Hostages - Pt II

Well, my short bit on hostages has sparked off a tide of comments. Not Comments as all communication has been by e-mail. (Thinks – have I done something that makes the Comment facility on the blog difficult to use?).
Reaction was expected given the mass of debate on the world wide internet regarding the conduct of our forces. This covers both the way the boarding operation was carried out and supported and the way our troops responded to challenge, capture and captivity. The poor performance prior to their being detained seems mostly to be unchallenged. Some seek to offset this criticism by reference to the Rules of Engagement and the fact that we are not at war with Iran. Rules of Engagement are merely guidelines; it is not possible to encapsulate the vast amount of legal precedent on self-defence in a small piece of card. The thing that counts is how the person holding the firearm sees his job. Regarded as something from a belt and braces Health & Safety manager, the Rules lean towards doing almost nothing. A soldier with confidence in his training and officers will see them as they are – guidelines. He will react as he has been taught. Our guys chose not to resist. Pretty doubtless that they would have died in any confrontation in that adrenaline-charged moment of confrontation. Those who lean towards the dulce et decorum school of thought do, in my opinion, overlook that the damage that would have been done to world peace with 15 deaths on our side plus those they managed to carry with them would have been very much greater than arose from their illegal detention. I used to feel when in Northern Ireland on hearing of people who were willing to die for their country that a great deal more would be gained if they chose to live and engage fully with their country's interests at heart.
There has been much opinion from our American friends as to precedents set by their personnel when in custody. The different attitudes towards their oppressors are clear – they did not co-operate. This is in itself somewhat cloudy. Certainly, many did resist. See John McCain. This proposition seems to ignore the American attitude of death before dishonour for the logical end game there is that there would not have been a single American POW. But then they have a Military Code of Conduct which we are lacking. So, I discount what an American would have done. I'm sure that we Brits could have found grounds for criticism in anything an American crew would have done in the same circumstances.
What the Marines and sailors did whilst in captivity causes me concern. This is tempered by the fact that I was not there and was not under the same pressures as they now claim. However, they were service personnel and this should have given them much more resolve than seems to have been exhibited. The whole purpose of all military training is to make them aware that they are anything other than a despised, time- and space-wasting civilian and that greater things are expected of them. I had doubted if this attitude was ingrained in the first place. Sailors come close to being sort of civilians in my book; they generally remain a long way from the mud, blood and whatever that marks Army combat. However, this consideration could never apply to the Royal Marine contingent. Their most recent activities in Afghanistan continue a long tradition of hard fighting.
I will now admit a prejudice. I have always had doubts about many commissioned officers. Not all. Many – maybe I'll qualify that as some. This from direct, close-up, contacts. Having got that out of the way, I feel that the marines and naval ratings were let down here by their officers. It seems that a Captain and a Lieutenant were unable to inspire, command, devise – whatever – resistance to interrogation. We did not see the things that went on in isolation but the officers were there when the cameras were running. They surely should have been able to make it clear to the woman that letter writing was a no no and to the whole party that they should avoid displays of bonhomie.
However, to me, what happened with the hostages was just a small part in the overall story. I find the major damage has been done where it allows the Iranians to judge where our Government will draw a line. The response was weak. Slow to mount. Totally lacking in conviction. Irresolute. If you let me get to the thesaurus, I'll add many more words but I'm sure you get my drift. When the time comes – as it will as sure as green apples make you trot – for us to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, they will know that our hearts are not in it and whatever we do is just fluff and puff. Just as the opening stages of a corrida are devised to allow the main player to evaluate the bull's fighting attitude, so was this an evaluation. We failed. For us, neither ears nor tail were awarded.