U.S. Would Have Fired on The Iranians

UK Independent via. Hot Air ^

[Weight of Glory]

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: “The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?’”…

[PAR35]

No problem. I'll grab a couple of links:

(Note, the date in the first link is European - January 5, 2007. This is the story I remembered.)

Navy to cut its fleet by half

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:03am GMT 05/01/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml

"Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure."

See also a later post from the LATimes via FR which says cuts to as few as 25, not 22:

"Even worse hit is the Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793110/posts

[lentulusgracchus]

British sailors would be chomping at the bit to back us up, their government, sans Maggy, would go wobbly.

I don't know if that's true about Blair. He ran toward trouble on 9/12 and was sitting there in the gallery of the Congress when Pres. Bush addressed them. Pres. Bush pointed him out, and he waved, his pockets bulging and clanking with all the old Royal Navy brass knuckles he'd brought with him. He caught our back when we were jammed up, and now the shoe's on the other foot. AFAIK, screw the politics of it, the Persians are toast if Tony says so.

The Brits should just have told the Iranians "Molon labe"..... they remember that bit of Greek from the last time someone said it to them.

[naturalman1975]

As a retired Commander of the Royal Australian Navy, I will quite clearly and concisely say that in the situation the the British sailors were in as I have seen it described, I would have surrendered.

There's a time to fight, and a time to live. You don't sacrifice your people for no purpose.

If there's a realistic chance of fighting your way out, you take it. But your life is the most important asset you have with which to serve your country. Throwing it away is not appropriate, not sensible, and not military.

Risk your life, yes. But never waste it.

[george76]

Should we " blame the president of the US who called off the two F4C's that were enroute."

or the British or both ?

from # 93

---

The tactics must have been debated and resolved years ago ?

This Iranian action should not have been a surprise now ?

[Doofer]

It means that Horner is 2nd guessing the Brits. I have no doubt our guys would have had to get the OK to fire. By the time they got it they would have been surrounded like the Brits. Horner should have just STFU.

Being a retired Chief Petty Officer that spent quite a bit of time while active duty floating around with the other members of the Persian Gulf Yacht Club you're more than likely correct.

Why?

For the simple reason that the CO's first instinct would be to pass any decision that would cause an international incident up his immediate chain of command.

Then in all likelihood his immediate chain of command would do the same until the request came to someone who could actually say ya or nay.

And by this time we have ourselves a hostage incident.

[naturalman1975]

By the way, if my response had overtones of irritation, it is because my dad did have a connection to CDR Bucher, and while the Captain of the USS Pueblo might not have been a top of the line Captain, he tried to do the best he could with what he had. Our military places value on the lives of its men...we generally don't require them to go down shooting in a hopeless cause, which is what that would have been.

Hear! Hear!

One of my most vivid memories from when I was nearing the end of my initial training as a Naval officer, was a classroom exercise where we had to critique the events surrounding the capture of the USS Pueblo. I took the position that they should have gone down fighting. My instructor let me have my say, but then told me something that I've remembered ever since.

Risk your life for your country. Even sacrifice it if the prize is worth that sacrifice. But never, ever waste it.

[lentulusgracchus]

It is my understanding that there were up to six Iranian boats that had surrounded the Brits. If the Cornwall had openned fire on them, there would have been many Iranian casualties plus 15 dead Brits.

The question in my mind is, how is it that HMS Cornwall, with her detached personnel aboard the Indiaman, allowed those Iranians even to approach? She should have engaged at once, the minute it became evident they were full of armed Pasdaran and they were en route the stopped ship.

[BIGLOOK]

This Iranian action should not have been a surprise now ?

They did the same thing a couple of years back and released the crew after a few days. I haven't a clue as to what's going on diplomatically but out on the seas the situation is tense. Everybody on our side would love to see an internal collapse of the Iranian gov't before a shooting war starts. Iran acts wildly only because no one has shot back at 'em.

[george76]

Thanks.

The helicopter ( and more ? ) apparently saw the Iranian boats coming out this time.

Bigger thinkers than me must have a theory.

[Bender2]

The answer is very simple... Right Professor?

Right... The smoking lamp is lit. Now, where were we?

"Are a thousand unreleased prisoners sufficient reason to start or resume a war? Bear in mind that millions of innocent people may die, almost certainly will die, if war is started or resumed."

I didn’t hesitate. "Yes, sir! More than enough reason."

" ‘More than enough.’ Very well, is one prisoner, unreleased by the enemy, enough reason to start or resume a war?"

I hesitated. I knew the M. I. answer — but I didn’t think that was the one he wanted. He said sharply, "Come, come, Mister! We have an upper limit of one thousand; I invited you to consider a lower limit of one. But you can’t pay a promissory note which reads ‘somewhere between one and one thousand pounds’ — and starting a war is much more serious than paying a trifle of money. Wouldn’t it be criminal to endanger a country — two countries in fact — to save one man? Especially as he may not deserve it? Or may die in the meantime? Thousands of people get killed every day in accidents . . . so why hesitate over one man? Answer! Answer yes, or answer no — you’re holding up the class."

He got my goat. I gave him the cap trooper’s answer. "Yes, sir!"

" ‘Yes’ what?"

"It doesn’t matter whether it’s a thousand — or just one, sir. You fight."

"Aha! The number of prisoners is irrelevant. Good. Now prove your answer."

I was stuck. I knew it was the right answer. But I didn’t know why. He kept hounding me. "Speak up, Mr. Rico. This is an exact science. You have made a mathematical statement; you must give proof. Someone may claim that you have asserted, by analogy, that one potato is worth the same price, no more, no less, as one thousand potatoes. No?"

"No, sir!"

"Why not? Prove it."

"Men are not potatoes."

From Robert A. Heinlein's Classic Starship Troopers...

That is it is from the truly awesome 1959 novel, not that POS 1997 Paul Verhoeven film that made mankind a brand of semi-Nazis whose military showered together...

[Maynerd]

The HMS Cornwall did have a helo in the air monitoring the boarding operation. They detected the Iranian patrol boats shortly after they left port and were on a heading to intercept the boarded frieghter. Commodore Lambert in an interview with the BBC said of the incident, that the sailors appeared to be safe, and that they had behaved in an ”extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement.”

Good grief. The British Navy is humiliated by Iranian patrol boats. I'm afraid the UK is going the way of the EU. It's militarily is a hollow shell both in assets and attitude.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu44AQgdGJEoBQr1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2NnUxbmx2BGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNwRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGOTExXzg4/SIG=12gmgcfg4/EXP=1174967168/**http%3a//www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/hudong.htm

[claudiustg]

The British actions appear cowardly and ineffectual. The Iranians will only be emboldened by this unless a very strong response is mounted.

[OldArmy52]

The U.S.Military typically does stupid things. Less so, as one gets towards the front lines. More so, as one approaches garrisons.

For example, at FLW we had M-16 armed soldiers on guard duty around some of the higher value warehouses. No nearby phone at the time. Each soldier had one magazine with only 3 rounds in it. That is all. 3 rounds total per soldier.

And of course the magazine had to be in the belt pouch, not in the gun.

Talk about being unprepared for trouble, courtesy the brass.

[endthematrix]

Re: De-escalatory

" It does seem as though the Brits know of a mysterious land where they acquire all the "squishy" words they use."

The Clinton Library, of course!

[matt1234]

It is my understanding that there were up to six Iranian boats that had surrounded the Brits. If the Cornwall had openned fire on them, there would have been many Iranian casualties plus 15 dead Brits. The Cornwall would not have been able to extinguish all six boats. The Iranians were heavily armed and would have taken out the Brits after the first shots were fired by HMS Cornwall.

Let's assume you're correct. If it went down as you described, the UK would have at least deterred the iranian koranimals from trying it again in the future. The way the UK has played this (so far), they are simply encouraging more of the same. I hope that they will teach the iranians a terrible lesson to discourage more of the same. I hope the US particpates.

It's basic psychology. To discourage behavior, you apply punishment or negative reinforcment. If you do neither, and the actor obtains some reward or positive reinforcement, he is more likely to repeat the behavior in the future. Psych 101.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Blair polls about as badly in the UK as Bush does in the US.

Final, irrefutable, objective evidence that the sun has set on the British Empire.

[Cvengr]

IMHO, I prefer another form of de-esculation, wherein one applies American 'cowboy' tactics of shooting the other sorry bastard before he has a chance to further escalate the situation.

[BuffaloJack]

"De-escalate"?
Sound like a rule created by the French.

[IamConservative]

One way to look at this is: the US wants to eliminate iranian backing of terrorists in Iraq. Another way to look at it is: US is starting to roll up iranian cells around the world in preparation for a strike on iran.

I think Iran is itching for a fight. A war is the only way the diminutive one stays in power, but, they need someone else to start it. Our capturing of Iranian's in Iraq is agitating them. I look for Iran to keep doing more bold things like this kidnapping to slowly escalate things, but still maintain victim status. I look for them to do something to Israel very soon. Brinkmanship, Mullah style..