Brit Wimps

NRO ^ | April 3, 2007 | John Derbyshire

[MEGoody]

When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides

I wonder if Mr. Derbyshire has ever been held hostage. I wonder if he was ever in the military, and if so, in what capacity?

Easy to talk when one is sitting behind a computer keyboard.

[AmusedBystander]

Well since Britain and Iran were not at war, what a propaganda value for the Iranians if the British had fought their captors. The Iranians could claim they were simply enforcing their own waters and the Brits opened fire on them and the Iranians were then forced to kill all in self-defense.

Talk about making the Brits look weak then!

As it went, it made the Iranians the aggressors and the show trial was just that, a show trial. And for any future confrontations with the Iranians, I think we will pick up a bit more support from the British populace.

[JimSEA]

Apparently the Rules of Engagement were to surrender immediately rather than defend themselves.

You would appear to be correct. Likely the individuals were instructed to be "cooperative". Otherwise, at least one of them would have resisted.

Now, we are abandoning the GWOT. Islamic radicals are good and, according to the UN, immune to any criticism. Pelosi is having her sensitivities enhanced in Syria. It's all part of the surrender folks.

[stuartcr]

Since no one took what they said seriously, then what was wrong with what they said?

[prairiebreeze]

You are correct I believe. The ROE for surrender is abominable. And I did read an article that supported your contention of:

so they are instructed to do whatever it takes not to get themselves killed.

It's a shame that NRO doesn't even publish pertinent details like the ROE in this piece. Their credibility plummets on stuff like this.

[353FMG]

“It is the job of a Royal Marine to fight, and if necessary suffer and die, for his country..”

Could it have been that these Marines have given up on their country considering that it is given away to the very people that they are supposed to protect their country from?

[PISANO]

Here are excerpts from the Code of Conduct circa 1950's.

Article II of the Code of Conduct states: I will NEVER surrender of my own FREE will. If in command I will never surrender my men while they have the MEANS to resist.

Article III states : If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available, and I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article V states: When questioned as a POW, I am bound ONLY to give Name, Rank, Service Number and DOB. I will evade answering further questions to the UTMOST of my ability. I will MAKE NO ORAL or WRITTEN statements disloyal too my country and it's allies or harmful to their cause.

There are SIX articles in all and each one was taught, understood and a COPY SIGNED by each recruit when I went to boot camp. I still have my signed copy.

I do NOT believe this CODE OF CONDUCT still exists in today's military. Although I could be mistaken.

[stuartcr]

What good would any of their deaths have done? Start a war?

[Dr. Frank fan]

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton

Well, they didn't really do that either. Did they.

[prairiebreeze]

What now must be done is to make a new set of ROE, that makes a repeat of such a situation impossible.

Exactly right. However I read in at least one place these are UN imposed ROE.

Which makes me less hopeful that the Brits will tell the UN where to stick it. Hope I'm wrong on that.

[TBP]

He’s right. Wimps. The Phony Blur government is a disgrace.

[owhl]

You will not hear their part of the story, thats part of the deal that makes everyone save face. Blair and the Military will make sure of it.

BOTTOM LINE: The britz caved in to terrorists.

Ahmenidjad is the big winner in all this.

[-=SoylentSquirrel=-]

Your invocation of Red Dawn is spot on.

AVENNNNGE MEEEE ! indeed.

It is perhaps one of the greatest movies of all time on the subject of resistance to a cruel oppressor, if you ignore all the stupid parts.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I find this comment article by John Derbyshire premature (we haven’t heard from the sailors and marines themselves) and thus offensive.

What could we possibly "hear" at this point that would excuse the fact that these soldiers, once captured, engaged in all those "apologies" on camera? What?

[Wormwood]

What good would any of their deaths have done? Start a war?

To the delight of thousands of anonymous armchair generals.

[Dr. Frank fan]

It used to be name, rank, and serial number, period. But I suspect that like the rules of engagement those guidelines may have been changed by the British politicians, so they are instructed to do whatever it takes not to get themselves killed.

I don't know if you're right (and neither do you), but if so, that reflects a wimpiness on the part of the British leadership, and Derb's point stands.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Second,if i had a gun to my head i’d say anything too-i’d even put on a hajib:)

Perhaps I would too. But soldiers aren't supposed to.

[stuartcr]

Spot on.

[Dr. Frank fan]

they should have kept their mouths shut.

Bingo

[mewzilla]

What good would any of their deaths have done? Start a war?

We're already in one, pard. And in case you've forgotten, before AQ came on the scene, Hezbollah was responsible for more American terrorist-related deaths than any other group.