What's the navy for?

[Twister_Ken]

As someone wrote in the Times today - bring back Palmerston.

Oh God, it was Gove.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

You'd like some of them dead?

How many? All of them or just some?

Or would just being injured be enough for you?

Can you be more specific?

I'm tempted to make an equally facile reply as it seems that any suggestion of a measured response that involves possible risk to the hostages is interpreted as going in all guns blazing; it also appears that hostages that are being held captive are not at risk unless someone's trying to rescue them; not only that but now it seems that people (who may well have served in the Armed Forces and have been in life-threatening situations) will suddenly turn into gibbering cowards when they themselves are placed at risk.

I will elucidate for you. I don't know the Chandler's so any feelings I have are unlikely to be strong but, whilst I am not unhappy that they are still alive, I would certainly be happier if they were free and even happier if the kidnappings at gunpoint stopped.

However the Chandlers not being killed wasn't the only outcome. An opportunity was wasted and the choices now are pay the ransom, take an even greater risk in trying to rescue, if you can find where they are or just wait and hope they don't get killed.

If you pay the ransom then you are basically condoning kidnapping and extortion and sending a message that that lawless behaviour pays so I most certainly do not support that even if it means the loss of life. It's not nice and I'm not volunteering to take their place but that's my opinion and it's what I would expect if I were taken hostage. As a country we have never agreed to pay ransoms or give in to terrorists demands and I cannot see why making it purely a financial crime makes a difference.

To me the outcome was not that the Chandlers are still alive but that they are still in captivity and even less likely to be rescued so I absolutely do not like the outcome one little bit. That's without even considering the fact that we have advertised that our Navy will not intervene to prevent piracy on the high seas.

Now could someone explain to me why offering a tactical solution to a situation that involves a measured display of force makes one an armchair general (congratulations on the promotion Major) whereas offering a tactical solution that doesn't do anything (which is exactly what the Armed Forces appear to have done in this particular instance) means you're not?

A final point - the pirates have apparently included the release of some previously captured colleagues as one of the conditions That would suggest to me that they aren't quite the throw-away objects some people believe.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Now could someone explain to me why offering a tactical solution to a situation that involves a measured display of force makes one an armchair general (congratulations on the promotion Major)........

[PROUD] Thank you, I am sewing on my crossed sword and scabbard as I type. [/PROUD]

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I'm tempted to make an equally facile reply

Errr, your reply completely ignores my question.

You said you were not happy that everyone captured and released by the Iranians was alive.

I want you to explain *exactly* how many should have died inorder to make the outcome satsifactory.

If you can't explain it in those terms explain it in other terms.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what you would have considered a good outcome if everyone going home alive isn't a satisfactory outcome for you.

 

[David_Jersey]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what you would have considered a good outcome if everyone going home alive isn't a satisfactory outcome for you.

I dunno what GOG thinks is a good outcome, but for me that would be the next time the RN sent a boarding party in the same circumstances / location (inside / outside Iranian waters is irrelevent if it needs doing) that the Iranians would not dare even challenge it (from fear of sudden death syndrome or simply the fear of escalation). To acheive that in these circumstances may have involved opening fire and therefore may have involved casualties - but that risk is simply part of the job (and part of that job is to ensure that the risks are never suicidal).

My bet is that the reason for no repeat is that the RN now keeps its distance from Iran. That may well be a good thing overall, but no longer a matter of choice as the RN showed the Iranians an empty hand.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Errr, your reply completely ignores my question.

You said you were not happy that everyone captured and released by the Iranians was alive.

I want you to explain *exactly* how many should have died inorder to make the outcome satsifactory.

If you can't explain it in those terms explain it in other terms.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what you would have considered a good outcome if everyone going home alive isn't a satisfactory outcome for you.

Let's try it again then:

"To me the outcome was not that the Chandlers are still alive but that they are still in captivity and even less likely to be rescued so I absolutely do not like the outcome one little bit. That's without even considering the fact that we have advertised that our Navy will not intervene to prevent piracy on the high seas."



1) Not everyone's gone home - the Chandler's are still captive for example.
2) I don't want anyone to die, even if you are testing my patience a little.
3) I don't recall ever being happy that a person has died; satisfied perhaps but never happy.
4) Conversely people don't die everyday and I don't feel happy with that outcome (nor unhappy).
5) My answer cannot always be twisted to fit in with your pre-conceptions.
6) Achieving a short term resolution without considering the longer term implications usually costs in the long run.

What I'm saying is that the idea of an Armed Forces that won't do anything when threatened is about as much use as training a Police Dog to roll-over and play dead and then giving it a deaf and blind handler.

One of the unfortunate consequences of being in the Armed Forces is that you will probably be required to put your life at risk at some point. You don't want it to happen but it is what it is. What makes me angry about injuries and loss of life, in Afghanistan for example, is not that it happens - that makes me sad but I would reluctantly accept it if there were no other way to defend the country - what's makes me angry is that it achieves nothing - there is no tangible end result.

In the case of the Iranians and the RN gun-boat there were no civilians involved. Not only was there no fight however, there was clearly no idea of how to behave - press interviews, iPods, crying, it was a bloody joke. It emphasised not only how incompetent the Navy was but how powerless it was too. The one thing a military should never appear is powerless - the whole idea is to appear so dangerous that no-one would dream of attacking you. It's a real bonus if you are that dangerous but only if you've already half-failed and actually been attacked.

In the case of the Chandlers there were civilians involved but an armed Navy vessel stood off and did absolutely nothing to prevent an act of piracy being committed as they watched. The only thing it definitely achieved was to further the message that our Armed Forces are not up for a fight. The idea that any criminal group should even think of taking on the Royal Navy should be laughable - instead the Navy's being laughed at and that's very wrong.

Before someone says "it was an RFA vessel" the pirates are hardly likely to distinguish between RFA and RN and they shouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway - the end result should have been serious losses for the pirates - a bloody nose in general parlance.

In simple terms I want our military to be a threat, I want countries to cross over to the other side of road when they see them coming down the street.

I want them to be feared so that, even if a dictatorship starts ranting and raving, that country's troops will be as afraid of our armed forces as they are of their dictator.

Does that explain it for you?

p.s. What you want isn't that relevant or interesting to me. I replied in spite of that demand rather than because of it and because I geneuinely seek to get my viewpoint across. May I suggest you try to phrase things in a slightly less aggressive and demanding manner? You could try "I would be grateful if you could" or "It would help me understand your viewpoint better if you could". Just a small point but, if I expect it of children, it seems reasonable to request the same from an adult.

 

[wotayottie]

Errr, your reply completely ignores my question.

You said you were not happy that everyone captured and released by the Iranians was alive.

I want you to explain *exactly* how many should have died inorder to make the outcome satsifactory.

If you can't explain it in those terms explain it in other terms.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what you would have considered a good outcome if everyone going home alive isn't a satisfactory outcome for you.

Every one of the Iranians and every one of the pirates. But to be brutally clear, it would be better if everyone perished and future confrontations were less likely than we leave a clear message - challenge the Navy and they run away.

 

[wotayottie]

So you are saying, are you, that if you had strayed into the territorial waters of another country with whom we were not at war, and if they then quite legally decided to detain you, you would have considered killing their forces an appropriate way to respond?

Entirely. We are not talking here of a civilised country like (say) France. This is a third world tin pot place of the sort we would have sent a gunboat to in the old days.

I don't accept the lawyers concept of international law - in that sense I think the Yanks are right. We shouldnt go looking for trouble and arguably the man i/c that crew should have been court martialled - with gps accurate to a few meters there is no excuse for venturing across borders and its far from the first time that has happened. However once it has happened in an area like this, then the crew have a duty to fight their way out if they have to.

Remember the Amethyst?

P.S. I suspect that the concept of international law and the baleful presence of the lawyers is one reason why the forces have become ineffective. How can you possibly respond to anything if you need a legal opinion before doing so? Apart from anything else, in my personal experience the first unequivocal legal opinio0n will be just that - the first.

 

[wotayottie]

The real problem is that our Gordon has starved the forces of money for over twelve years whilst they have been fighting two hot wars and the treasury.

I don't like being fair to the politicians, but the idea that the forces are starved of money is nonsense. The real problem is that they waste it in procurement big time. They have helicopters they cant fly, ships that are years late in build, guns that dont work, more civil servants than fighting men. If you set out to design an operation dedicated to wasting money you would struggle to do better than MoD procurement.

Do the pirates spend more nthan the Navy they are beating? Or the Iranians?

 

[Ubergeekian]

Entirely. We are not talking here of a civilised country like (say) France. This is a third world tin pot place of the sort we would have sent a gunboat to in the old days.

It's actually a large and sophisticated country with a pretty obnoxious government at the moment but a longer history of civilization than the UK has.

I don't accept the lawyers concept of international law - in that sense I think the Yanks are right. We shouldnt go looking for trouble and arguably the man i/c that crew should have been court martialled - with gps accurate to a few meters there is no excuse for venturing across borders and its far from the first time that has happened. However once it has happened in an area like this, then the crew have a duty to fight their way out if they have to.

Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. The Royal Navy simply cannot shoot its way out of navigational errors.

Remember the Amethyst?

Is that the one that was fired on first while leaving the Yangtze river during the Chinese civil war? A little different, don't you think?

P.S. I suspect that the concept of international law and the baleful presence of the lawyers is one reason why the forces have become ineffective.

Absolutely, and a damn good thing too. Court cases and lawyers are infinitely better than wars and killing.

 

[Sailfree]

Please do not discredit the Royal Navy. Remember the Falklands War. We do have a magnificent naval task force.

Peter

If you cannot criticise anything/body they can never get feedback to put deficiencies right. WE often seem to mix up respect for courage with constructive criticism of how that courage was used or often misused by those in power.

 

[cliffordpope]

Thats quite a poor comparison since at that time British Forces had carte blanche to operate in Norwegian territories to fight the invading Germans.

No they didn't. Norway was a neutral country and protested at our violation. We ignored the protest, in the interests of rescuing British prisoners. We didn't have a committee of lawyers arguing whether it was legal or not.

Wikepedia:

"The Altmark Incident (Norwegian: Altmark-affæren) was a naval skirmish of World War II between the United Kingdom and Nazi Germany, which happened on 16 February 1940. It took place in what were, at that time, neutral Norwegian waters.[2] It has the unique distinction of being the last major boarding action fought by the Royal Navy.["

 

[Ubergeekian]

No they didn't. Norway was a neutral country and protested at our violation. We ignored the protest, in the interests of rescuing British prisoners. We didn't have a committee of lawyers arguing whether it was legal or not.

Wikepedia:

"The Altmark Incident (Norwegian: Altmark-affæren) was a naval skirmish of World War II between the United Kingdom and Nazi Germany, which happened on 16 February 1940. It took place in what were, at that time, neutral Norwegian waters.[2] It has the unique distinction of being the last major boarding action fought by the Royal Navy.["

Yes, but as you pointed out the skirmish was between two combatants in a war, albeit in the waters of a neutral country. That's quite different from blundering into another country's waters in time of peace and shooting your way out - a foolhardy course of action, to put it mildly.

 

[reginaldon]

Since the Iranian debacle I no longer say with a sense of pride that I am ex-RN, mind you The Andrew of '49 was not the same the same animal. To what extent the C O's are bound by rules of engagement, I don't know, altho' Nelson used his blind eye to good effect.

 

[xxyyzz]

Yes, but as you pointed out the skirmish was between two combatants in a war, albeit in the waters of a neutral country. That's quite different from blundering into another country's waters in time of peace and shooting your way out - a foolhardy course of action, to put it mildly.

You're defending the RN there by saying they shouldn't have strayed into Iranian waters, that's a fair enough viewpoint, fighting would have been ugly.

You're ignoring the utter frigging incompetence of wandering into an area where you're out-gunned and unable to respond in the event that the people who own that area don't like it.

It's become a general characteristic of the British armed forces to go into an area where the lack of will prevents them from doing anything effective.

 

[Ubergeekian]

You're defending the RN there by saying they shouldn't have strayed into Iranian waters, that's a fair enough viewpoint, fighting would have been ugly.

You're ignoring the utter frigging incompetence of wandering into an area where you're out-gunned and unable to respond in the event that the people who own that area don't like it.

Isn't that the same point, really? They shouldn't have been in Iranian waters, whether by design or by accident, and they also should have been certain about whether or not they were in Iranian waters. If they were, or might have been, then shooting would have been an unutterably stupid thing to do, turning a minor diplomatic embarassment into an act of war.

No armed forces can nowadays going waltzing around wherever they like and start shooting if the people who own the area don't like it.

It's become a general characteristic of the British armed forces to go into an area where the lack of will prevents them from doing anything effective.

In this case they did something very effective, and far more effective than a shooting match would have been.

 

[xxyyzz]

I was pointing out that whether they went out guns blazing or sobbing about their iPods, either way it was a result of their own screaming incompetence.

In this case they did something very effective, and far more effective than a shooting match would have been.

That remains to be seen.

One effect it didn't have was discouraging the pirates.

 

[Troutbridge]

Right, leaving aside for the moment that during the Iranian 'episode' the Navy thought they were not in Iranian waters, putting also to one side the Falklands campaign, the Altmarke and the Yangtze occurrences and not speculating on what Nelson might or might not have done, let me see if I have the facts of this current debacle(debate?) correct (somebody will correct me if I haven't).
A British flagged vessel in international waters (even if they were a pair of pillocks for being there in the first place) was boarded by armed men and the crew removed. This is clearly an illegal act. Another British flagged RFA vessel, which may or may not have had a contingent of marines/helicopter and/or other assorted non-civilian personnel /weaponry on board stood by and did nothing.
Makes you proud, eh?
I wonder if I can claim political asylum in the USA on the basis that political decisions of HM Government are discriminating against me because I am a cruising yachtsman?

 

[alant]

Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. The Royal Navy simply cannot shoot its way out of navigational errors.


(1) Why in this 'modern' age, should any vessel (particularly RN) have "navigational errors" in such a sensitive area?

(2) In an earlier, but similar incident involving the Australian Navy, the Iranians when threatening the antipodeans, were told to 'F OFF', which they then did!

Seems to me, that when threatened by any 'bully', showing signs of fear gives them more resolve to hurt you, so some aggresive stance, more often than not works in your favour!
Even when facing extreme odds, ships often fired at least one token gun before surrendering, otherwise face a capital charge of cowardice or at least public scorn.

 

[Twister_Ken]

"No armed forces can nowadays going waltzing around wherever they like and start shooting if the people who own the area don't like it."

So there was no invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, then?