Bad News Day

So, young Wills has split with his long term squeeze Kate. He says he feels that he is too young for marriage. Considering they have lived under the same roof for some considerable period of time, it looks to be a bit late for this change of heart. I hope the lad is not at the head of any Order of Chivalry. For my money and speaking as a former member of the brutal and licentious soldiery, it was to be expected once he had savoured the delights of the Wham, bam, thank you mam lifestyle.

I suppose one might say that this outcome was in his genes anyway. Chazzer took the opportunity of the respect accorded to Royals and was involved in many back-door smuggling romances with the luscious ladies of that time. I always hoped he would have married Susan George who would have made all royal events much more watchable. So, better now than later and another re-run of the Chas and Di story.

More important to me is this damned Iran caper. The Minister is due to make a statement on Monday. Doubtless, he will repeat all the claptrap about where who was. I've wondered all along on the frontier position. Given the hatred that existed between Iran and Iraq at the time of their war, I could not see that there was an agreed frontier. Looks as if I might have tripped over something. If there is really a doubt, it puts our case on very shaky ground.

Filthy Lucre

Well, Blair wanted a Presidential style of leadership where the buck stops with him. He has now been drawn into the saga of The Hostages Tales. The Defence Minister has accepted that the idea of serving personnel selling their stories was a mistake. The revised arrangements still centre on money

On Monday Mr Browne, who had waved through a Navy recommendation that two of the hostages could sell their stories, reacted to public outrage at the decision by ordering a ban on any future sales of stories pending the result of an MoD review. It is understood that this is likely to recommend a complete ban on Service personnel selling any stories unless all the money goes to good causes or where individuals work on articles, books or films in their spare time with authorisation.

I cannot understand this fascination with money. It is the idea that the people involved should profit from their experience that causes most ire. We have seen the way in which the present government takes every opportunity to line their pockets. Their financial integrity is appalling. Even the wide mouth frog gets in on the action trolling around America on high-priced speaking tours. The freebie holidays at the homes of synchophantic pop stars and businessmen have figured under Blair's watch.
I doubt that there would have been even ten percent of the bother had the returned personnel been put before the media to answer questions. No payment was needed. They are on duty and get paid for that.

Lower the flag

The Iranian debacle has done one good thing. It has led to much open debate about relationships between UK and much of the rest of the civilised world. From what I have read, my guest Grouchy Old Cripple includes most of the points that have been made so I've included his ideas as a precis of the subject

TODAY'S GUEST BLOG
The effects of that nonsense in Iran.

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.

Hostages

Thankfully, we got them all back in safety. Now, the debate rages over what they should, or maybe should not, have done. I can understand the objections from the traditionalists but I am not so sure how many of them would have taken their own medicine. I happen to think that their attitude comes from the time of Dulce et decorem est; an attitude which has gone in the mists of time. I see no honour in giving one's life for one's country in a dishonourable war. The whole mish mash of the Middle East is not worth one more Caucasian life. At the time the expression was first coined, those who initiated the war were in the forefront of the battles and not skulking at home with inane grins on their faces. I am aware of the captivity record of John McCain. Outstanding but known to me as it was unique so there are not many who can ever aspire to that degree of fortitude.

10 Answers

In the current heat of the hostages situation, we seem to have lost the concerns about that nation getting nuclear power. Perhaps that is why they did what they did.

With Iran now fixed as the lodestone of daily topics here, the article in the Guest Blog may come in handy.

Just had a memory burst from days gone by. It was, I recall, a feature of Chinese brain-washing during Korean War times to get prisoners to write long confessions. Under duress or to get better treatment. This repeated play-acting confessional process - allied to less subtle methods - gradually convinced the writers that they might well be in the wrong. They would then give a more polished performance when taken in front of the cameras. I think the female sailor is now on her third letter where she admits to possible 'offences'

TODAY'S GUEST BLOG
Coverage to 10 Questions about Iran.

Dangers of smoking

Now we know - it was addiction to smoking that led to the hostage taking in Iran.