This isn't your great-great-great-great grandfather's Royal Navy....
Posted on 03/25/2007 5:30:55 PM PDT by 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?’”…
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I suspect that royal navy submarine fired tomahawks could sink the majority of it in 24 hours or so.
I don't know if the RAF has the air assets near enough to conduct strikes on Iranian targets. Remember, they no longer have big strategic bombers, and the few carriers they do have right now only have Harriers on them.
Unless they are moving planes to forward Iraqi bases, its going to be hard to do bombing runs.
I suspect it will fall mostly on the royal navy to do missile strikes with assistance from the U.S. Navy.
I think the Brits would act the same towards us.
He stated our ROE and said that it means we would have fought.
British sailors would be chomping at the bit to back us up, their government, sans Maggy, would go wobbly.
Having your people held hostage will start trouble a whole lot faster. The Brits will have to bow and scrape to get their people back.
This isn't your great-great-great-great grandfather's Royal Navy....
I will say that if I had been (and in charge)there a helo would of been in the air and the Iranians would have had to think seriously about their plans. After the Cole ANY vessel on the Gulf is suspect and should approach with caution - at least in my world.
That small bomb- bearing craft, and any other small craft not identified and cleared should not have been allowed to approach within a specified perimeter, say, no nearer than 500 yards from the USS Cole, considering the threat inherent in the location in which she was moored. Failure to thus secure the ship constitutes dereliction of duty, probably at multiple levels in the chain of command, not excluding the Dept. of State and the Oval Office.
This is like something out of Alice in Wonderland... Admirals who refuse to acknowledge they're in a war, even while their men (and a woman) are under direct attack from the enemy...
I have said it on another thread but.....
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.
Just my two cents worth.
Different time and different place.
I must say that this was truly stupid.
In the first place, if you send your troops into harm's way, you have an obligation to defend them. I said the same thing about those National Guard troops on the Mexican border. If you don't want a provocation, then don't send in the troops. But you don't put troops on the line without the means to defend themselves.
In the second place, these bloody politicians and admirals now have created a first class mess for themselves. If they don't give a damn about their troops, you'd think they'd at least want to avoid getting themselves into a mess.
Once the Iranians went off with the hostages, the damage was done. Now they are between a rock and a hard place, and no matter what they do, the hostages' lives are at risk.
Like the guard ran away from the border too.
Blair is working on that. He's cutting the fleet to 22 - that's right, 22 - ships. He's also cut out paratroop training for the army, and liquidated formerly elite units.
Previously, and most likely in effect again post September 11, 2001, the US & Coalition vessels would refuel away from UAE Ports.
I doubt very much that they were on the Iranian side of the water. By the time the boat was surrounded, it was a bit late, but they could have fired warning shots when they saw the Iranians leave the shore.
Except that the rules of engagement didn't allow it. So if what you say is true, then it just means that the moment when it became too late to take useful action was just a little earlier.
When the school bully knows you won't fight back, you'll be handing him your lunch money every day.
Come on you Limies! You'd never have hung on to the Colonies with an attitude like that... Oh, you lost your colonies didn't you. Well, you're sure as hell not going to survive as a nation if you keep this BS up.
Come on! We need you as an Allie.
Hornblower and Pelliew (sp?)
When the USS Pueblo was hijacked in international waters by the NKoreans in 1968, we allowed the crew to remain captives of the NKoreans for 11 months rather than create an "international incident".
IMO, there would be fewer possibilities for "international incidents" if response was swift and sure everytime a rogue nation pulled a stunt like this. After the Pueblo was hijacked, the Enterprise was off the coast of NKorea the next day. Had I been in charge, I'd have parked 5 F-4s out the deck and invited the NKoreans to come take a look. Then, I'd let them know that they had 24 hours to release the ship and the crew intact. After that, a NKorean city would disappear every 2 hours until the ship and crew were released or there just wasn't anything left to destroy.
Unfortunately, we abandoned that crew to the "negotiators" for 11 months!! BS!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.