Would you prefer to let them pick their time and place? How would that do better than dealing with it now?"
Richard, we'd be giving them their time and place by blowing their boats out of the water. There's an element of " Go ahead, make my day" to this, in addition to the cynical strategy of grabbing hostages to gain the release of their own captured operatives.
"You also presume that US actions against increased Iranian activity in Iraq would remain shooting at the guys who get over the border."
I don't follow your logic. The greater the escalation of force against Iran, the greater the blowback in Iraq. The Bush Administration's capacity to weather this blowback is minimal, in terms of retaining combat troops in Iraq sufficient to win.
"The increase in US casualties, which may or may not happen, would be damaging to the effort due to democrat glee at the prospect. But if it were accompanied by kicking Iranian butt, the downside might not be so down."
Well, it will happen. Let's not deceive ourselves. There's every reason to believe, given the current state of politics in Washington, that the "damage to the effort" will be fatal. I don't think you realize just how determined the Democrats are to lose this war for political gain.
Right now, "kicking Iranian butt," has precious little upside, relative to the downside.
Mike.
I believe the dems are the US' worst enemy. The others can be defeated, maybe. The dems are like the jihadists. They just keep coming.
However, I think they've used all their tricks. The media have been reporting US casualties without context in order to make it seem meaningless. As far as they are concerned, every death is from a mine, without any actual combat action. To record that two paratroopers were killed in an action which killed twenty-three terrorists would give the public a sense of progress, which the MSM wish to avoid.
Were things to become hotter, that technique would be impossible.
The US had enough, in Viet Nam, of acting like a boxer restricted to hitting the opponent's forearms when the opponent struck. If Iran got friskier in Iraq, the US response would be different. Read Broughton's two books on the subject. His second, "Going Downtown: The Air War against Washington and Hanoi" gives you a sense of what we won't do again, particularly in the sequence of the cities mentioned in the title.
The Iranians would certainly respond if we hit their navy--probably--but it would be at the time we hit their navy. Some of the timing would be our action. Without that requirement to strike back, they have absolute freedom to choose their place and time.
I have thought of contacting my elected representatives and telling them they're scum-sucking, bottom-feeding traitors, but they'd take that as a compliment.
"The media have been reporting US casualties without context in order to make it seem meaningless. As far as they are concerned, every death is from a mine, without any actual combat action..... "
Absolutely, because it is the intent of those media organizations opposed to the war to use the total number of US casualties as evidence the war is both lost and ill-advised. How often do you see any mention in a MSM commentary piece of the fact that 20% of US fatalities in Iraq are not the result of enemy action?
This is what makes a more open, escalated Iranian component to the Iraqi conflict so dangerous. It will increase Coalition casualties, at a time when public and political support for staying the course is dangerously fragile.
As I said earlier, the Bush Administration needs to keep its eye on the big picture. Success in Iraq is vital, but beyond that, success will also represent a defeat for Iran, which so desperately wants the US to fail in Iraq. In that sense, it would serve as a form of satisfying, if indirect punishment for Iran's actions. More direct punishment, if that becomes necessary or desirable, will have to wait.