Iranian hostage-taking 2007

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25041_Col._Jack_Jacobs-_Brit_Sailors_Disgraceful&only

I have to admit that I am ambiguous about the whole Iranian sailor-capture and propaganda storm vignette. Because of Iraq and the politics of that war, there are many aspects to this event that would not be present were this just a 'normal' year. Iran is motivated at the moment by two overriding factors, I believe: firstly, a desire to avenge the humiliation of the Al-Kuds officers arrested in Iraq; and secondly, the desire to gain leverage in their dispute with the international community over their Nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, as is often the way in life, doing something to achieve one of your goals may actually reduce the likelihood of achieving another of them.

If you were a fly on the wall of the discussions that went on during the 13 days that Iran had the British sailors in their custody, I imagine that very many of them hinged on exactly this point. Culturally the Iranians are very sensitive to being publicly humiliated, and the highly visible US detention and imprisonment of their Al-Kuds operatives was a huge humiliation for them in the Middle East. It would have been seen as that both in pro and anti-Iranian places. So they felt they must return the favour- come what may.

Unfortunately, the 'come what may' could be apocalyptic. A third US super carrier group (the USS Nimitz) is steaming to the Persian gulf. And so the other argument being made by those people in Iran with perhaps a firmer grasp on the true mechanics of the current situation must have been that this hostage-taking action was a gift of hefty proportions to the United States. It is so blatantly an engineered humiliation of one of the coalition parties that in many parts of the civilised world a change of mood has occured- Iran is no longer seen as a victim and a counter-weight to over-mighty America, more an engaged protagonist with its own political and machiavellian goals. Thats a bad thing for Iran. It means that if it is on the recieving end of a US/British attack, Irans fate will be seen much more as the playing out of a game of brinkmanship than an act of aggression by imperialist powers.

In geopolitical terms, I therefore see this as a win for the coalition, and a rather pathetic own-goal for the Iranians. There is, however another aspect to this which I can't deny either- and that is the terrible loss of prestige and war-fighting reputation of the Royal Navy. The Navy is a British institution which I love dearly, of whose history and traditions I am an eager student. For 15 Royal Navy sailors to participate as eagerly and dutifully in their own humiliation is a terrible stain on the Royal Navies record. No matter what their mission was on that occasion, the Royal Navy is a fighting service- to be taken prisoner while in Iraqi waters without firing a shot is pathetic enough. But to then take full part in grotesque parades and propaganda shows demonstrates a basic unwillingness to fight and perhaps die as Royal Navy sailors have done for the last 1200 years or so- with grit and honour and pride. When you join the Royal Navy, that is the deal you signed up for.

This bitter gall becomes more unbearable when compared with the obvious willingness of many of the jihadi's in the current conflict to gladly give up their lives in the cause they believe in. While hating their cause and their goals, I admire their fighting spirit and their clarity of purpose. The British used to understand these things in a simple and straightforward way- when serving my country in the armed forces, the mission and the nations honour take precedence over my comfort and my life. Sixty years ago hundreds of thousands of Englishmen and Scotsmen and Welshmen and Irishmen went into battle knowing that to be the case and aquitted themselves superbly well in the main. Are we so in love with our comfort and our psychobabble excuses that we can't fight for our country any more?

As a footnote, I sadly agree with President Ahmadinajad about Faye Turney. What was a woman doing on Royal Navy boarding party anyway? Men behave differently (i.e. more protectively and less aggressively) when women are around. I believe there is a direct link between the decision made by the junior officer leading the boarding party not to resist in being taken hostage, and the presence of a woman. People used to understand the meaning of these things perfectly well- having women in frontline units is a bad idea for precisely this reason. Men are much more likely to stand on an issue of honour when there is no woman present to confuse the motivations and responsibilities involved. A band of brothers with some sisters along is a unit with feet of clay. For evidence of this, read up on the performance of the US marines in Panama, after which the Pentagon removed all women from frontline combat units.