Well, we all knew that this was coming. Here’s video of the hostages from LiveLeak (commentary in Arabic). One question: don’t these people get some type of SERE training? The female Marine already seems to be writing letters admitting guilt…

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.”

So, he both understands the mistake, and stands by it? And given the chance, dammit we’d do it again!

Plus which, in the future we’ll be sending out our little rubber boats pre-punctured and loaded with buckets of chum. It’s how much we care about our sailors that makes us stand out in the crowd.

Give away the store, why don’t you? Not that the Iranians didn’t already figure out your strategy before you outlined it so nicely. At least you said it in the iconic, superior British Officer tone. That should intimidate…nobody.

Hmm, it seems the USS Hood is sinking…

Resolute on March 26, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Erm, that would be the HMS Hood. Right side, wrong navy.

What a dope! A foriegn power attacks your sailors and allowing them to defend themselves would be called roaring into action?

What would he call a proper response to a wmd attack on his troops? Tea and crumpets with the terrorists?

Hmm, it seems the USS Hood is sinking. Do telegram the Germans and ask them what trouble is causing the Bismark’s guns to misfire.

Yet, in reality, all it takes is for insurance rates for cargo and vessel to go sky high, or to become unavailable, to stop the flow of tanker oil through the Straits.

Time to tighten the financial noose even further, and make it clear diplomatically that any unprovoked action against shipping in the Gulf will be met with a massive and decisive response against government and military infrastructure.

That title’s from the Declaration of Independence, and our casus belli in 1776 is being played out again between Iran and England. Fifteen British sailors have been captured and spirited off to Persia where, we are told, they are to……

I don’t want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team’s training is a little bit more towards self-preservation.”

But doesn’t seem to have any sore of equivalent abhorance for the Brits who say this:

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.”

But of course, what else could one expect from people whose whole life philosophy seems to be to blame America first?

Which one of the above people do you think the neighborhood bully would target first? My bet is on the Brit losing his lunch money and having to beg 1/2 a sandwich off the American.

I think that Bush is afraid that any “escalation” with Iran could lead to Iran sending full-fledged forces across the border, and that would require us to-gasp-INCREASE the size of our forces in Iraq. And not by a mere division or so.

Remember, Bush spent six years with Rumsfeld, the first major politico-military leader in 10,000 years NOT to understand that when you go to war, you GET A BIGGER ARMY!
As a result, I suspect that our troops in Iraq are practically hostages for Ahmadinejad.

Hmm….maybe if we can push that angle with the Dems in Congress, they’ll agree to let the troops stay, and then we could trick them into letting us send more “hostages” over there until we finally have enough to do something about Iran.

In the 19th century, Britain would have responded to an action like this with an immediate declaration of war, a bl……

Really? Offending one of our last remaining allies, needlessly, is by you a great moment in American history? What possible good comes from this? One can certainly hope what he said was true, but the idea that articulating this thought is anything other than bone-headed? Sorry, can’t agree.

honora on March 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM

The liberals in England brought this upon themselves by ruling out any military action against Iran from the get go. Surprise: The Iranians believed them and are testing them. They have nothing to lose; liberals will never use substantial military action against dangerous enemy.

I’m less concerned about Great Britain’s lack of action than I am about our own Congress’s lack of words. Grow some stones, Dems.

Just a thought… don’t we need something like 200,000 more troops guarding the Iraq-Iran border right about now? Surely a British strike would prompt Iran to (more formally) invade Iraq. We’re not ready to defend that as well as we should be… yet? We do have to be careful not to play into Iran’s end-times dreams; otherwise, we’ll win, but it’d be at the cost of Iraq and Israel.

DEFINITION: De-Escalatory – Unwilling or unable to confront thuggish bully; See appeasement (Example: Neville Chamberlian’s policy towards Hitler was de-escalatory)

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 26, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Also, See…….. honora on March 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM

With budget cut talks that aim to knock it down to 26 ships the next few years.The days of Britannia ruling the waves are long gone, my friend.

tomk59 on March 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM

I think the days of Britannia are over.

PRCaldude, agreed. But as to the Brits proud naval history, that’s pretty much all it is these days –history.They’re down to what, 26 ships now? Still very high quality, but when your quantity is so low, it kind of takes the edge off of your quality.

tomk59 on March 26, 2007 at 12:13 PM

43 ships. Plenty to start blockading Iran. They need to pull up, mine their harbor, and start interdicting shipping.

Really? Offending one of our last remaining allies, needlessly, is by you a great moment in American history? What possible good comes from this? One can certainly hope what he said was true, but the idea that articulating this thought is anything other than bone-headed? Sorry, can’t agree.

honora on March 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Huh? When your ally is screwing up, best to let him know. In the process, it’s time to remind them of their proud naval history, military tradition, and the fact that they’ve been a great force for good in the world. Blair should ask for the admiralty’s resignation and then replace them with fighting men. This is just pathetic to watch.

We’re obviously in no position to add anything about the Iranian act of war that isn’t being done better on Hot Air and NRO (also see NRO here and here). Here’s one of Ledeen’s happier FYIs: Then there are the……

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.
This makes me so proud to be an American.

wytammic on March 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Really? Offending one of our last remaining allies, needlessly, is by you a great moment in American history? What possible good comes from this? One can certainly hope what he said was true, but the idea that articulating this thought is anything other than bone-headed? Sorry, can’t agree.