What would Lord Nelson do?

Jewish World Review ^ | 3/27/07 | Jack Kelly

[westcoastwillieg]

That noise you hear as you pass the crypt at St. Paul's cathedral in London is Lord Horatio Nelson spinning in his grave.

Admiral Nelson was the greatest seaman of a seafaring nation which has produced many. If he had been in command of the HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf last Friday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair would not now be begging the mullahs in Tehran for the release of his illegally seized sailors and marines.

"No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy," Lord Nelson said.

Lord Nelson, alas, was killed at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. The captain of the HMS Cornwall is Commodore Nick Lambert, a more modern sort. He did nothing as six Iranian speedboats seized the boarding party from his ship as they were leaving the freighter they had inspected in Iraqi territorial waters.

The 14 men and one woman have been taken to Tehran, where the mullahs are threatening to try them as spies.

U.S. Navy Lt. Commander Erik Horner, executive officer of the USS Underwood, which shares patrol duty in the Shatt al Arab with the HMS Cornwall, expressed surprise that the British let their sailors and marines be taken without a fight.p> "U.S. Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self defense, but also an obligation to self defense," LtCdr Horner told the British newspaper the Independent. "Our reaction was 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

[Airborne1986]

"The officers on the Cole were so distracted by preparing for an upcoming inspection that they failed to realize that the missile that their radar was tracking was about to hit them. Inexcusable, but not an ROE issue."

Whoops. I said the Cole, but I was thinking of the Stark .... never mind.

[calex59]

Not a very good anology. The cole didn't know she was being attacked until after the explosion. Then there was no one to attack. Just how do you compare the two incidents? A better comparison would be Clintons "blackhawk down" incident in which he deserted our guys.

[delphirogatio]

I am really taken aback by the Former First Sea Lord (what the heck kind of title is that, btw), referring to these hostages as "our chaps." That's a term of endearment which should not be used when you and your gutless policies just sold them down the river.

[PzLdr]

Hell. Nelson would haul his ships overland to shell Teheran.

[kaehurowing]

"What would Lord Nelson do?"


"Never mind the manoeuvres, go straight at 'em, m'lad, go straight at 'em!"

[nathanbedford]

I posted this last year after a mock sea battle was staged to commemorate the anniversary of Trafalgar in which political correctness was taken to this grotesque extension:

Can you imagine a reenactment of the massacre at Wounded Knee (or Ft. Pillow for that matter) without referring to the murder of Indians, er, excuse me, Native Americans as Native Americans? A reenactment without victims, without villains? How pathetic ... just as the Brits arranged off Portsmouth yesterday.

Every generation of British, indeed of English speaking people, have recognized Trafalgar to be a moment of signal historical significance. It meant that England would endure, safe behind its channel moat, contriving alliances against the seemingly impervious French Army, waging a worrying flanking war against Napoleon's neopotistic commissars in Spain. England would endure for a decade, safe from invasion, ruling the waves, provisioning itself and its growing list of allies with the fruits of its maritime dominance. Like a giant boa, The Royal Navy would constrict Napoleon's continental system, ultimately turning his conquered vassals against him.

Because Nelson had inspired the Royal Navy to adopt his patriotism, professionalism and courage, it had become a shining turn of the century example of a meritocracy. Most Americans do not appreciate the debt we as a democracy and land of milk and honey owe to the Royal Navy nor are we aware of the debt the Royal Navy owes to the example of Horatio Viscount, Lord Nelson. In fact, The Senior Service quite consciously modeled itself after the legend of Nelson and it is not an exaggeration to say that the officer of the watch in the frozen gloom of the Arctic winter stood to his duty against all hardship in the War of the Atlantic, conscious that he was following Nelson who, himself, had also served there.

After a decade, England would hurl the world against the fanaticism of the French Leftists. Napoleon would now be weakened by the flank attacks of the Bull Dog. He would be bled white of troops and treasure. But mostly, the decade bought by Trafalgar would see the Corsican Tyrant made vulnerable by his own ego, his mad invasion of Russia and the inevitable internal corruption of his post Jacobin tyranny. A decade after Trafalgar, they would break him at Waterloo.

Because of Trafalgar England would endure. Because of Trafalgar America would ascend. Because of Trafalgar, England would answer the call at its Finest Hour because they had done it before and they knew they could do it again.

Every generation of British have recognized the signal historical significance of Trafalgar - except, evidently, the last.

[JamesP81]

Admiral Nelson was the greatest seaman of a seafaring nation which has produced many. If he had been in command of the HMS Cornwall in the Persian Gulf last Friday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair would not now be begging the mullahs in Tehran for the release of his illegally seized sailors and marines.

Indeed. The mullahs in Iran would be begging Tony Blair to recall Lord Nelson out of their faces before he wiped them out completely.

[JamesP81]

The officers on the Cole were so distracted by preparing for an upcoming inspection that they failed to realize that the missile that their radar was tracking was about to hit them. Inexcusable, but not an ROE issue.

The Cole was attacked by a group of suicide bombers in a boat. IIRC, the attack was a sneak attack; it wasn't as if a missile was coming in and they didn't engage it.

[Barney Gumble]

"Never break the neutrality of a port or place, but never consider as neutral any place from whence an attack is allowed to be made."

Great quote. It's the source of all of our problems in Iraq. Iran is involved in the war and we don't recognize it. Reagan knew how to lay down the law. Read about Operation Praying Mantis. When one of our frigates hit an Iranian mine, we sank two of their frigates and several speedboats in retaliation. The British should be organizing a blockade. They may still have enough the ships to do it.

[jmax]

Don't forget the PUEBLO and the North Koreans.........

[hosepipe]

[... What would Lord Nelson do? ..]

Ugh,,,
1) KEEL HAUL any openly queer faggots in his command, put them ashore..
2) and Sink any ocean worthy craft of Iran..
3) Disable Irans ONE refinery.. and take over any Iranian offshore OIL platforms..

[guinnessman]

Great post!

Let's not forget, that 18 years later, that same British Navy would guarantee the success of the Monroe Doctrine.

[stylecouncilor]

ping

[tired1]

sir, reference please.

thanx

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I knew you were thinking of something else. ;)

And thank you for your service.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

In the absence of facts about the Brits' situation its tough to make an analogy. But the crew of the USS Cole had plenty of time to prevent the attack on their ship and failed to act.

At the time it happened, we all questioned how the Cole could be rammed by a motor boat, when one or two shots would've prevented the attack by setting off the explosives. Instead, the officers and crew did nothing.

The globalsecurity site records the incident this way,

A 35-foot boat laden with the explosives RDX and TNT with two bombers on board rammed the USS Cole port amidships while it was refueling in Aden harbor, ripping a 32-foot by 36-foot hole in the hull and causing extensive internal damage.

A U.S. Navy investigation found that the ship's officers and crew failed to take a number of security measures that would have possibly prevented the attack. At the time, Yemen was rated at a "high" threat level, the fourth-highest of a five-level threat alert system.

The vessel was moored at a refueling platform when the attack occured. The two suicide bombers waved to some of the ship's crew who were topside, many of whom later said they assumed the approaching craft was a garbage boat. Many of the crew were below decks for lunch.

Maybe with President Bush as CIC the orders have changed.

[TalBlack]

"....."Every generation of British have recognized the signal historical significance of Trafalgar - except, evidently, the last."

A damn fine post!

[2ndDivisionVet]

When we were a young country, we had problems like this in the Middle East:

The United States and the Barbary Pirates

The American Revolution was barely over before the United States faced its first foreign policy test. What should the United States do about North African pirate states that plundered American shipping?

On September 11, 2001, terrorists struck the United States, killing about 4,000 people. The U.S. president responded by declaring a war on terrorism. He got Congress to authorize using force against any nation, organization, or person involved in the attack or against any nation harboring the terrorist organizations.

When the United States began, it faced another foreign policy test: How should it respond to the Barbary pirates who were plundering its ships?


In the 1700s, the countries along the southern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea were called the Barbary States. They included Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. Named after the Berbers, one of North Africa's native peoples, the Barbary States were little pirate kingdoms that plundered the merchant ships of many nations.

The Barbary pirates were mostly Berbers, Arabs, and other Muslims, but some came from Christian Europe. The pirates used small, fast-moving vessels to capture trading ships and their cargoes. They held the crews and passengers for ransom or sold them as slaves.

Each of the four Barbary States had its own ruler. He was usually a military strongman who had grabbed the throne by assassinating the ruler or murdering rival family members.


In 1662, England made the first treaty with a Barbary ruler. This set the pattern for similar treaties by other European nations trading in the Mediterranean. Typically, a Barbary peace treaty required a nation to pay "tribute" to the pirate ruler, who would then call off attacks on the nation's ships. Tribute usually took the form of a large payment of money plus annual payments. The annual payments might be cash, military supplies, or expensive presents for the ruler. A particular treaty might also include ransom money for the release of a nation's citizens held captive by the Barbary country.

The Barbary rulers frequently demanded that nations "renew" their treaties for even greater amounts of tribute. Until a nation agreed to new terms, its ships remained fair game for the pirates.

The war fleets of the European powers could easily have defeated the Barbary pirate ships. Yet the Europeans agreed to the tribute treaties. Nations like England believed that by paying tribute they not only bought protection for themselves but also redirected the pirates to wreak havoc on the merchant ships of competing nations.

The American colonies traded extensively in the Mediterranean before the Revolutionary War. During this time, British tribute treaties with the Barbary States protected American ships. But after the colonies broke away from England, this protection vanished. Many British believed that the Barbary pirates would eliminate American commercial competition in the Mediterranean. One British official gloated, "The Americans cannot protect themselves. They cannot pretend to [have] a navy."

The U.S. Pays Tribute

After finding American commerce in the Mediterranean had almost stopped due to the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission, consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations. The following year, Congress authorized a maximum of $80,000 to spend on tribute treaties with all the Barbary States.

In 1787, the United States signed a tribute treaty with Morocco. This proved to be a reasonable treaty, costing the United States a one-time only tribute of about $20,000. Except for a few brief disagreements, Morocco never again harassed American shipping.

Algiers, the most powerful of the Barbary States, was a different story. In the summer of 1785, pirates from Algiers captured two American merchant ships and held the 21 men aboard them for ransom. The United States offered $4,200 for the captives. The ruler of Algiers, called the dey, demanded nearly $60,000. The Americans refused, and negotiations dragged on for more than 10 years.

The two commissioners most involved in tribute treaty negotiations were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Adams favored paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce moving again in the Mediterranean. Jefferson disagreed. He saw no end to the demands for tribute. He wanted matters settled "through the medium of war" and proposed a league of trading nations to force the end of Barbary piracy.

In 1790, pirates from Algiers captured 11 American ships and more than 100 prisoners to add to those already held for ransom. This shocking news produced a serious debate in the newly formed U.S. Congress over the need to build a navy. But it took five years before Congress authorized the construction of six warships.

Finally, in 1796, the United States signed a peace treaty with Algiers. The United States agreed to pay $642,500 plus annual tribute of naval supplies and presents to the dey. In exchange, the dey promised to release of the American captives and protect American shipping. The United States had to borrow money to make the primary tribute payment.

Trouble with Tripoli and Tunis

Over the next two years, the United States negotiated similar tribute treaties with Tripoli and Tunis. The treaties with these countries cost a total of $160,000 plus supplies and presents to the Barbary rulers. William Eaton, a former U.S. Army officer who became the American consul (diplomatic representative) at Tunis, disliked the Barbary tribute system. He wrote that "there is no access to the permanent friendship of these states without paving the way with gold or cannonballs; and the proper question is which method is preferable."

Before long, the rulers of Tripoli and Tunis complained about delays in the delivery of the annual tribute supplies. The ruler of Tripoli, the pasha, demanded a new treaty with a much larger tribute. Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to England scrambled to gather expensive presents owed to the pasha of Tunis. One of the gifts was a pair of pistols mounted with gold and set with diamonds.

In May 1801, the pasha of Tripoli canceled his treaty with the United States and declared war on American shipping. Even before he knew that Tripoli had declared war, newly inaugurated President Jefferson ordered a naval squadron of four warships to the Mediterranean. But this squadron did not accomplish much. Nor did a second one sent the following year. U.S. Navy ships did blockade Tripoli harbor, but only for a short time.

Frustrated by the timidity and even incompetence of the U.S. Navy squadron commanders, William Eaton started to work on a plot to overthrow Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli. To seize the throne for himself, Yusuf had murdered his older brother and forced another one, Hamet, into exile. Eaton contacted Hamet and promised him U.S. support in overthrowing his brother. Eaton believed that once on the throne of Tripoli, Hamet would repay the United States with permanent peaceful relations.

War with Tripoli

A new naval squadron under Commodore Edward Preble arrived in the Mediterranean in 1803. Preble aggressively restored the blockade of Tripoli harbor. But one of Preble's warships, the Philadelphia, ran aground while chasing a Tripolitan vessel. The Tripoli pirates captured more than 300 U.S. Navy officers and crew and imprisoned them. Pasha Yusuf now demanded $3 million for peace and the ransom of the American captives.

Commodore Preble realized that he could not leave the Philadelphia (a frigate with 36 cannons) in the hands of the Tripoli pirates. Fearful that retaking the ship under Tripoli's harbor guns would be too risky, Preble decided to destroy the frigate instead. Lieutenant Stephen Decatur and about 70 officers, sailors, and marines volunteered for what became one of the most heroic actions in the history of the U.S. Navy.

On the night of February 16, 1804, the 25-year-old Decatur and his men boldly sailed a captured pirate vessel next to the Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor. The Americans quickly boarded the ship, overwhelmed the Tripoli pirates guarding it, and set the frigate on fire. Decatur and all his men then escaped aboard their vessel without any casualties. As they sailed out of the harbor, the Philadelphia exploded.

A few months later, Commodore Preble assembled all his warships at Tripoli and bombarded the town and its harbor fortifications. In the meantime, Jefferson ordered a new U.S. Navy squadron to go to the Barbary Coast.

Late in 1804, William Eaton started on his plan to overthrow Pasha Yusuf of Tripoli. Eaton found Yusuf's brother, Hamet, in Egypt. Eaton then recruited with his own and borrowed money an incredible "army" of Arab horsemen, soldiers of fortune, and cutthroats. Eaton, along with Hamet and a handful of American marines, led this band 500 miles across North Africa to Derna, a port town controlled by Pasha Yusuf. With the aid of three U.S. warships, Eaton and his men stormed the town on April 27, 1805, and drove out its defenders. (In honor of this victory, the words: "To the Shores of Tripoli" were put on the Marine Corps' flag and later put in the Marines' Hymn.)

Troops sent by Yusuf arrived to besiege Derna. Much to Eaton's dismay, he received word that Pasha Yusuf had signed a peace treaty with the United States in Tripoli. This ended Eaton's plan to replace Yusuf with his brother.

The treaty of peace with Pasha Yusuf, under the guns of U.S. warships at Tripoli and Eaton's forces at Derna, disappointed many Americans. Yusuf released the prisoners from the Philadelphia and several American merchant ships. The United States still agreed, however, to pay $60,000 for them.

War with Algiers

Following the war with Tripoli, the United States ordered its Navy ships in the Mediterranean to return home. Conflict with England was heating up and finally exploded in the War of 1812.

By this time, a new dey, Omar, had taken over in Algiers. He ordered the capture of American merchant ships because of overdue U.S. tribute. President Madison responded by getting Congress to authorize military action against Algiers in February 1815. He sent a squadron of nine warships to end Barbary tribute. Commodore Stephen Decatur (the leader of the group that set fire of the Philadelphia 11 years earlier) commanded the squadron.

After capturing several of the dey's pirate ships, Decatur coolly sailed into Algiers harbor on June 29, 1815. The next day, under the threat of Decatur's warships, Dey Omar agreed to a peace treaty and the release of all American prisons without any ransom payment. In addition, Article II of the treaty stated, "No tribute, either as biennial presents or under any other form shall ever be required by Algiers from the United States on any pretext." Then in an unprecedented act, the Americans demanded that Dey Omar pay the United States $10,000 as compensation for property taken from its citizens. Decatur sailed on to Tunis and Tripoli, where he won similar concessions.

About a year later, Dey Omar wrote to President Madison, proposing a renewal of the tribute treaty the United States had signed with Algiers in 1796. Madison wrote back that "the United States, whilst they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none." He concluded that it was the "settled policy" of the United States "that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."


http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria18_1.htm

[bravo whiskey]

because of nelson, the british navy held a morale superiority that spooked the german kaiser and high seas fleet in ww1, the german and italian navies in ww2 and the argentinain navy in the falklands.

a perfect example of a great leader even though he had serious flaws in his personal life.

[kalee]

Every generation of British have recognized the signal historical significance of Trafalgar - except, evidently, the last.



Sad but true