Articles of the Code of Conduct

Article I

I am an American, fighting in the forces that guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give up my life in their defense.

Article II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI

I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

That’s what I had to memorize before graduating from basic training. The brits would do well to use something like this too.

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?

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.

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.

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.

JOHN BULL WEPT.

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.

JaHerer22 on April 6, 2007 at 7:12 PM

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.

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

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.

When SPEAKING, it’s appropriate to refer to an 0-5 as “Colonel.”

Otherwise, not so much.

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.

…about the ‘backlash’ among Americans in uniform regarding their released British counterparts brought to mind an old axiom we had hammered into us at Parris Island. It might help explain the way we would expect to act given the same……

Is the nationality of a soldier in distress of no consiquence?

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.

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.

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?

I’m fairly sure the Syrians would adore it as well…
jeffshultz on April 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM

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.

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!

That re-drawn map might as well include Mordor.

Blacklake on April 6, 2007 at 5:05 PM

It did. You saw the state drawn around Mecca, didn’t you?