US "surprised" the British marines and sailors didn't fire on the Iranians captors

[sabra]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

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?'"

[CJCRANE]

1. The Brits where surrounded and out-gunned.

If they opened fire there would probably not now be 15 live captives.

[shadowknows69]

38. Or maybe they also had the sense not to start WWIII

if they were in the wrong place and knew it.

[maddezmom]

2. here's a link to the British rules of engagement

Capture of British sailors is all too familiar
Iran also seized three servicemen in 2004, but this time raises added alarm.
By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer
March 25, 2007


LONDON — A disconcerting sense of deja vu surrounds Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines on smuggling patrol Friday in the Persian Gulf.

Three years ago, eight British servicemen traveling in small boats up the Shatt al Arab waterway near the Iranian border with Iraq found themselves surrounded by members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, arrested and subjected to a three-day ordeal that included mock executions and a visit to what they thought would be their graves. After a few days, they were released.

The previous incident raises concerns here over what the captured sailors and marines may be going through, and has also raised questions about the rules of engagement that do not allow British military officers on smuggling patrol in the Persian Gulf to return fire when confronted, a former senior navy official said Saturday.

"I think if we're going to be operating in those waters and something like this happens, we have to think very carefully about, rather than being de-escalatory, stepping back and turning the other cheek, whether we should be responding in some different way," Alan West, who commanded the British navy during the June 2004 incident, said in a telephone interview.

more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x270895

[Mika]

4. ".. to return fire when confronted.."

Confronted?

[CJCRANE]

8. "Return fire" or initiate fire ? n/t

[bdamomma]

3. geez, kill them is our sick regime's motto.

like the bush regime is saying why don't you start the war with them first. what sick SOB's.

[BluePatriot]

5. Lucky us

thanks to the cool-headed Brits a possible war was averted. I just hope they are being treated well in Iran and not tortured or anything.

[acmavm]

6. The yahoos in charge of our military are a bunch of shoot-first

ask-later idiots.

Really got the bottom of the barrel running things now, don't we?

[Wickerman]

7. Gee, was that their orders?

Get yerselves into the thick of it with them Iranians, start a firefight, and then we can call in an airstrike and this war on?

Must have fresh war soon.

[INDIA]

9. It's part of being a US Marine.

Being taken hostage is very much looked down upon. Especailly by 3rd world half assed Navy. I remember during OCS our Platoon Commander would compare the US Army's outlook and less than stellar history of being taken prisoner with the Marine Corps. The USMC rarely, if ever, surrenders.

Remeber Wake Island? About 130 Marines held off an entire Japanese invasion force and inflicted heavy casualties. When the commander was forced to surrender as a final resort, some of the Marines were upset that they weren't allowed to fight to the death. It's just part of being a Marine, and IMO, if they had fired on the Iranians, they would have been absolutely justified, and probably would have had a shot of fighting them off. I don't care how many Iranians there were, 15 pissed of Marines are nothing to be scoffed at.

[Lester222]

11. Awww, ain't our marines just bad asses....

... I wish I was such a bad ass :eyes: :silly:

[INDIA]

19. Your name is Lester?

Chances are quite good indeed that you are far from being "bad ass." Although I find it amusing how you make fun of those who undoubtedly have more metal/physical strength, courage and integrity than you ever will, LESTER. LESTER? Really? That's your name?

[Lester222]

26. actually, I'm not making fun of the marines, ...

... I'm making fun of you ;-)


"My Name is Lester Burnham. This is my street, this is my car, this is my life...." ;-)

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[INDIA]

47. You're right. It was a bit out of line....

but to use a time honored defense......he started it.

[shadowknows69]

54. fair enough answer for the schoolyard I guess

;-)

[gatorboy]

42. Never heard of Lester Weber?

Marine that earned the Medal of Honor?

Course in your mind, he probably didn't earn it, what with a name like LESTER and all. :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Then again, you have to consider,

WE ARE NOT AT FUCKING WAR WITH IRAN!!!

The Marines guarding the embassy in Terhan surrendered in '79, because if they hadn't there might have been a massacre. We were not at war with Iran then, either. The Navy men on the Pueblo surrendered to the N Koreans - we were not at war with Korea.

In wartime, Marines don't surrender unless they absolutely have to. When not at war we should not fight unless we absolutely have to.

The Brits did the exact, right thing.

And BTW, the Royal Marines are every bit as good and tough as our guys. They didn't wimp out - they just chose not to fight someone they are not at war with.

[INDIA]

15. But our relationship with them is as adversarial as can be.

If by some mix up, the Saudi or Kuwait Navy had picked up the Marines, no of course not. But US Marines operating in Iraqi waters with the permission of the Iraqi government? And then captured by Iran, which the UN demonstrated this week, is basically a rogue nation operating outside the realm of the world community? Who we have had very unfriendly relations with in the past?

And then Iran goes on to prove how bat-shit crazy they really are by claiming the British Marines ADMITTED that they were encroaching on Iranian waters? Do they really expect anyone with a brain to believe that tripe? (outside of DU of course.)

Yes, US Marines would have been justified in defending themselves from being kidnapped, which is essentially what this is.

[Leopolds Ghost]

28. Considering that Iran fought a 10-year war over its access to the Shatt

Î question your assertion that they don't have full rights to operate shipping unmolested in accordance with the Shatt treaty.

The Shatt (into which flows the Tigris and Euphrates) is an international boundary with major port cities on both the Iraqi and Iranian side of the river.

Presumably you think it is solely Iraqi territorial waters, which was what Saddam said when we funded his invasion and use of chemical weapons against Iran, in order to abrogate the Shatt treaty and sieze the oil fields on the east bank of the Shatt?

Or that Iran has no right to access its own inland ports and defend its own merchant marine, regardless of what that force is up to?

In light of the UN vote, it is curious indeed to see Russia and China joining with the UN to institute sanctions in order to prevent Iran from developing the nuclear power program we helped the Shah institute?

I wonder what this means for China and Russia's oil and arms trade agreements, and Russia's work on the Bushehr reactor.

What happened to that ad someone posted, from US nuclear power industry in the 1970's, advertising the Shah's efforts to harness nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes?

Who here

[leftchick]

17. not to mention

it is not clear at all if the UK was in Iranian territory or not. And why the fuck are they inspecting ships for smugglers anyway? What right do they have to do that? Why is no one asking that question?

[INDIA]

21. Simple.

Illegal weapons are killing coalition troops, as well as Iraqi civilians within the country. The British forces are operating under the permission of the Iraqi government. They are probably trying to prevent more innocent loss of life by preventing explosives and weapons from entering the country, or posssibly other illegal contraband (drugs etc) that may be used to finance militias.

It's about a 99% chance that they were in Iraqi waters. The British Navy is extremely "by the book", formal, and thorough in carrying out their missions. A mistake like that would be very out of the ordinary.

OR you can just take the word of a government who denies the Holocaust. It's up to you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. Iran's leaders are disgusting. But that doesn't give Brits the power of gunboat diplomacy

Under color of UN mandate, much as the mandates they used to have to occupy their former colonial domains, and the Belgian/French "mandate" to police and occupy Rwanda with UN troops during the genocide (because it was "their" area of influence, they were funding the genocidal Hutu regime, they had previously funded genocide and assassination in the Congo, etc.) Neo-colonialism.

The Shah asserted control of shipping in the Shatt and cut off Hussein's access to the sea. Hussein and the US retaliated by attempting to abrogate the Shatt treaty and cut off Iranian access to the Shatt. When did the Shatt south of Basra become "Iraqi territorial waters"? It is a joint territorial waterway.

[Mike Daniels]

23. The smuggling inspections are approved by the UN

which is why no-one is questioning why the British were conducting the operations.

The reference to the UN mandate is in the third paragraph at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500368.html

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. In violation of the Shatt treaty.

As evidenced by the fact that Iranian Navy were stationed right there.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Did I mention that the US funded Hussein's post-1979 invasion of Iran, the stated premise

was the ABROGATION of the Shatt treaty and control of (mostly oil-related)
shipping on both banks?

[leftchick]

41. thanks

it seems the US and UK break treaties with impunity. Along with everything else.

[ronnie624]

14. .

:eyes:

[Solo_in_MD]

16. USMC would also have had air support, a couple of Cobras would have made it more than an even fight

The Brits did not have memory of Mogadishu to contend with. That coupled with other incident mean that US troops are not going to surrender in the ME without a fight. The Brits have submitted in the past, so it may well be why the Pasdaran picked the Brits.

[Lester222]

18. lol, and a couple of german fuchses could pwn the crap out of...

...theez persian newbs, given how the waffen SS had a 1:5 frag to kill ratio.

geeeeez people what kind of toys where you playing with in your childhood :eyes:

[Solo_in_MD]

25. Actually my adulthood

where I flew fighters.

The facts are that the Brits were there without air cover on call. It is reasonable to surmise that they had at least visual warning of the approach of the Iraqis, who were Pasdaran, not regular navy. Had it been an American force, there would have been Sea Cobras in the area.

After Mogadishu and other incidents in the ME, no US service member is going to go without a fight.

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. Are you saying that the US Military, like the Japanese in WWII, does not follow

the rules of war and expects its uniformed opponents not to do so, either?

A fight to the death, resulting in world war, our guys shoot everything that moves, men women and children and refuse to be taken captive by ANY "dark skinned, infidel army" (never mind that Persians aren't Arabs) to honor someone's ignorant notion that if they torture our guys, we should do the same? That's not how we won WWII.

[Solo_in_MD]

35. Many do not trust insurgents or other non-uniformed forces to abide by anything

with some justification.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. The Pasdaran are the Iranian equivalent of the National Guard, it seems

[Solo_in_MD]

45. They are far from that...

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. What's Mogadishu got to do with it?

I don't recall that anyone surrendered there. It was a running fight with overwhelming numbers of unorganized militia. Those unfortunates who were dragged through the streets were killed in the fighting.

What is the connection between that and this?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. I was a marine and I would have surrendered.

But, then, I was merely a peasant. Not of the exalted officer class.

[Leopolds Ghost]

33. Why am I getting a mental image of John Lennon's upper-class twit officer from "How I Won The War"?

[ieoeja]

51. Minor Correction

"some of the Marines were upset that they weren't allowed to fight to the death"


Actually, they were upset because they were winning. The bulk of the Japanese landing force had been killed, captured or were retreating. However, a Japanese shell landed squarely on a juncture of most communication lines into the command post (the Marines had no radios for short range communication on Wake). The CO thought he had lost contact with his Marines because they were dead. In addition, when the CO stepped out of his bunker he saw Japanese flags flying everywhere as the individual Japanese soldier wore a flagpole strapped to his back.

So he looked for a Japanese officer to whom he could surrender what he thought was a remnant of his command. He then traversed the island in their custody ordering his men to surrender in turn. Too late during this trip he realized his mistake as he found more armed Marines than Japanese.

[crikkett]

10. US: coulda woulda shoulda

too bad it was the Brits, the US coulda escalated this to a new war.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. You know, I kinda wonder,

the Brits insist they were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians say they were in Iranian waters.

I wonder who told the Brits they were in Iraqi waters. Is it disputed, like with many countries who claim waters beyond internationaly recognised boundries? Remember the tussle we had with Libya because we insisted on patrolling in waters that we said were international but they claimed as theirs? We wound up shooting down two of their jets as they were defending their claim.

I guess what I am wondering is, did the US give the Brits that GPS location, knowing that Iran would dispute it?

[Bandit]

20. Yep just like American troops did during Pueblo incident or

Mayaguez Incident or the Chinese Spy plane incident or????

[Solo_in_MD]

27. Different Places and Different Times

After Mogadishu and the beheadings in the ME, few if anyone in a US uniform is going to surrender without a fight.

Mayaguez was a civilian vessel.

Current word is that Intel planes/ships will ditch/scuttle rather that be captured and that active means to destroys all the equipment are now carried on board. The disclosures were that bad

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Yep, those enemies had nukes, thereby proving Iran doesn't need them

Because so long as Iran has no nukers, we promise to shoot at them over the least provocation, without fear of retaliation. Great game plan for nuclear disarmament, buddy.

Nice of you to assume Iran army would kill/torture American POWs. Maybe they would, but I doubt it. You see, our dignified treatment of POWs in WWII set the standard, you see. Which encouraged soldiers to surrender rather than kill everything that moves and then fight to the death. I guess we've broken that policy because these guys are "infidels" unlike the people we were fighting in WWII. So now, it's strictly no quarter given or asked, eh? Including innocent passerby. And no compunctions against torture, as you and I know the Brits would now be doing, if an Iranian boarding party had siezed a British merchant vessel in the mouth of the Thames. No honor among thieves, eh mate?

[Solo_in_MD]

36. Cambodia and NK had nukes back then?

Are you aware that the Brits were not captured by the Iranian army or navy, but by the Pasdaran? That has dramatically different implications.

Are you aware that the vessel being boarded was not Iranian?

Are you aware that the boarding was being conducted under UN mandate?

My experience with the Brits is that they are not cowboys, which means that the boardings were happening outside of territorial waters.


One has to wonder what triggered the Pasdaran. Was it the contents of the vessel or are they looking for bargaining chips. There have been claims that the Brits are going to be tried for spying etc. The real motivation is the key, especially with the Pasdaran.

That US troops are currently of a mindset to fight rather than surrender to non-uniformed forces should not be news to anyone following current events and has nothing to do with treatment of prisoners by national armies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. To say that the Revolutionary Guard is a non-uniformed force is

like saying the SS was just a militia. They are not part of the Iranian army structure, but that doesn't mean they are not responsible to the Iranian government. They are what Blackwater wants to be.

[Solo_in_MD]

44. You need to read up a bit more on the Pasdaran

Most have more religous training than tactical or military training. International law is not their forte. They serve at the pleasure of the mullahs and do their bidding. They exist as a counter to the power of the professional military, whom the mullahs fear. That does not sound like the SS, mercs or Blackwater to me, who are pros. The Pasdaran are religous first and military second. Not a good structure when you consider they control the missile forces.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Actually, that is exactly what the SS was.

They weren't the most feared because of their professionalism. They were most feared because they were batshit crazy, and fanatically loyal to the Feurher and the party. They cared nothing for international law and were responsible for a vastly disproportionate number of atrocities against civilians and prisoners of war. But they were responsible to the government, the government being Hitler.

From the stories I've heard (admittedly rumor) Blackwater is much the same. They are not part of the command structure, they don't have to follow the military rules of engagement, and supposedly there's been a lot of cowboying from them because of it. Their loyalty it to who pays them. There may be professionals among them, but they are not a professional military. And, as they were formed and organized by a RW christian zealot, I suspect their religious bonafides are at least as important as their military accomplishments.

[Solo_in_MD]

48. SS or Waffen SS?

The difference is critial. The Waffen SS were superior troops in addition to the ideology.

From what I have seen of BW et al, they hire senior ex military as trainers, but go lower in age/experince for operational types. No evidence that there is a religous issue associated with working there. FWIW, soliders hate zealots, since it endangers them. IIRC, one of Murphy's Laws for the Infantry was "never share a foxhole with someone crazier than you are"

[ieoeja]

52. Those US soldiers should never have surrendered in Mogadishu.

Oh, wait. They didn't. Everyone who died did so in combat, not via execution.

So what the heck are you talking about?


Actually, our guys wouldn't have surrendered in this situation for the reasons cited in the OP: those are the rules of engagement they have been given for this time and place. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with what the US Marines may think and feel versus what the Royal Marines think and feel. Either would follow their standing orders on what to do in this situation.

[AndyTiedye]

24. Of Course US Troops Would have Shot Back. The US is Trying to Start a War With Iran

Bliar might be too, but he would have to be more low-key about it.

[Catchawave]

49. Rosie smells another "Gulf of Tonkin"

I caught bought of The View this morning when she was ranting about this, and concluded with "if you don't believe me Google Gulf of Tonkin". And I did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

[Solo_in_MD]

55. Rosie smells a lot of things

but needs to do some research before she runs amok.

[DesertRat]

58. How did Rosie run amok?

She recommended that people research the Gulf of Tonkin and left it at that.

[DesertRat]

57. Rosie isn't the only one drawing comparisons to the Gulf of Tonkin

I think that it was important that she told people to look it up. Of course resident neocon of the View, Elizabeth, hadn't heard of it and said that she'd Google it.

[RL3AO]

50. U.S. troops would have shot back because they wouldnt want to be captured.

[ieoeja]

53. No, they would have shot back because of the rules of engagement.

Re-read the OP. The US officer flat out states that is why they would have fired back. And the Brits would have done the same had that been their rules of engagement.

[AndyTiedye]

60. I'm Sure Our Rules of Engagement for Iran are "Shoot First and Ask Questions Later"

And who issues the "Rules of Engagement"?

[redqueen]

56. They misspelled "disappointed".

%&^$#@* warmongers.

:puke:

[Rex]

59. Bullshit! Those troops used their brains and are alive because of it!

God! What a stupid fucker! No wonder our 'coalition of the willing' is such a piece of shit! Bring ALL of the troops home NOW!

If you don't know how to use them then bring them home! Assholes!