The British Sailors: Stockdale Syndrome
posted at 6:10 am on April 7, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s really not my place to criticize the conduct of the captured British sailors and marines; they have put their lives on the line to defend their country (and by extension, mine), and I have not. They’ve already demonstrated more bravery than I have, just by getting on a boat flying the Union Jack anywhere near Iranian waters.
Some things about this are, I believe, fair game: their lack of preparation for capture, the “please just kill me now” rules of engagement foisted on them by Whitehall ninnies, and the absurd policy of appeasement toward Iran propagated by feckless British politicians. Those things I’ll rant about quite a bit. But the sailors and marines have nothing to prove to the likes of me, and I give thanks to God that they are home safely.
Still, I want to contrast the story of another Navy POW you might have heard of. He ran for Vice-President alongside Ross Perot in 1992, and he spent seven years being tortured by the North Vietnamese. For his resistance to their efforts to use him as a propaganda tool, Rear Admiral James Stockdale won the Medal of Honor:
Recognized by his captors as the leader in the Prisoners’ of War resistance to interrogation and in their refusal to participate in propaganda exploitation, Rear Adm. Stockdale was singled out for interrogation and attendant torture after he was detected in a covert communications attempt. Sensing the start of another purge, and aware that his earlier efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade his captors from exploiting him for propaganda purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing punishment, Rear Adm. Stockdale resolved to make himself a symbol of resistance regardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War. By his heroic action, at great peril to himself, he earned the everlasting gratitude of his fellow prisoners and of his country. Rear Adm. Stockdale’s valiant leadership and extraordinary courage in a hostile environment sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.
According to his memorial site, Adm. Stockdale (also a classical scholar) was inspired by the Stoic philosopher Epictetus to resist his captors. In 1969, when he learned he was to be paraded before the media, he “slashed his scalp with a razor and beat himself in the face with a wooden stool knowing his captors would not display a prisoner who was disfigured“. For more on Stockdale’s heroism and the other heroes he inspired, see here.
PS I see the same thought occurred to Smantix at Six Meat Buffet.
TO CLARIFY: There’s nothing wrong with a civilian like me criticizing troops who fall short of the professional standards expected of them. But I certainly won’t accuse them of cowardice, nor will I second-guess their behavior inside Iran, especially as details emerge that they were roughed up and subjected to mock execution.
I don’t think their government trained them for this, though, and the British admiralty still doesn’t seem to get it:
The admiral dismissed suggestions that the hostages should have restricted themselves to merely telling the Iranians their name, rank and serial number. “They weren’t on combat operations. They weren’t like people shot down in Tornados in the Gulf War.”
I think that’s exactly what they were like.
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:
The idea that you can’t publicly judge the actions of others unless you have some special standing is partly to blame for the general degradation in behavior in the free world. Not criticizing the actions of these soldiers because you haven’t been a soldier is like saying you can’t criticize a surgeon who botches an operation because you’re not an MD. It’s like saying you can’t condemn the actions of the police officers who beat Rodney King because you’ve never been a police officer.
Citizens have every right to expect certain standards of conduct from their soldiers. Up to now those high standards were well known. When you join, you are saying you are ready and willing to live up to those standards. When you don’t, you should be held accountable by the public in public. After all, these soldiers are being judged by the standards they accepted when they joined.
Let’s be honest. Everybody is judging the actions of these soldiers, the Royal Navy and the Government, in private. It’s the fear of criticizing them in public for fear of the PC police questioning your standing that allows this sort of behavior to occur in the first place.
TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2007 at 6:53 AM
What will the Iranians do with the uniforms, radios and boats? Stage an ambush on the Brits?
faraway on April 7, 2007 at 6:57 AM
Just think of the message the lack of public criticism has sent to the men and women of the British military. Would the UK be better off in the long run for saying these men and women represent, “the finest traditions of the Royal Navy” or by court-Martialing them for conduct unbecoming a member of the Royal Navy?
TheBigOldDog on April 7, 2007 at 7:03 AM
Great post, See-Dubya. I have to criticize the above statement, though. You don’t have to be in the military to be able to criticize the conduct of the British marines, just as you don’t have to have fought in Vietnam to criticize John Kerry’s attitude towards the military.
Just as everyone should praise soldiers for their conduct, everyone should criticize shameful behavior that reflects poorly upon our country.
I grew up in the military, and I know that soldiers and their familites receive a lot of benefits at taxpayer expense, and they deserve them because they are representing and defending our country: PX and commissary privileges for life (for 15 year of service), free health care, a great lifestyle, great school system, and so many other benefits because it is understood that they are to sacrifice their lives if need be. This is why it is galling when you have the very few soldiers criticizing the fact they have to go to Iraq and fight and leave their families.
As Americans, though, we have every right to criticize their conduct, just as we have the right to praise their conduct.
In the British marines case, their conduct was humiliating for the entire West.
januarius on April 7, 2007 at 7:07 AM
Damn, that picture of Adm. Stockdale, with his CMH is awesome. As was his behavior as a POW.
I’ve made my comments in the other threads.
One can criticize the behavior of the officer in command from afar. But we were not in his shoes. And it wasn’t our decision to make. I leave it to others to determine whether his behavior warrants court martial. He had a decision to make, and better men and women than I will have to decide whether it was a mistake or if it was necessary under the circumstances. I know Jacobs and Peters have made their call. They may be correct.
With no disrespect to the Royal Navy and her officers, but Adm. Stockdale WAS unique, a one of a kind leader, who did, indeed, place his life in peril to do his duty and protect his men. Like all those awarded the Medal, he deserved it for his valor and courage.
I assign blame to both the Admiralty and the politicians in Blair’s cabinet, for giving them stupid rules of engagement, and for not allowing HMS Cornwall to protect her sailors and marines.
georgej on April 7, 2007 at 7:22 AM
Great post, See-Dubya. I hope to see more in the future.
.
GT on April 7, 2007 at 7:50 AM
One of the captured British marines stated that they did not engage the Iranians because “we were not at war with Iran”. My first thought on hearing this was that,apparently, Iran did not get the memo as it certainly looks like Iran is at war with them.
lynnv on April 7, 2007 at 7:56 AM
As you can tell from the above, I’ve had some second thoughts about the way the officer in charge of the boarding handled himself and his command.
I thought I’d explain why.
At the minimum, as Peters notes, he was set up by the Iranians. And his capture and their subsequent behavior greatly hurt the UK and the RN, and indirectly us as well.
I think there is no doubt of that.
I can see that his solution clearly wasn’t optimum, as it turns out. I think he can be faulted for a number of things, but I am not a Royal Naval Officer and do not know their traditions. However, not being there, and having no personal, first hand, knowledge of the events, makes it difficult for me to pass judgement on him or his command.
In other words, I’m giving up my “armchair admiral” commission on this one.
But this does not mean I exonerate him, either. As I said, his actions did hurt his country and our coalition and that needs to be addressed. At the very least, exactly what happened must be determined in order to prevent it from happening again.
There is a “bad guy” in this mess, though. And I urge all you posters here to remember exactly who it is. It is not the offers and party of the Royal Navy and Marines who were captured. That “bad guy” is the Iranian government, because THEY, not the Royal Navy are the ones responsible for this incident. 100% responsible.
In our criticism of the Royal Navy, WE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THIS FACT: THEY STARTED IT.
Iran, not the RN, made a play for the boarding party. THEY, not the RN sailors and marines, pointed heavy machine guns at the sailors and marines. THEY, not the people they captured, held their captives incommunicado, pressured them, threatened them, and acted out a well choreographed script designed to humiliate the UK and us.
So, in the criticism leveled here on Hot Air, we must not lose fact that IRAN STARTED THIS. IRAN PLANNED EVERY ASPECT OF THIS. And that Iran needs to be punished so that they never try this again.
I said I gave up my armchair admiral’s commision. I said nothing about giving up my “armchair minister of defense post.”
Once Iran made the play, the GOVERNMENT of Great Britain utterly failed to properly deal with the situation. When Lambert called in, the duty officer should have told him to use whatever force is necessary to prevent the capture AND given him permisson to strike the base they launched from. Instead, the government forbade him to respond in any meaningful manner. That is criminal, IMHO.
So rather than beat up the sailors and marines and their officers, go after the Admiralty and Tony Blair’s cabinet., instead.
georgej on April 7, 2007 at 7:59 AM
The British have strange laws that do not allow self-defense. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens you with a weapon, you cannot defend yourself with a cricket bat (guns are illegal). Defending yourself makes you the criminal and subject to legal punishment. Maybe this mentality has filtered down to the British military or at least influenced the actions of the sailors and marines.
Adm Stockdale will always be an inspiration to all. The man is incredable.
DAT60A3 on April 7, 2007 at 8:03 AM
After thinking about it I am not going to say anything about the marines in the rubber boat, but the damn Captain of the ship should be court-martial and whoever he called that said “not to help them marines”
djohn669 on April 7, 2007 at 8:49 AM
I could not agree with you more!
Viper1 on April 7, 2007 at 8:54 AM
What lack of public criticism? They’ve been publicly humilated by Col. James Dobson and the editor of the Telegraph as well as several columnists.
aengus on April 7, 2007 at 9:06 AM
I retired from the Army in 2001 after 22 years of service. I’ve seen some post and read where some people were glad it was the Brits the Iranians seized and not Americans.
I can tell this POS has never been in the military. As an airman, soldier, sailor or marine go go into the fight knowing one thing “if the sh*t hits the fan, somebody’s coming to get you, dead or alive you’re coming out”. If you don’t have that knowledge is lessens your will to go.
The British government failed these sailors and marines. First by not properly training them. Second, by looking weak to their captors. I might be wrong and hope I am, but I believe this will not be the last time Iran does something like this.
And for Ted Rall, find a cartoon out of this or this or lastly try this. These are men who you’re not fit to even kiss their a$$es.
SPIFF1669 on April 7, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Dang it should have proofed it before I posted. Guess my lac of education comes out when I’m steamed. But the message should be clear.
SPIFF1669 on April 7, 2007 at 9:09 AM
I agree with Spiff…
that’s why men join the Rangers… “never leave a man behind” soldiers need this to fight… just the belief, it doesn’t have to be completely true… they just need to think it, we have to go in every once in a while… if I were Bush I would have gone after the British, in spite of the British. or at least “Reaganized” a few of their military installations. in the end I think it’s BS, they say they would have been shot by the Iranians, but I think the Iranians would not have fired if the British just flipped them the bird and drove away. they knew if the shot one soldier it would be on…
Kaptain Amerika on April 7, 2007 at 9:21 AM
The message is loud and clear. I am not trying to defend the British Sailors and Marines when I say this, however they are probably in the same lousy position of our troops. The politicians and lawyers have developed rules of engagement literally handcuffing the troops from being aggressive. Take away the aggression from grunts and you give the enemy a huge advantage.
All that said, the ROE does not cover their shooting off their mouths with anything more than name, rank, serial number.
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM
“the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War.”
exactly. From this it’s not hard to figure out the result of caving into the enemy.
Aylios on April 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM
More than anything else, to me this entire incident speaks to the danger of not allowing officers on the spot the freedom to exercise their initiative in the field. Here we see the weakness of instantaneous communications where a Whitehall desk skipper with his/her own political/career/social agenda along with an incredibly restrictive and ridiculous Rules of Engagement designed to avoid offending the bad guys could hamstring a ship’s captain leading to, in this case, humiliation for the British.
I hope the British government and Royal Navy takes the opportunity here to reexamine what have to be seen as flawed policies. The first thing they need to do is rewrite their ROE’s so that British ships and crews can resist future capture efforts. The second thing they need to do is to allow the ship captains and officers in the field to use their initiative.
Finally, a word about Admiral Stockdale: I’m glad you chose that picture of him to grace your board. The sad truth is, that for many people, the image they have of the Admiral is that of the man who participated in the Vice Presidential debate. That image does not do justice to the man. The image you showed does. He was a man of great courage, honor, and integrity and that is how he should be remembered.
Matt Helm on April 7, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Have you read Mark Bowden’s Guests of the Ayatollah?
During this latest incident, I kept thinking about the American embassy staffer who back in1979 was so defiant that he was constantly getting beaten by his Iranian captors. Even after the hostages’ release had been negotiated, and they were being bussed to the airport for the flight out of there, he was still mouthing off to them, to the extent that he almost was thrown off the bus. No goody bags and big smiley handshakes for him.
I certainly don’t expect all captives to behave this way, but men like these set a high standard we can all admire.
juliesa on April 7, 2007 at 10:19 AM
-
Thanks See-Dubya for an excellent post. I believe your quote above points to dead-center target.
Limerick on April 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Britain is now a Politically Correct country, where any show of aggression is forbidden. The sailors and marines were only doing what their government told them to do, and should not be faulted for it, because they were in a Catch 22 situation.
Britain’s current Rules Of Engagement, now tells their military not to engage the enemy, but to negotiate and appease them, which has put their military in an untenable position, because, by implication, they must either except total humiliation by the enemy or, if they do engage the enemy, be court-martialed by their own country.
The British have forgotten a rule that they themselves implemented hundreds of years ago, and that is: Boarding a naval vessel by a foreign nation is tantamount to invading their country and should be considered an act of war, and be met with total resistance
So, this is what naval hero’s Trafalgar’s and Nelson’s country has come to. Utter capitulation when an enemy goes – BOOO!
pocomoco on April 7, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Admiral Stockdale was a great American.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 7, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Stockdale reminds me of a story Gordon Liddy told years ago, about an assasin sent to take out the enemy king. He was captured, and brought before the king, who asked him “Before we execute you, I just have to know what would make you think you could succeed”. The assassin reached down to a bowl of burning coals that heated the throne room, grabbed one of the coals in his hand, held it unflinching as it burned his flesh, looked the king square in the eye, and said “There are hundreds more just like me.”
The next morning, the king abdicated the throne and disappeared into hiding.
The Monster on April 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Here are some ROE from Viet Nam. How the hell can a military win anything with rules like this:
From Here:blockquote>The ROEs in place for the air campaign over North Vietnam included restrictions on where aircraft could fly, what conditions aircraft could attack enemy forces (when they were considered hostile), and what degree of force could be used both in self-defense and attack.
Another part of the ROEs restricted pilots from attacking certain types of targets that were off limits; some of these were: enemy airfields, SAM sites, power plants, naval craft in some areas, a 30 mile area around Hanoi, and a 10 mile area around Haiphong.
The inability to attack certain targets made it difficult to stop the flow of men and material into South Vietnam, and the requirements to spare North Vietnamese civilians limited the use of certain types of munitions, such as B-52s and napalm. Until early 1967, in many instances U.S. pilots were not allowed to engage enemy fighters unless they themselves had been attacked first.
We did not learn a thing from Viet Nam. The ROE even make our troops more brave when they can only fight when a military lawyer says they can.
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 11:14 AM
opps. ROP rules of posting…
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Being in the military and having been to Iraq twice I feel free to criticize… Maybe they just have a different tradition. It’s sad though.
Go to Michelle site and read the military Code of Conduct. This is taught to all of us down to the last private.
Compare the actions of these UK marines to the US soldiers who Iran tried to capture INSIDE IRAQ not too long ago. They were told to surrender, but chose to fight instead. They call us cowboys… but I’d much rather be a “free cowboy” than an imprisoned gentleman.
BadBrad on April 7, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Thank you for articulating that clearly. The advantage of Western armies is the autonomy of their junior officers in the field and the decision making granted to them. Unfortunately, the Labour Party’s bureaucracy has rendered the Royal Marines as ineffective as some backward third-world militia.
aengus on April 7, 2007 at 11:18 AM
If allowed, i.e., take the gloves off, shut the politicians up and let the US military fight, there is NO one we can’t defeat.
SPIFF1669 on April 7, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Can there be any doubt, that this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do the U.S. military.
pocomoco on April 7, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I hadn’t heard of Stockdale till the 94 campain. His “who am I, why am I here?” debate appearance was one of those things you don’t see coming. He made me curious who he was, and why he was there. Amazing man. Great American.
Buck Turgidson on April 7, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Thank You for your service.
Buck Turgidson on April 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Fantastic article about Admiral Stockdale. Thanks for the link. I am well and truly humbled.
KGB on April 7, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Respectfully, let’s get something straight. What Stockdale did, wasn’t duty. By definition, he got a CMH because what he did rose above the call of duty. It was valor, which is beyond duty. For that, I hold him in extremely high regard.
As far as the British, one can’t really hold them completely responsible for their actions. They were under a command–which told them to surrender and not resist. They shouldn’t be held in too high regard either. They essentially accomplished nothing but the preserving of their own life, but they were following orders.
The blame here lies almost entirely on Tony Blair specifically, an English culture of cowardice, and leftism generally. I suspect, however, that this “lesson” won’t get learned any time soon by British leadership. What they willl “learn” from this is that they got their people back alive, so they succeeded. As everyone knows, the real question is what did they give (if anything) this time? and what will they have to give the next time?
urbancenturion on April 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM
First, thank you to all who served. Second, Admiral Stockdale humbles me. He could have used all of this when Perot was campaigning and he chose not to. He was a brave and noble man and I am deeply indebted to him. I saw Ollie North speaking about this on H&C and he was saying that Carter’s Algerian Accord set the scene for hostage crises such as this, capitulation being the order of the day. Of course, Carter continues to broker appeasement as the only way. I have tried to view all of this hostage situation nonjudgementally, but the more I read, the more disturbing some of the behavior becomes. I have to say, much of my feeling of disquiet comes from Britain’s behavior.
Glynn on April 7, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Okay, a big time Kleenex alert for Admiral Stockdale’s site. The picture parade was just so touching, but then I watched the video of him returning home. There just are no words except what a truly great American hero and thank you, thank you for everything.
Glynn on April 7, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Thanks for the background. Very interesting read. What’s disturbing is the “Terms of Debate” in this incident were spun by the Iranians with what is practically collusion with the MSM. The truth is: The Brits were in Iraqi waters, Iran’s actions were 100% unlawful by crossing recognized international boundries and abducting the British sailors. Iran had no hope of upholding their assertion that the British were in Iranian waters. Especially under close international scrutiny, GPS systems eliminate the fuzzy zone such regimes could manipulate in the past. So the hostages, with a bit of savvy and common sense should have been emboldened by that, and based their comportment accordingly. (As in refused to cooperate in any way, shape or form). Despite the illusion of strength, Iran was operating in the realm of bluster and mock outrage, not solid grounds.
Great scene in fiction: Midshipman Hornblower, of His Majesty’s Royal Navy, held hostage with his men, about four of them, in a boat with superior numbers of enemy sailors is told to hand over the compass to the enemy. He picks up the compass, reaches over as if to give it to the man, then quickly swings his arm over the side, opens his hand, drops the compass into the sea and says, “Fish for it.”
naliaka on April 7, 2007 at 12:34 PM
The putative questionable behavior of the British Marines aside, this whole episode demonstrates that Great Britain simply does not have the ability to pull their weight in any potential conflict with Iran. We’re on our own should Iran get the bomb. Well, us and Israel, our only real ally in the whole damned world.. how sad is that?
Europe is eaten up with antisemitism and self loathing. Russia is playing the two ends against the middle, and China is watching the show with a box of popcorn and a pocket full of U.N. stooges. This stupid world is barreling head-long into a slit trench.
I wish space was colonized already.
spmat on April 7, 2007 at 12:35 PM
BINGO!
heroyalwhyness on April 7, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Anything beyond “It’s really not my place to criticize the conduct of the captured British sailors and marines” is a REAL propaganda victory for Iran.
I also wanted a bit of gung-ho engagement with the real enemy waiting in the wings, but I don’t think either of us was ready.
If we’d have taken the meathead Steven Segal approach that so many Americans think we should have, our sailors would still be in custody or worse.
The British government played this exactly right – they got the troops home quickly and didn’t make a single concession.
The sailors played it right too. The Iranians could have extracted confessions after or before extracting toenails and teeth. As it was they escaped unharmed and the much vaunted Iranian “propaganda value” is actually worthless. The Arab world thinks they caved and the rest of the world thinks they are Geneva-convention breaking bastards.
The only people whining and moaning are the Americans. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps they can’t get of the subtlety of the British approach. Perhaps they just wanted to see Mahmud dead.
Rest assured the war with Iran is on its way. However, after the abuse and vilification heaped on Britain by our so-called “allies”, you shouldn’t count on our support next time.
uptight on April 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM
You sound embarrassed, uptight, as you well should be by the behavior of your marines.
You know what? Judging from the effete, smiling pictures of your military, which lets itself get captured, issues confessions, plays dress up in suits without ties, and has party time with the enemy, even to the point of bringing back “goody bags,” we don’t need your help. We can handle Iran without your formerly great country’s PC sensibilities.
There is a reason Iran tested girly-men marines and not real marines.
januarius on April 7, 2007 at 1:44 PM
British ships are not even going to patrol or inspect ship anymore. They did to get something out of it and if your not going to fight and just be taken prisoner then maybe you should go home because you are just becoming a liability.
djohn669 on April 7, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Great, great post See-Dubya. I agree with every word.
I have no interest in criticizing these sailors and Marines. None. And I’d be very curious to see what percentage of those doing the most criticizing actually served during combat. I think I already know.
As others noted, however, I see nothing wrong with criticizing their commanders – and their political masters. Something went very wrong there. One way or another, Iran should already have paid a very steep price for this.
Most of all, I want to thank you for posting the Admiral Stockdale information. I didn’t know all those details, and I’m very glad I do.
Thank you.
Professor Blather on April 7, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Sigh.
Any chance we could NOT turn this into a US versus UK thing?
C’mon, people. “Uptight,” I think you know perfectly well that this incident didn’t exactly put your military in the best light. I may not blame the Marines themselves, but your leadership did a miserable job. It wasn’t a US newspaper that had “HUMILIATED” in 48-point font as the headline the other day, you know. At least be realistic. This is not a proud moment for your proud country.
And the rest of you – come on. I really can’t believe some of the vast sweeping generalizations about the entire UK and its entire military. If you think “Uptight” is embarrassed, some of you should be, too.
I served with the British military on a Royal Navy base for three years. Some of you idiots don’t have a clue. The British military is a formidable weapon, and the British people, when they decide to fight, are second to none. I’ve never served with finer men and women. The politics of liberalism may be weakening their country – but in case you haven’t noticed, take a peek at our own Congress. We have no room to condemn anybody else on that score.
“Uptight,” some of my countrymen owe you an apology. Don’t hold your breath. There are idiots on both sides of the pond, and on both sides of the political fence.
Mature people don’t make broadbrush generalizations, children. Especially when they know nothing about the subject.
Sorry, Uptight. Trust me when I say that our actual military does not echo the sentiments of these wannabes, especially if they served alongside Royal Marines. We’ll be there when you need us. And you’ll be there for us. I have no doubt. The rest is all useless chatter.
Professor Blather on April 7, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Yes januarius – and by the reasoning I’m seeing here, the only good marine is a dead marine – or rather one that died in futile battle.
I honestly think you believe that crap. Is that why your military have accidentally killed so many British soldiers? Is life that cheap? Hey – at least you have something in common with suicide bombers.
Back here in the real world, we do what’s pratcical. What makes sense. But hey – if Steven Segal style works for you, I guess you have enough cannon fodder to cope.
uptight on April 7, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Double sigh.
Never mind. Frickin’ blogs. Nothing changes.
Professor Blather on April 7, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Thank you Professor Blather
I have been America’s staunchest ally. I have argued with the moonbats and stuck up for America when everyone else has put the country down.
The last few days have been shocking…to put it mildly. I thought the friendship and admiration between our nations was mutual. All I’ve seen is hatred and scorn.
But your post gives me hope.
uptight on April 7, 2007 at 2:07 PM
And no – I’m not embarrassed. Well not now I’ve seen the aftermath. Iran didn’t win any propaganda victory.
I must admit, in my anger I wanted us to start shelling Iran, but i was wrong. Our sailors and government did exactly the right thing. This could have played in so many ways – it could have been a prolonged hostage situation resulting in major concessions, it could have involved torture or the use of these hostages as human shields to avert the battles that are to follow.
instead, we didn’t give them a god-damned thing, and to anyone with more than two braincells to rub together, it now looks like we just manipulated the Iranians to give up valuable bargaining chips.
uptight on April 7, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Uptight,
Read the following:
Your government made many concessions, and we will hear about them sooner or later. The above is just one thing that has come about because of England’s capitulation.
You are doing what Europeans are so fond of doing: Blaming America first. Your countrymen were blaming America, not Iran, for the British being held hostage. Now that you are embarrassed by the soldier’s conduct, your countrymen are blaming America for criticizing the behavior of the marines.
This European b****ing about America never ceases.
That is typical European moral relativism: equating accidental deaths in friendly fire with deliberate deaths by Muslim suicide bombers.
januarius on April 7, 2007 at 2:43 PM
From what came out of the mouths of the gaggle of 15, it might be very hard to tell them from the enemy.
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 3:03 PM
No, the reasoning you’re seeing here points to the idea that that are some things worse than death of the individual. And guess where we Americans got that idea? From your forebears. I guess they didn’t bother to pass that ideal down to you.
baldilocks on April 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I think of Joseph Conrad’s Lord Jim or Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage, but because of classics being replaced by multicultural and feminist pap in schools, many students these days are not getting an education about honor, courage, and sacrifice.
Professor- Was that recently? A lot can change. A caller into the Laura Ingraham show whose husband had been in the Royal Marines said that he was appalled by the Marines’ behavior and that it would never have been tolerated in his day.
januarius on April 7, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I am taking a wait and see about vilifying anyone. However, your last sentence struck me profoundly. How dare you. One would think that Britain has been our savior throughout time. How convenient selective and short-term memory must be. Britain has been overrun by radical militant Islam and has capitulated from within. I have no doubt that the United States would not, and will not, hesitate to aid whenever you need may be. You seem to be throwng the baby out with the bath water. Do you think that is wise?
Glynn on April 7, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Here is our ‘weak’ ally. Here is how pathetic the British people are. Here is the country America has to ’save’.
War Great Britian KIA U.S. KIA
WWI 823,540 116,516
WW2 298,950 291,557
Korea 1,078 33,741
GWOT 192 3,267
total 1,122,490 445,081
These are KIA/MIAs…..not civilians, not road accidents, not flu victims. These men died in the mud and the sand and grew their tree of liberty with the same thing we do.
And before you go and throw in the ‘where’ is Vietnam BS just remember there were a few of Britian’s wars we opted out of. Where was the GI at the Somme, Gallipoli,
Dieppe, Dunkirk, Port Stanley?
…….
Sitting here reading how friggin ‘perfect’ the American GI is over his British counterpart makes me sick. There is a hell of a lot of blood that wasn’t American that helped keep America free. You want everyone to be grateful for American blood sacrifices for their freedoms but are willing to forget about their blood sacrifices for your freedoms.
…….
Do I think it was indecision in the British chain of command and a lack of a good ROE. Sure I do. Do I believe that every American soldier is James Stockdale? No I do not.
God Save the Queen and May There Always Be An England! Making critical comments about what happened in the British Admiralty and Whitehall is one thing. Trashing Great Britian and her citizens is quite another.
Limerick on April 7, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Extremely well said. Hats off to you Limerick.
My two cents to add:
This is one of the things that irritates me the most about the “support the troops” phrase.
Too many people of both political parties are using it to validate their political view and in reality could care less about the troops as people. The far left tends to treat us like little kids, incapable of knowing we are in harm’s way and in need guidance from the peace loving lefties. The far right tend to paint us as very noble, get a tear in their eye, and use it as a qualifier for their advocacy of using all massive military force options to reach national objectives. But they quickly take offense when asked about their prior service.
I think it is perfectly appropriate for a group of military folks or vets to discuss the actions of other military personnel but more importantly, I think that unless a person has been in uniform and shared the military experience they have no business second guessing whether a service person does in these circumstances unless it is to say “thank goodness there are people who serve and I’m glad I wasn’t faced with the situation they were”
The common bond of our U.S. vets is simply that they served honorably at some point for as little as 180 days or as much as several decades. IMHO we should remind those who have not met this basic criteria and insist on criticizing the behavior of soldiers, that while their opinion may be interesting, it is not welcome, fair or appropriate for discussion outside of the confines of fellow vets/service members.
Bradky on April 7, 2007 at 4:32 PM
My FIRST thought when i saw the Brits in that staged video shaking hands with aloonyboonyjob, was that if that was me, I’d punched that sack of crap right in the throut and the #ell with the consequences.
csdeven on April 7, 2007 at 4:53 PM
csdeven–I like to imagine myself stripping down and handing Mahmoud’s suit back to him wihile the cameras were rolling.
But as I said above, it’s easy for me to think like that without a gun at my back.
see-dubya on April 7, 2007 at 5:00 PM
If I were the enterprising sort I’d market the British Navy action figure with green polyester suit and goodie bag.
Buck Turgidson on April 7, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I was not talking about the Marines, I was saying if your ROE is to not fight, but be taken prisoner then you should go home because you are becoming a liability. If you can not fight then you should not be doing front line duty.
djohn669 on April 7, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Well said and the stats prove how pathetic the troops from Britain are. You need to live to win wars not die. As General George Patton said “Don’t be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his.”
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 6:35 PM
That is so lame. A man does not have to walk in anothers shoes to have opinions, ideas and thoughts. I will say that if someone has walked in anothers shoes, you may weight their opinions, ideas or thoughts differently but wanting to silence anyone is deafening.
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 6:45 PM
We will have to agree to disagree. If you haven’t walked in the shoes of a service person there are certain things you will NEVER understand about service. That is just a simple reality.
Given some of the unfair characterizations and assumptions that have been made about these sailors and the British military in this and another thread I’d say my point has been illustrated quite nicely.
Bradky on April 7, 2007 at 6:56 PM
The simple reality is you want to stiffle anyone who is not the same mind set.
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Well the ones that I have seen on the news to say the worst things was military. Col Jacobs was one of them.
djohn669 on April 7, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Are you or Wade Col Jacobs? And did Col Jacobs say the British military was unreliable as an ally?
Sorry but some things don’t really need to be second guessed to death. This is one those issues.
If a person hasn’t served it is not a measure of their patriotism but they show a measure of disrespect if they begin to make the call on issues of cowardice of those who do serve.
Bradky on April 7, 2007 at 7:11 PM
I am sorry, but if they are not going to fight they should not be doing front line duty period. Another thing how do you know I am not military, you assume much.
djohn669 on April 7, 2007 at 7:17 PM
It burns my ass to no end when someone who never served disrespects the service of others but my time in my Marine Corp was served to protect and guard that right for them to say it, rather I like it or not. I fully understand your position.
Wade on April 7, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Fair enough.. Thanks for the reply. I understand yours as well.
Bradky on April 7, 2007 at 8:31 PM
The behavior of the saliors is only representive of the officers and the leadership. The problem is at the top.
Egfrow on April 7, 2007 at 9:32 PM
There should be a alot of firings of top brass going on right now to set an example. This won’t happen based on sickness of Political Porrectness and the glorification of mediocricy that has infested the west.
Egfrow on April 7, 2007 at 9:34 PM
May I fix this for you?
Admiral Stockdale
wasWILL ALWAYS BE a great American.PinkyBigglesworth on April 8, 2007 at 12:11 AM
BigOldDog and SPIFF 1669 said it all and said it well
Janos Hunyadi on April 8, 2007 at 1:38 AM
I could not disagree with you more.
The premise of Democracy and the Jury is that a reasonable man can examine any situation and place himself into the shoes of another man and judge whether his actions are reasonable.
The actions of those sailors were not acceptable. With Reinforcements close and available, they should have either held their ground or defied the Iranians and withdrew.
I could have accepted the actions of the crew if they were civilians, or non-military forces.
But I look at my kind of fight. Look at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, I look at the battle of Agincourt, I look at the battle for Henderson Field, I look at Flight 92.
Numerical and technological superiority alone is no guarantee of victory.
You need to have heart. The courage to risk your life in protection of others.
The passengers on Flight 92 had it.
They refused to let themselves be used as a weapon of terror.
The British Soldiers did not so choose. They allowed themselves to be used by Iran in a strategic role.
Who knows how many more weapons will make it to Iran and then Iraq because of gun-shy ship inspections now?
Will one of my family members die in Iraq from an EFP-IED shipped by sea?
Are the British soldiers Cowards? Possibly. I see nothing to tell me otherwise at this point. But I can not say for certain yet.
Did they allow themselves to be used as pawns by a government (Iran) seemingly dedicated to bringing about a new dark age?
Without a doubt.
Jones Zemkophill on April 8, 2007 at 9:30 PM
But this assumes that the “jury” would have access to all evidence and facts deemed to be relevant. I doubt that you have all those facts. Democracy also stands for innocent till proven guilty. You have done the opposite.
Bradky on April 8, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Comment pages: