´óÏó´«Ã½

The Furrowed Brow

Comments

1. At 09:36 AM on 13 Apr 2007, John H. wrote:

   Goodness! I was just shaping up to make my own contribution to the furrowed brow but after reading the one at 1, I think I'd better wait a while. Give it some time for the air to clear.

2. At 10:04 AM on 13 Apr 2007, Gillian wrote:

   Jack Jackson (1) I agree that there are questions to be answered about how the sailors came to be in the position they found themselves in.
   However, I am delighted they are all home safe and unharmed. My fear was that they would not be released, as I could see that could lead to calls for rescue, and acts of aggression on our part. Is that really what you wanted when you speak of a ''robust attitude'', ''lifting a finger'' and ''doing anything concrete to put pressure on the Iranians''?
   I believe the sailors were armed and had it in their power to attack their captors, but used their professional judgement to refrain from making a bad situation even worse. This is what I would call ''civilised behaviour''.
   I am relieved that the matter was resolved without further aggression or loss of life. This is real life, not the cinema.

3. At 10:09 AM on 13 Apr 2007, Perky wrote:

   The whole Navy/Iran episode was strange from start to finish. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I believe that all the Navy personnel were frightened and put in an extremely difficult situation that was outside of their knowledge and beyond their control, but it's the whole "selling the story" element that baffles me.

   Why these particular hostages? What bizarre precedent does it set - and if the MOD now goes back on its decision, what happens then? You can't ask those who've sold their stories to give the money back, can you?

   I have no experience of the military and can only rely on what I hear and see in the media coverage, but it seems to me that an unprovoked incident which could have been an opportunity to show our strength of character and support from other countries has ended with us looking just a bit silly and disorganised.

4. At 10:34 AM on 13 Apr 2007, John H. wrote:

   Perky (4) - "why these hostages?" Well, obviously, I don't know. But unlike other prisoners of war who have been paraded on TV screens being treated as captives, these hostages were encouraged to look happy and relaxed. I don't know the details because I haven't read the interviews - I guess we all make our own choices - but I suspect the decision to let them talk to the media was a way to redress the images in a way that didn't make it look like government spin.

   What I find interesting in your characterisation of the episode and even more so in JJ's above is touched on by Gillian in her "This is real life, not the cinema." comment. All the calls for "action" - in its various guises - really amount to "some people should have died to make the UK look strong". One of the reasons I find this so appalling is that I can recognise it in myself - it would all have been so much more honourable if the news story had been about 15 British sailors and marines being killed, suidicidally fighting off an attempt to take them hostage.

   Does this tell us something about our national psyche, or does it tell us something about the British media?

5. At 10:39 AM on 13 Apr 2007, wrote:

   I'm with you, Perky.

   My own theory about the 'cash for stories' thing is that the MoD communications people realised that the British public wouldn't believe the official story if THEY told it ... but naturally they/we all believe everything that appears in the press.

   There was time during the flight home to de-brief and re-brief the 15, and this might explain their strangely glum demeanour on landing which Eddie noted at the time.

   Fifi

6. At 10:47 AM on 13 Apr 2007, wrote:

   Jon H;
   Publish and be damned!

   JJ @ (1) makes a useful point, although perhaps in rather 'Blood and Thunder' terms and his knowledge of history is somewhat selective.

   We are not at war with Iran. In the pre-WW2 period we did indeed indulge the Fuhrer on the world stage. And we're not talking a few sailors either, the Prime Minister of the time indulged him at Munich. Non-German Olympic athletes gave the Nazi salute in Berlin 1936. Every step he took in dismembering Europe was overlooked or excused until Poland. So direct comparisons with our attittude during the Nazi era are, perhaps, not entirely helpful. Name, rank & serial number applies to prisoners of war, which the 'Iran 15' were not.

   There is room for debate on whether the Navy should be looking at how it handles intrusions by 3rd parties into Iraqi territorial waters, if that is one of the roles it is there to fulfill. It can only operate within its mandate, so it would be useful to be informed on this point. Is territorial integrity part of the RN's role in the Gulf?

   If it is so, then does the Navy have the right equipment? Possibly not, since the Cornwall was unable to venture into the shallows to conduct boarding operations, having to rely on the unarmed ships boats instead. Craft like the former Hong Kong patrol vessels (Swallow, Swift, Starling, Peacock & Plover) would be highly effective in this context. Fast, shallow draft, effective weaponry. Only we disposed of them when we handed HK back to China.

   Does it arm its people appropriately?

   Are they sufficiently briefed for these eventualities?

   Are the Rules of Engagement appropriate for the situation?

   The UN '"worse than useless". Well, there's a shock. Every crisis proves the UN worse than useless. It is ruled by the interests of the five permanent member. Russia and China have vested interests in Iran, so there was never any hope of effective action. The same was true of the USA in the Lebanon War last summer. Their interests in Israel prolonged that senseless and bloody little war for too long. Not that Israel would have paid any heed anyway.

   The EU "refusing to put pressure on". What presure does JJ imagine that we could have employed? They had our people and could have locked them up permanently, or perhaps even worse if we had made threats against them. How would he have prevented a fiasco from turning into a tragedy? What effective action does he imagine that we could have taken?

   The US "pulling levers". There is not a shred of evidence to support this statement. Rather there was a widespread suspicion that the USA is looking for a pretext to take military action against Iran. The USA did the best thing that it could have done; nothing.

   Si.

7. At 11:04 AM on 13 Apr 2007, Perky wrote:

   John H (5) - Sorry if my "show our strength of character" is interpreted as agression - I wondered if it might be as soon as I hit the "submit" button. I'm actually completely against agression in all forms, and I know that there's a lot of extremely delicate negotiations going on behind the scenes that we may not ever become aware of.

   The outcome, as Gillian rightly says, was fantastic - all 15 returned in a relatively short time, physically unharmed and with no loss of life in the process - and I fully agree that they acted commendably in not escalating the situation when they were captured.

   I'm just worried that from Iran's point of view, and particularly considering the political in-fighting the selling of stories has prompted here, it might be something they consider doing again - and no-one wants our military personnel to be put in that position.

8. At 11:04 AM on 13 Apr 2007, wrote:

   Gillian (3);
   Aggression was out of the question. They were overmatched in terms of available weaponry and made the correct decision not to open fire. Once captive any aggression to retrieve them would have been counter-productive. JJ's apparent idea that, through aggressive acts we could have retrieved our people belongs to the days of gunboat diplomacy and the Empire.

   Perky (4);
   Why them? Because they were there at the wrong time. One can worry about the precedents. The Navy needs to rethink how it goes about this form of boarding operation. The Marines train to do it via rapid rope descent from a hovering helicopter. No possibility of that being taken by boats.

   The Marines agreed to pool any monies they might make from the press and share it equally. The Navy people did not do so. So apart from a small percentage going to Navy charities the two who did receive payment got to keep the vast bulk of the money for themselves.

   I don't see where strength of character comes into it? Are you referring to the fact that they co-operated with the Iranians? Or to what happened in the political arena?

   Support from other countries is fine, but the UN is a busted flush and everybody knows it. Words were never going to bring them home. Iran does exactly what it wants to, with no regard for external opinion. They knew that aggressive action was a non-starter as long as they held those 15 people. What, in the absence of diplomacy and action could we have done?

   Si.

9. At 11:34 AM on 13 Apr 2007, wrote:

   PUSH!
   

10. At 11:46 AM on 13 Apr 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Personally I am disgusted by the attitude of certain well-known figures about the selling of the service folks' stories. I just hope it will be possible to slap permanent bans on D. Cameron and M. Portiloo (oops, what a typo) I mean Portillo ever selling their stories.

11. At 12:39 PM on 13 Apr 2007, Member of the Public wrote:

    Jack Jackson @ (1)

    You make some very reasonable points, in my opinion. I also think considering during his miserable performance explaining the calamitous decision to allow the Iranian hostages to sell their stories to the newspapers. Defence supremo Des Browne at least notched one exceptional achievement – he made his predecessor Geoff Hoon look competent by comparison.

    Mr Browne bravely declared the other day "the buck stops here" before desperately trying to pin the blame on the Navy's top brass. The Navy made the initial mistake, he explained, and he was merely asked "to note" the decision, and although he was "not content", he allowed it to stand. In other words: "Don't blame me, I'm only the boss."

    You can tell how bad things are when Tony Blair pops up to urge us all to "draw a line" underneath the issue and "move on" – a sure sign of the chaos engulfing the Government.

    But, as shameful as this is, it's no surprise to me – it is only what I have come to expect from the current administration. After 10 years of spin and deceit, the image of Ministers I think couldn't possibly be tarnished any further. Far more serious is the damage inflicted on the Armed Forces.

    The Royal Navy, in particular, must surely be at its lowest ebb in modern times. At a time of growing threats from international terrorism, we look to the Armed Forces as stalwart protectors of our liberties.

    That is why the present fiasco is so disappointing – and worrying for the future. Instead of the wise old salts and hardened sailors we might imagine running the Royal Navy. That's why I agree with Jack Jackson, what we've seen is a bunch of hopeless buffoons giving poor advice to people who would be drummed out of their local branch of the sea scouts.

    And all of this is self-inflicted. First came the baffling decision to put the 15 sailors and marines in harm's way without adequate protection, and with no effective means of defending themselves against Iranian pirates.

    Next came the undignified spectacle of the hostages cheerfully admitting their guilt and praising their captors – although apparently under some psychological pressure. But this was as nothing when they finally arrived home and were given the go-ahead to sell their stories.

    Leading seaman/woman Faye Turney was paid more than £100,000 to speak of her "ordeal" in the Sun – at a time when the bodies of four British soldiers killed in Iraq were being flown home. And the Royal Navy's Arthur Batchelor, blubbed to the Daily Mirror that the Iranians stole his iPod and forced him to wear a fake Hugo Boss shirt. Pathetic!

    It's all embarrassing enough to make ones toes curl, and worrying that the people responsible for these decisions are in charge of the fleet. It is hard to disagree with Colonel Tim Collins who said: "This episode has brought disgrace on the British Armed Forces and it comes from complete ineptitude at the top." Hear hear!

12. At 12:44 PM on 13 Apr 2007, Chrissie the Trekkie wrote:

    Iran decided to use the media as a propaganda tool first. We just retaliated with like for like. What do you expect in this 'headlines every 15 minutes 24 hour TV coverage and internet' world? At least in WW2 you had to wait for the cinema newsreel to see what you were allowed to know was going on!
    Get real, people. Times have changed. A lot.

    As for why the Nacy personell were taken - could Iran be wanting to get an international power to say 'okay, that bit of water is yours' and thus increase its territory in the waterway?

13. At 12:59 PM on 13 Apr 2007, John H. wrote:

    I have a deeply furrowed brow this week. A week or so ago, I got to writing a real lengthy rant about motor bikers - prompted by the piece on the prog - and how they can make life really difficult where we live. In the end, I caught myself and deleted it before posting. Last weekend, one of them killed himself a couple of hundred yards away, at our nearest junction. Sadly our neighbour and her teenage daughter witnessed it. They also saw the aftermath of the accident where another biker killed himself a few days later. Oh dear.

    However, what's really getting to me today is the press. After casting my eye over the front pages this morning, I was clearly primed. I then went and read on the Guardian site. Let me quote:

    The British press, the worst in the west, demoralises the national psyche. It makes people miserable. It raises false fears. It proclaims that nothing works, everything gets worse, and it urges distrust of any public official or politician.

    I do love it when somebody puts into words what it is that I think (I think). I didn't quote any more because I don't expect everybody to share PT's politics - but that, for me, captures something which genuinely troubles me. On a lighter note, I plan to go out shopping tomorrow, for a nice, shiny life. Apparently, they're all the rage.

14. At 01:13 PM on 13 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    John H (14), Thanks for the Polly Toynbee quotation. I have no idea whether the British press (and indeed, our other news media) are "the worst in the world" but in all other respects I concur absolutely. It's a depressing notion, but, if nothing else, your posting lets me know I'm not alone -- there's at least you, me and Polly thinking the same way!

15. At 01:32 PM on 13 Apr 2007, wrote:

    JJ & MOP,

    Please, before you recommend a 'more robust' approach to Iran or direct intervention in her nuclear programme, read the information available in the

    Land area: 1.636 million sq km (UK 244,000) Population: 68 million(UK 61 million) Median age: 25 (UK 40) Terrain:"rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts"

    And consider whether, when we can't manage either Afghanistan (647,500 sq km) or Iraq (432,162 sq km), whether we might do better to deal courteously and respectfully with folk instead of ranting at them like naughty children. They are cultures several times as old as ours, after all.

    xx
    ed

16. At 01:37 PM on 13 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    PUSH!

17. At 01:58 PM on 13 Apr 2007, wrote:

    MotP;
    Nice to see you making your weekly foray onto the Blog.

    As I noted previously JJ does raise a useful debate about how we equip our Forces for the job we ask them to do, how we train them and educate them. Don't know about Browne's performance relative to his predecessor though. 'Buff' Hoon earned his nickname for a reason.

    JJ is still barking mad though, going on about "grovelling before the Fuhrer" etc. Sounds like Corporal Jones from Dads' Army. "Give them the cold steel Captain Mainwaring. They don't like it up 'em!" He'll be talking about the 'Fuzzy-Wuzzies' next.

    We no longer have the political, moral or military clout to deal with other countries like that. It's not an option.

    Au contraire, they have something which we need, Oil. We need them far more than they need us. This is Realpolitik. It's what enables them to take our people with impunity and release them when they have outlived their usefulness. And effective action at the UN is impossible, because the Russians are cutting deals over nuclear reactors with them whilst the Chinese, wanting privileged access to that oil to fuel their burgeoning economy, are cuddling up like their new best friends. So how does a minor country deal with a stroppy bully which has just kidnapped its servicemen from the territorial waters of a neighbouring state?

    No answers here I'm afraid.

    I agree with the observation about Blair. When he declares that it's time to move on it's because he doesn't want anyone discussing it any more, but he can't tell us to shut up.

    I don't know about it only being the current Government though. Even as a Tory I'd have to admit that the last lot were a tarnished, tired and sorry looking bunch who deserved to be voted out in 1997. When one thinks of Lamont and the financial crash, Aitken and the sword of perjury, Alan Clark and the witches coven, Gummer and the beefburger, David Mellor with sucked toes and a Chelsea football strip, 'Spock' Redwood and the missing Welsh anthem. Hardly encouraging is it?

    But times go around. The current lot are suffering for their failure to do anything significant in office apart from banning hunting with dogs. All the while taking a record quantity of our earnings in taxation and squandering it on PFI deals whilst selling honours to prop up their parties finances. Ho hum.

    The problem for the Forces, if such it is, is the constant televisual glare and the desire of the Government to always be seen to be doing something. Senior commanders have to deal with Whitehall, rather than operational matters. Communicating with the Press is more important than listening to their own people. Saying something, whilst maintaining the inscrutability of the Sphinx and saying nothing, leading to statements and briefings of breathtaking banality, is a desirable character trait.

    Welcome to the 21st Century.

    Si.

18. At 04:19 PM on 13 Apr 2007, John H. wrote:

    Oh well, at least I have some company. Even if it is a bit pushy.

    [Can't really believe that nobody has posted on here in the last two and a half hours!]

19. At 06:12 PM on 13 Apr 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    John H, Appy, Polly T - and me!

    Perhaps we should all get together and have a good groan about the ultra negativity of the British press. Then we could get the Daily Moan to cover it.

    Oh no, that's not the idea at all, is it? ;o)

20. At 01:45 AM on 14 Apr 2007, wrote:

    Eddie,

    Where's the hash key? I can't sleep.
    xx
    ed

21. At 11:28 AM on 14 Apr 2007, wrote:

    All,

    As part of our continuing service, an on the Persian Gulf Affair. (and some trenchant observations on The Economy)
    xx
    ed

22. At 02:19 PM on 14 Apr 2007, Izzy T'Me wrote:

    Ed (22) Love it - Britain's secret weapon waiting to be unleashed on the world!

23. At 11:37 PM on 16 Apr 2007, wrote:

    So far 32 people have been killed in the Virginia Tech university shootings.

    This is all happening within a country that have taken the responsibility to 'Police the World' ?

    President George W Bush said the US was "shocked and saddened".

    "Schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community,"

    With the ridiculous gun laws the states have, is it *really* so surprising?

    God help us all - esp Iraq.

    My thoughts, however, are with all the families of the bereaved both in Virginia and Iraq.

24. At 07:47 AM on 17 Apr 2007, wrote:

    Jonnie,

    Some words on American , particularly prescient in the last point.
    ;-(
    ed

25. At 06:20 PM on 17 Apr 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Very disconcerting to find that JJ at 1 seems to have been removed, so every person commenting on his(?) remarks is refering to something I can't read any more (it was there a couple of hours ago).

    Is that 'cos it was controversial and got a lot of complaints about it, or what?

26. At 10:12 PM on 17 Apr 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    There is one comment I wanted to make on today's programme, though it isn't about the content and balance and whatever, it's a smaller niggle.

    When somebody has claimed to have "de-fused" a bomb, it's downright worrying to be told by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that he claims he "diffused" it. I wouldn't have thought that spreading a bomb over a wide area was a helpful thing to claim in one's defence in court.

    Oh -- this was on April 17th, not September, which is when things seem to be on the Blog at present.

27. At 11:51 PM on 17 Apr 2007, wrote:

    Re: Ed - I've skim read it. Now bookmarked it. I'll go through it tomorrow.

    Re Chris:- And the disapperaing post - I think the blog prince is aware - Isn't it frustrating.

    And as to diffused :-) Mmm I agree .