BF2S Forums UK sailors captured at gunpoint by Iran

Braddock wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

And what about the victories we had over Iraq twice in a matter of a month or two? If I remember correctly Iran had quite a bit of trouble in it's war with Iraq. The failures do not come from destroying the opponents military, it comes from what we plan to do after. Sustained occupation and nation building are not the jobs of the military. In our successes in previous years we did not make it a habit of completely removing the previous infrastructure and start from scratch. Don't think that a nuke is required to win when there is two carrier groups sitting off the coast right now capable of leveling Iran with conventional means (Cruise missiles, bombers). (Not at all what I think we should be doing right now)

I consider a war not just to be the initial opening conflict but also the battle to establish and maintain control within the area. Granted you were successful in the original Iraq conflict because you only needed to get Iraq to retreat to it's agreed borders and cease aggression against it's neighbours, it's these messy 'regime change' wars that provide so much trouble; in this regard you may be able to steamroll into Iran and cause a lot of damage but with the US military committed in so many other areas it would be a serious strain on finance and resources.

I suppose it is just a different viewpoint. War to me is pounding the enemy into submission. There is no such thing as war on terror. Wars are fought between sovereign nations. What we have ongoing in Iraq is chaos and instability due to poor policy. This is probably due to the old powers in Iraq being removed and not included in the new government. No five thousand pound laser guided bomb can fix that. We never maintained or controlled the island of Japan in WWII. Control of the land is not required. The stated mission to our military was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

lets get one thing starightened out right now. if the iranians threaten to kill the sailors, then britain will probably ID where the sailors are being held and send in the SAS. the SAS have NEVER been forced to abandon a hostage rescue. thne we would probably invade. and before anyone starts on abut lack of troops, thta is due to slow recruitment. I think a war with iran for the lives of brits woudl send recruitment spiralling out of control. not to mention any troops amercia contributes, plus the commonwealth, nt to mention any UN forces ( what would be really amusing would be a unanimous vote of the security council for a regime change war in irna. note unanimous. iran isnt' on the security council.

samfink wrote:

what would be really amusing would be a unanimous vote of the security council for a regime change war in irna

I don't think the UN make a habit of calling for regime changes. Intervention yes but wholesale regime change? You're kidding yourself. Like it or not Ahmadinijad was democratically elected, they can't just say "yeah, I think we should change him for someone else". Besides it's never going to get to that stage and if it did remember how much of a failure Israel's little war over hostages with Lebanon was recently... that on paper should have been a crushing victory but it wasn't.

Kmarion wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Control of the land is not required. The stated mission to our military was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

The US failures (as opposed to the successes you stated) have been a result of the administrations of the day starting 'unwinable' wars. The US shouldn't bother trying to change regimes, it's too hard to do successfully. If they insist on meddling in other nations affairs they should stick to covert secret service backing of their favoured leaders in each country (I don't agree with this either though!)

I'm sure many thought WWII was unwinable. Especially when talking in terms of losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a matter of a month. I would call the removal of Hitler a successful regime change. We didn't have camera's filming on the top of Omaha beach back then. The occupation after the war in Iraq could have been successful if we would have started with crushing numbers from the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos.

Wouldn't you say that the attitude to the Iraq mission was originally one of liberation, not occupation? And that there was not going to be a defeated population, but a liberated one?

Last edited by apollo_fi (2007-03-23 13:33:25)

apollo_fi wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Braddock wrote:

The US failures (as opposed to the successes you stated) have been a result of the administrations of the day starting 'unwinable' wars. The US shouldn't bother trying to change regimes, it's too hard to do successfully. If they insist on meddling in other nations affairs they should stick to covert secret service backing of their favoured leaders in each country (I don't agree with this either though!)

I'm sure many thought WWII was unwinable. Especially when talking in terms of losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a matter of a month. I would call the removal of Hitler a successful regime change. We didn't have camera's filming on the top of Omaha beach back then. The occupation after the war in Iraq could have been successful if we would have started with crushing numbers from the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos.

Wouldn't you say that the attitude to the Iraq mission was originally one of liberation, not occupation?

Saddam and his sons were given an ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours. By liberating I think the end of torture rooms.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 317-7.html

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-23 13:48:50)

apollo_fi wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Wouldn't you say that the attitude to the Iraq mission was originally one of liberation, not occupation?

Saddam and his sons were given an ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours. By liberating I think the end of state run torture rooms and the begging of womens rights.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 317-7.html

...I'd say GWB informed the world that a campaign of liberation was about to start, in rather clear-cut terms, in the news release you linked:

'If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.'

I edited and clarified. But again, the goal of the military was to remove Saddam, lets not lose focus on what we are talking about.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-23 13:50:53)

apollo_fi wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

...I'd say GWB informed the world that a campaign of liberation was about to start, in rather clear-cut terms, in the news release you linked:

'...no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.'

I edited and clarified. But again, the goal of the military was to remove Saddam, lets not lose focus on what we are talking about.

Regime change, right. Earlier, you brought up the overthrow of the nazi regime as another example of a successful regime change, and described how the occupation was successful because of massive US military presence in the defeated country. And that this strategy might have worked better also in Iraq. And I agree

However, I wanted to point out that the Allied forces went to occupy a defeated Germany from the start, and were prepared for it. It seems that the Coalition forces went to liberate an oppressed Iraq, and ended up occupying a defeated Iraq. And they weren't prepared for that, at all.

Agreed as well. The lack of foresight into the hatred between the different divisions of Islam is appalling. You make a good point in the comparison. In Germany you were dealing with a devastated moral. They were submissive by nature. In Iraq you gave them more freedom than they were prepared for. They no longer had fear of retribution.

Kmarion wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Saddam and his sons were given an ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours. By liberating I think the end of state run torture rooms and the begging of womens rights.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 317-7.html

...I'd say GWB informed the world that a campaign of liberation was about to start, in rather clear-cut terms, in the news release you linked:

'If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.'

I edited and clarified. But again, the goal of the military was to remove Saddam, lets not lose focus on what we are talking about.

By my count, that was the third reason, first was weapons of mass destruction, second was Al Queda training camps.

Kmarion wrote:

Regime change in Iran will come from the people of Iran. They are showing increasingly more and more discontent with their leaders. An unemployment rate of 11 percent and an inflation rate at nearly 50 doesn't help.

That's what I believe also and I believe that's the way it should be.

Something else occured to me tonight, when watching library footage of HMS Cornwall.

The ship has a 4.5 inch gun and two 20mm close range guns that can be used for offensive combat.  If, as the UK version of events says, the Iranians were in Iraqi waters and operating as per their ROE, why did Cornwall not move to protect its forces aboard the RIBs?

Why would we allow foreign nationals to corral and abduct our troops if they were operating properly.  The US Rangers' credo "leave no man behind" is a good ideal and I would have expected the Royal Navy to do the same.  Of course it goes without saying, I wasn't there and I don't know all the facts but to allow your fellow sailor to be captured, that sounds very wrong.

I believe they were even within sight, there was a short piece on the C4 news talking to the skipper of the Cumberland and he mentioned no firing had taken place.
However i would presume them having 15 men puts the ball in their court as opposed to having fired on them first and then a huge debate on the territorial waters and rights of firing as no matter how you look at it the Iranians would perceive that they have done no wrong and acted within the law.

Pubic wrote:

Iran loves playing political chess, but unless they've got a couple of rooks the UK doesn't know about, it could very well be checkmate soon!

In chess the board is at sight all the time, the Brits should know about those rooks.

In the past, I advocated against war with Iran.  However, when they pull stunts like this, I can't say that I want to defend them anymore.

One thing is for sure.  If they do this to any American soldiers, Iran will be in very deep shit -- even more than the shit they're in now.