British Sailors Captured By Iran

While I would not call their behaviour exactly heroic, I'd like to point out that no matter how much we'd want to think that military personel is somewhat special they really aren't. They are normal human beings and most of them probably don't want to be anywhere near the Iranian border. I find the thought of the military being full of people who actually enjoy being in a place like Iraq fighting and killing people more than a little bit frightening. So therefore I would not judge their behaviour too harshly.

[ April 07, 2007, 21:26: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

If any and every statement made by any and every captured serviceman/woman is automatically default positioned as propaganda, then in essence the propaganda effect on that servicepersons country/tribe/state should be described and rendered as nil, null and void.
Those servicepersons utterances become noise that have only intel significance by perhaps indicating what the enemy may percieve as the crux or desired bias/game plan.

As I've read somewhere Words mean nothing today is the same as Words mean anything today.

If knowledge exists of the possibility of coercion in any form (from mild to mindless savage) then all outward communication is suspect by definition and must be default positioned as propaganda.
I dont know the RN standing orders, but my army (godforbid that curse) would be expected to say and do anything (outside of harming their country's security) to stay alive.

To argue that this serves the enemy on their home front (please understand I am theorising and my "the enemy" is a theoretical construct not Iran) firstly belittles the enemies probable real capabilities of propaganda. Realistically a free society may have a residual cynicism regarding what they are told by their State. I imagine it is a judgement cynicism built and nutured by experience & upon the outside influx of information. (EG.) The heavily played and empathised existence of WMD in Iraq existed as a TRUTH in an extremely large number of minds prior to the actual failure to find them. Think about it. The Lie only had to be told vehemently for a short time with no real capability of being proven a Lie. Once the Lie was acted upon, then it no longer mattered if it was (as it inevitably was) proven to be a Lie.
The State/Money Combine had achieved what it wanted through a Lie, and all the discovered Truths won't change that sad fait accompli. And this happened in a number of Democracies. Propaganda is a potent lying tool.

The enemy meanwhile, sure, gains a boost from co-erced statements, but this denies the enemy's peoples from being smart enough to have some cynicism regarding their own State announcements. Remember these peoples have lived under that State. Even as a supressed peoples if nothing else, they'd be aware of their suppression, and any other State control and propaganda would be seen as just such tools being used.

Now if you're talking about Zealotry, it doesn't require captured enemies to generate positive spin for fanatics. As I've read somewhere else, Fanatics generate their own energy. By definition they are heedless and needless of rational discourse. And fulfil in their faithbased belief systems my previous statement
that Words can mean anything today ...because my fanatic belief system tells me so, and nothing! anyone else can tell me, means anything to me.

Again I want to stress this is theorising, I am not making judgemental connections to realworld senarios.

 

Iranians are Persians. Persians are not Arabs.

 

Dragon3,
ah yes, them cruel orientals The father of the Unitary Executive Branch theory in the US, John Yoo made the following statements during a December 1, 2005, debate in Chicago, Illinois, with Notre Dame Law School Professor Doug Cassel:

That was a serious argument by a leading conservative academic of a civilised country, who had served in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo reasons that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,' no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished.

Did I overlook something? Oh! Yoo might be a cruel oriental himself Sorry, but that's just a racist stereotype. The truth lies somewhere else:

As for the story,
the British MOD has allowed the soldiers to sell their stories to newspapers. They are two week celebrities now.

I think the Brits botched the mission through poor planning, and however relucant I was to say so, the spirit of the soldiers was a disappointment. If they, however, had explicit orders to not fight under such circumstances that would be another story.

[ April 10, 2007, 10:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Oh my God! Shock! Horror! 15 British servicemen were captured, and one of them even smokes! How dare she? She has the gall to be captured, and then she flaunts it by smoking, on camera! </sarcasm>

Politicians are so pathetic...

 

You really think sailors are extensively trained about what to do if they were captured? My thinking is that people in the navy are the LEAST likely to be captured, because that basically would entail getting boarded. Sure, boarding was a common naval tactic a couple of hundred years ago, but you don't see people boarding vessels anymore as an act of aggression. I mean, what likelihood is there to get boarded by hostile forces? When was the last time something like this happened? Being in the army or marines, yes, getting captured is a real possibility. You could even argue that it can happen to pilots as they could be shot down behind enemy lines. But capture of naval personnel? The odds of something like this happening are rather remote, and as such, I doubt whatever training they received would be "extensive".

 

When I was in the army I wasn't trained for being prisoner at all. Among other things, I presume I wasn't supposed to be taken prisoner. Usually only special forces are trained that way -- in my country, the UK and the US. And probably in other countries it isn't much different.

 

Interesting follow-up on an old story: A British parliamentary report found that the maps used by the Royal Navy in the operation that led to the capture of british sailors by Iran have been 'Inaccurate'.

That is a quasi-admission that the sailors had been in Iranian waters. Good that Blair stayed his hand.

 

(shhh!)

Damn Iranians!

Russians are off our Christmas card list as well now.

The British are never wrong.

 

This is funny. After all the high-and-mighty talk about being "sure" the boat was not in Iranian water, how Iran has no right to go into Iraqi waters, yada yada, they suddenly change their mind about the accuracy of the map. Wonder why it took them 3 months to notice.

Although that doesn't really explain why Iran changed their mind about the actual coordinates of the British boat when they boarded it.

 

This is diplomacy - it gives Iran a touch of credibility at almost no cost to Britain (the sailors & marines were released from custody, right? It's been a while and my memory's not so great...)

As such, Britain may end up finding Iran in a slightly more conciliatory mood if negotiations arise in the future.

Cleverly done, Foreign Office.

 

It only doesn't cost Britain if you forget about all the enflamed and patriotic speeches that were being given at the time (which most people would have done anyway, since it's an old story, and people have a habit of forgetting any story older than one week). However, consider the number of times per day that the Navy, the MoD, and just about everyone involved, kept claiming with absolute certainty that all the maps were correct, all the coordinates were correct, and the boat was definitely not in Iranian waters. Not exactly my idea of credibility when 3 months later they come and say, "oops".

On the other hand, I do agree it is a very good diplomatic move, and really the best way to diffuse the (rather tense) situation of the moment. Now I really hope Iran picks up and shows some goodwill by lowering their own wall of hostility and engaging in a more diplomatic approach.