This may come as a surprise to you, but much of the world of politics is based, at least in part, on the concept of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and vice versa.
The US supports the state of Israel, for better or worse. The Iranian administration has publicly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map, and the Iranian gov’t also supports, secretly or not, such fun time people as Hezbollah.
Hence, Iran IS our enemy.
Thinking otherwise is looking through rose colored glasses.
Mel Gibson may think differently. 
Yep, that “our” thing again.
“we” “us” “our”; the land of the free thinking, right ?
What is this, an all out effort to get the thread moved?
What raised the question in my mind is that, to me, it seems that the last thing a military person would want is to be seen on camera saying anything that could be used as propaganda. It would seem that, at least, it would end or put the brakes on their career. I was wondering if there was a policy in place for Brits and/or Americans in regard to their conduct under such circumstances. It seems that if would be highly embarrassing to go back to friends, family and fellow military peers under such a circumstance.
Yes, everyone has a breaking point. Maybe I would sing like a canary under such a circumstance, I don’t really know. I do know that the thought that would run through my mind would be to smash my eyebrow into a wall or table creating a black eye so that if they tried to put me on camera I would look abused.
Well, then, I for one am glad Mel is not Secretary of State.
And I think rightly so. Ships don’t move so fast as to be able to swoop down from a great distance and capture them. The Iranian vessel must have been fairly close all the time. Maybe Colonel Blimp was running the show.
What I’m hearing from analysts is that just because Ahmadinejad says it doesn’t mean it’s the policy of all of Iranian administration. Remember, he’s only the President. He’s not the head of state.
Again, this was a diplomatic issue, not an issue of combat. They conducted themselves in a way that minimized the chance of the situation escalating. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, just because people are in the military, it doesn’t mean they’re itching to fight anyone and everyone at any time.
I think it would be only the small-minded or ignorant who would think ill of these people and that sort should be ignored.
Ahmadinejad has already shown that he may have a tenuous grasp on reality; he may feel he’s scored some sort of coup and he may have somehow gained a few face points among a few naive Iranians, but anybody with Internet access or foreign friends will soon see that Ahmadinejad isn’t covered with glory because of this. And certainly nobody in the West was fooled.
Surely you didn’t sit there thinking that anybody making those statements actually believed them?
But is it Britain’s enemy, * in the sense of being at war (declared, undeclared or cold)*, as opposed to just a hostile regime? Because that’s what I think Quiddity was trying to convey in the post before that. From the news conference I get that the senior officers decided that the way to ease things for the crew was to provide formalistic, token cooperation.
Anyway, IMO weaseling your way through a bad situation is not beneath the dignity of a soldier. Heck, in many cases, weaseling your way through the situation, rather than doing it the hard way, is the* superior * tactical decision. YMMV, of course.
All I want to know is: Where is Harry Flashman when you need him?
In a book, like he’s always been. :rolleyes:
The two officers said that they had prefaced all statements with things like ‘according to the information you have shown us’ we were in Iranian territory.
They said those bits were edited out.
Personally I doubt that anyone in the UK will believe anything other than that they had a pretty rough time, I also suspect that people in the ME can recognize a ‘show trial’.
As I made clear before, I was talking about the way I believe things will be perceived in much of the Middle East. I was not expressing my own opinion about Britain’s strength or weakness, nor about the behavior of the British sailors.
I don’t think GQ is an appropriate place for me to express my personal feelings about what happened during this crisis. I will say that your posting reminds me of how so many people in the U.S. reacted after 9/11: any attempt to understand the motivations of the people who attacked us was met with hostility, as if it were the same as condoning the behavior.
An excellent observation.
With regard to the deportment of the captive Brit. troops, I think they fell well below expected standards of behavior. The military community very much tends toward social conservative attitudes, and for very good reason. We’re not just talking about this one incident, but standards of behavior and setting precedents. The current political climate may dictate that the behavior of these people will be overlooked, but within the military there must be some concern about the level and effectiveness of training w/ regard to conduct as a prisoner of a foreign power. I, personally, find the behavior unacceptable and I’ve yet to hear anything that would justify it.
I realize that some may disagree, but I’d like to hear comments from other Dopers w/ military experience, U.S., British, or other countries.
Look Elsie, if you like Iran so much why don’t you go live there., in fact anyplace in the ME that’ll have you.
Practice free thought as much as you want, I’d be a tad wary of free speech though, Oh and you may have to convert to islam…y’know to fit in sort of
You don’t think they were following their training, you don’t think they received training in this regard or you don’t agree with the theory of the training ?
And what would your standard of behaviour have allowed you to do ?
According to Sir Alan Somebody, former Head of Something, on the radio a couple of days ago* only pilots, special forces and recon troops undergo formal, comprehensive training akin to the US SERE programme.
*yes, I’m aware that this is the worst cite ever.
The main act of cooperation that I’ve heard criticized is the mass surrender without a fight. One of the soldiers at a post-release press conference essentially said it would have been a bad decision to fight because some or all of the British side would have been killed.
I am not a soldier and I don’t think I’d ever make a good one because I wouldn’t lay down my own life for anything other than a cause I personally felt was worth it, regardless of what my superiors thought I should do. But if you sign up to be a soldier, is it OK in today’s armed services to just sort of fold if it looks bad?
I don’t mean any of this as a criticism. I would be the first one, probably, to hold up my undies on a stick and talk my way out of it. I guess I was thinking that’s why I don’t wear a uniform. As with any conflict, the side who is willing to die is going to take a great deal of comfort in watching the other side’s soldiers surrender for the sake of self-preservation.
I would assume that this is the expected behaviour when you are engaged by the forces of another country with which you are not at war.
It is one of those things that creeps up, initially you don’t know whether it is going to be a scrap - and later you find that you have no chance.
Imagine some bozo demands your wallet, you look him over and say ‘no way’
If we had been at war with Iran, then they would have reacted, probably regardless of orders, but as it was, it looked like a negotiable situation - until it was too late.
Next time this happens, and I rather doubt that there will be a next time (as I suspect that some sort of channel has been opened), the crews will be stiffened up and they’ll lob a Thunderflash or drop a depth charge. That is if they don’t attack on sight.
Yep. I’ve seen this point made, upthread. Apparently that is expected behaviour even if you are a military group on assigment.
Perhaps it’s too simplistic of me to equate the term “surrendering” with “surrendering to hostile forces.” Perhaps they were surrendering to friendly Iranian forces and it’s standard modern military behaviour to give yourselves over first lest someone be injured or killed.
It’s certainly what I would have done, to save my sorry chicken a$$. “Hey, I’m not at war with you guys…go right ahead and take us in.”
But as I’ve said, that’s one of the reasons I don’t think I’m suitable for the military.