Video: Col. Ralph Peters calls for court-martial of British sailors’ officers; Update: Video — sailors party on Iranian TV after Ahmadinejad issues pardon
posted at 4:55 pm on April 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Or “court marshal,” as the crack Fox copy editors have it. I like the “Honorable Service?” chyron, too. A textbook example of the Cavuto Mark!
Between this and the Jack Jacobs clip, it looks like the backlash among U.S. military men is on. I wonder if British media will pick it up and make it an issue. The wound to national pride inflicted by Iran must cut deep, but it’s always safer to lash out at Americans. A little displaced anger at Peters and co. would be just what the doctor ordered.
Ever seen Peters’s hypothetical redrawn map of the Middle East, by the way? The Turks, Saudis, Iranians, and Pakistanis love it.
Update: Charming.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m fairly sure the Syrians would adore it as well…
jeffshultz on April 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Wasn’t westerners redrawing maps in the mideast part of what got us in this mess in to start with? what makes him think he’ll do any better?
Bad Candy on April 6, 2007 at 5:03 PM
love ralph peters!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27716
jummy on April 6, 2007 at 5:04 PM
That re-drawn map might as well include Mordor.
Blacklake on April 6, 2007 at 5:05 PM
One thing is certain….US military commanders are going to be using this incident as a textbook example of what not to do while in captivity.
Course we have our code of conduct…the Brits don’t.
Peters’ line on his ex-girlfriends had me chucking though…ain’t that the truth.
John from OPFOR on April 6, 2007 at 5:11 PM
the maps were redrawn to effect exactly the sort of thing you had in iraq with a sunni minority in conflict with a shi’ite majority and a kurd group over there and a whole bunch of discontent. peters’ conception undoes all that.
jummy on April 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Pile on is right.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 6, 2007 at 5:13 PM
umm………Free Baluchistan?
Huh?
I like the “Islamic Sacred State” idea though. That shold go over without a hitch.
Tman on April 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM
why not? you’d have the responsible islamic states – saudi, u.a.e., oman, et al – administrate it.
jummy on April 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM
The Brit’s are, and always have been, preoccupied with pomp and circumstance. It’s their heritage. I don’t see anything happening to these alleged “hostages” other than maybe awards and medals. It’s all about; pip-pip cheerio and all that rot, stiff upper lip lads, etc ad mauseum.
They all took parting gifts home with them like souvenirs of a nice vacation, or like conciliation prizes from a game show “Ohhhh, we’re so sorry you picked the wrong curtain, but here’s a nice little gift bag to make you feel good (and make us look good).” None of them refused the parting gift bag or dropped it on the tarmac as they boarde their plane. Now after all that has happened, they’re back (thank goodness), in all their glory up on the stage looking like tough dogs of war, with their swagger and esprit de corp.
It’s disgusting. England has succumbed to their conquerers, just as France has, just as Spain has, and just as many more European countries will in the future.
SilverStar830 on April 6, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Yeah, Peters really laid it on those guys (and gal) in todays NY Post op-ed
A court martial sounds a little extreme, and sometimes Peters goes a little overboard…(I’m guessing) there were no intel leaks…but I do try to compare this to when our own airmen were taken by the Chinese back in ‘01, and how Bush (pre-9/11) handled it.
JetBoy on April 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Would have loved to see that!
mikeyboss on April 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Bleh. The whole story is just demoralizing.
spmat on April 6, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Court martial??? They probably had so many “rules of engagement” that they didn’t want the libs to try them for murder if they would have off-ed a couple of Persians.
Hey Iran, try it with the U.S. We make nicer bombs. It’s about time for another live-fire exercise and we STILL have leftover bombs from WWII that can be retrofitted with guidance packages. :-)
Mojave Mark on April 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Why on earth would you say that the saudi’s like his remapping?
Kevin M on April 6, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Ralph Peters is a retired Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)
Col. is the abbreviation for a full Colonel (COL)
Of course, this is Ralph being…well…Ralph.
armylawyer on April 6, 2007 at 6:10 PM
“We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender…”
– Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940.
TheBigOldDog on April 6, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Armylawyer…While you are technically correct, you still refer to a LTC as “Colonel” in conversation or address. Leave it to a ‘lawyer’ to split hairs…or maybe that was just my Marine Corps.
Semper Fi.
DoctorDentons on April 6, 2007 at 6:19 PM
The bottom line is that they made a tactical error that our ground forces (and theirs) would not have made – they got off the ship they were searching.
If our troops, dismounted from their Humvees in the process of searching a building for weapons, saw an oncoming group of insurgents in Toyotas – the would not get back into their Humvees, but take up defensive positions in the buildings.
The process of getting off the ship allowed the Iranians to close in and surround them. At that point they were screwed. They abandoned a defensible position on the ship, to get in their little rubber boats. Poor leadership, or poor training.
What is unclear is why the helicopter left. What was its purpose? Was it armed? Perhaps it went to refuel, which brings up disturbing conclusions about superior Iranian tactics and intelligence.
Agrippa2k on April 6, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I dont think it is really fair of the Col. to say US service members wouldn’t act the same way. Not that I am saying they WOULD but that is a pretty sweeping generalization.
Besides, it isnt like we have an incident to compare it too…when was the last time US captives were treated like this?
SnakeintheGrass on April 6, 2007 at 6:30 PM
A court-martial for being a bit too smiley seems extreme. The lashing their getting from other in the military might be punishment enough.
frankj on April 6, 2007 at 6:47 PM
HAHA!!
Theworldisnotenough on April 6, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Uh, you’re kidding, right, Kevin M? The dry sarcasm should be pretty evident here. They love it about as much as a kick to the face.
flutejpl on April 6, 2007 at 7:10 PM
All soldiers should have cyanide tablets at hand in case they’re captured by a country they aren’t at war with.
Nonfactor on April 6, 2007 at 7:12 PM
When the whole Haditha thing was making headlines, the hardcore military supporters were screaming everybody needs to wait for all the facts to come in and that the media has no right to put these Marines on trial. Now, when the soldiers are the victims, they can’t line up fast enough to whore themselves to the media, rush to conclusions, and attack soldiers for not mounting crazy suicide missions. There’s something wrong with that. That’s why everyone who’s not a crazy neocon, hates crazy neocons.
JaHerer22 on April 6, 2007 at 7:12 PM
When the whole Haditha thing was making headlines, the hardcore military supporters were screaming everybody needs to wait for all the facts to come in and that the media has no right to put these Marines on trial. Now, when the soldiers are the victims, they can’t line up fast enough to whore themselves to the media, rush to conclusions, and attack soldiers for not mounting crazy suicide missions. There’s something wrong with that. That’s why everyone who’s not a crazy neocon, hates crazy neocons.
JaHerer22 on April 6, 2007 at 7:12 PM
It did. You saw the state drawn around Mecca, didn’t you?
PRCalDude on April 6, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I notice neither map, Peters’s or the current, indicates the location of Jerusalem. The second map just politely refers to pre-1967 borders. Pre-1967 borders don’t include the old city of Jerusalem including the wailing wall. By leaving that important point out, Peters reveals disingenuity or, at least, naivete. Israel will not concede old city Jerusalem. After Jordan captured East Jerusalem (including the old city) in 1948, Jordan expelled all Jews from the area and destroyed the Jewish quarter and a number of synogues. I can’t imagine Israel peacefully agreeing to the political divide that allowed that to happen.
Jens on April 6, 2007 at 7:18 PM
The British have put their military in an untenable position with their current Rules Of Engagement, which, in effect, tells them not to fight the enemy, but to negotiate and appease them. The implication being that, if they do engage them, they will be court martialed.
So, with that fact in mind, I have paraphrased part of Hamlet’s Soliloquy by William Shakespeare, England’s greatest writer, and called it:
Britain’s Catch 22 Soliloquy
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous humiliation,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing them be court martialed by your own country?
‘Nuf said!
pocomoco on April 6, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Oooo, a monocratic map-makin’ journo-novelist type.
Plus, cool hat, Ralph.
Stephen M on April 6, 2007 at 7:35 PM
AP, your sarcastic humor is what I love most here.
Exactly my first thought.
As for the soldiers, I agree with the criticism concerning the cheery disposition they displayed.
What I do have a problem with is those who are now proclaiming our closest allies to be effectively castrated, and the few who wish ill (or indifference to their well being. Looking at you, Derb), beyond, say, court martial, upon the soldiers.
Where would we be without the British? Though certainly more liberal than the states, they are, aside from the Danes, the last holdout to dhimmitude we can count on in Europe.
SouthernDem on April 6, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Well, JaHerer, when an American soldiers who have been sent to war in our name (regardless of how you feel about that) are taking bullets, I think that all of us owe them our gratitude and the benefit of the doubt. When British sailors knowingly participate in Iranian propaganda with false statements that diminish British barganing power, that tends to negate the lives sacrificed by both Britain and America at the hands of Iranian insurgents in Iraq who want us all out so they can take control of that nation. Why should we expect captives to run from bullets while asking soldiers on the field to run into them?
Is that what you want, JeHerer? Iranian control of a good portion of Iraq as they have in Lebanon? Is that a formula for peace in the region? Or for winning the fight against terrorism and nations who fund terrorists?
Curious that the facts that one group of soldiers being American whilst the others were British were of no consequence to you. Is the nationality of a soldier in distress of no consiquence, JaHerer? why does one have to be crazy to support one’s own troops until the facts whitch condemn them are presented in the proper venue, and the chance to respond to those accusations given?
shuzilla on April 6, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I hope you don’t mind if I interject. Obviously our soldiers are nearest and dearest to our hearts, but IMHO we must give our allies a great benefit of the doubt. Again I say the conduct while in Iranian custody is evidently deplorable, but I’d still defend British and Australian soldiers as vehemently as ours.
SouthernDem on April 6, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Agreed. Our allies deserve at least the benefit of the doubt.
“For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother”
A confession can be beaten out of anyone. Maybe they did cooperate too quickly. I personally would have at least made sure I had a few scars and/or bruises to show it was stomped out of me, but we have no reason to believe all the videos they were in were not cooerced.
SnakeintheGrass on April 6, 2007 at 9:27 PM
The sailors knew that the public would not back them, they knew their government and the people do not have the backbone to save them. They were alone, by all news accounts prior to this, this is what was reported. If Blair had shown some Malkin’s before this, and was a leader than the outcome of the soldiers confessions may have been different. But why risk your life for a country that is not backing you? Why risk your life for a country whose leaders are abandoning you? I would hope more from our soldiers, but expect nothing more. They know that our congress would let them rot before taking any action. They only can depend on the president.
Here is the question: If you were captured, would you like to to be president to get you out? A liberal or conservative? Reagan or Carter? Rudy or Hillary?
right2bright on April 6, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Doctor Denton:
When SPEAKING, it’s appropriate to refer to an 0-5 as “Colonel.”
Otherwise, not so much.
armylawyer on April 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM
You are only as strong as your weakest link…….
PinkyBigglesworth on April 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Judging by LTC Peters’ long list of commentary, something tells me that he was/is too…um…straight-forward to have been invited to wear a Bird.
baldilocks on April 7, 2007 at 12:20 AM
No there isn’t, JaHerer22. Not when one knows that many of the neocons of which you speak are US Armed Forces veterans who have had a certain Code of Conduct drilled into us from nearly the first day of Basic Training/Boot Camp/Officer Candidate School.
Of course, the UK military might not or may no longer have an equivalent Code, but since much of our military heritage is based on that of the UK, it’s surprising to many of us American veterans that the UK’s military doesn’t subscribe to a similar Code, if not one that is nearly identical.
If not, too bad for them, and since they are our closest ally, too bad for us.
baldilocks on April 7, 2007 at 12:48 AM
not to blog spam to blatently, but I’ve posted on this subject under this title of:
wordwarp on April 7, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Peters and Jacobs are right.
IMHO, the Lt in charge of the boarding operation made a number of critical mistakes in dealing with the Iranians, not the least of which was allowing himself to be placed in an inferior tactical position when confronted by the Iranians.
And he failed as commander after capture. Yes, his time in captivity was beyond his control (that how it works). And yes, while he has a responsibility to do what he can to protect the lives of his command while captive, he also has a responsibility to maintain military disclipline and a duty to resist.
But, not being there in his shoes, facing what he did, it isn’t fair of me to fault him very much.
I suspect that the officers and senior enlisted in the party might find that their careers are effectively over as a result.
I will also say that the blame for this incident goes beyond the Lt in command of the boarding party. Cornwall was negligent in not providing sufficient support. Specifically, Cornwall was negligent in not providing either sufficient arms or sufficient armed personnel to resist capture.
I think that Peters was right about the Iranians carefully choosing their victim. The Iranians deserve credit for a will planned and executed operation in the face of a warship capable of not only blowing up their raid, but in destroying the naval base they came from, if not a good portion of the Iranian navy all by itself.
But the most blame, IMHO, goes to the Admiralty and ultimately the Prime Minister whose rules of engagement and/or decision to hold weapons tight negated the advantage of a nearby warship capable of blowing the Iranian’s butts out of the water the instant they set course towards the boarding party.
I doubt that the Brits will court martial anybody, because too many dominoes will be exposed and will fall from such proceedings. Given their system, it is even possible that the revelations could topple the government (and not just Blair).
Yes, I know that I’m an “armchair admiral,” with the advantage of hindsight. And I’m probably not qualified to pontificate considering the real-time decision making as the events unfolded. BUT THESE SENIOR ADMIRALTY OFFICERS ARE. They are TRAINED for making command decisions. That is why they make the “big bucks” and take salutes from lesser mortals.
I have no doubt the Lambert on Cornwall was pounding his fist (if not his head) on the bulkhead in absolute frustration at not being able to even fire a warning round or two at the approaching Iranian boats, much less engaging and sinking them.
Let me further state that I do not question the fighting spirit of the Royal Navy. I question their leadership at the top.
georgej on April 7, 2007 at 4:18 AM
Col. Peters: “I’ve had ex-girlfriends treat me worse than that!”
I say we round up 30 or so American Kindergardeners armed with water balloons and noise makers, set out in an inflatable dingy and go take down the British Royal Navy.
silenced majority on April 7, 2007 at 9:46 AM
The “maps” of the middle east have been redrawn time and time again over the last five thousand years. This seems to be the norm in human history.
RedinBlueCounty on April 7, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Briton needs to adopt our Code Of Conduct
That’s what I had to memorize before graduating from basic training. The brits would do well to use something like this too.
RedinBlueCounty on April 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Ralph Peters’ op-eds are a waste of time. I remember that Nidra Poller was furious at one of his absurd columns because of how insulting it was as a whole. His writing isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, or the internet pages it’s published on either.
Avi Green on April 7, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Ah, I found the recommended article written by Nidra Poller specially for Bob Spencer’s site! Go and take a look, and learn just why Colonel Ralph Peters should be demoted to the ranks!
Avi Green on April 7, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Comment pages: