Article

2007-04-06 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US military would have fought Iranians: senior officer

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-04-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Pueblo? EP-3 on Hainan? The Brit Frigate should have moved to protect the smaller craft, but we should be careful about casting stones.

Posted by RWV 2007-04-06 01:03|| 2007-04-06 01:03|| Front Page Top

#2 LUCIANNE > HMS CORNWALL Cdr + ROE's being reviewed to ascertain iff capture of 15 brit servicemembers could have been avoided = deterred.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-06 01:11|| 2007-04-06 01:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Dunno, RWV. Seems like apples and oranges, keeping in mind we don't have all the facts re the Iran incident (at least I don't). Pueblo was alone and not really able to defend herself - P-3 was similarly not designed to defend itself, and was nearly destroyed by an aggressive Chinese pilot. In contrast the British patrol damn well should have had clear options for a situation where an Iranian vessel messed with them - it had happened before and was an obvious possibility (actually, the only likely hostile scenario in those waters).

If you're referring to post-incident behavior, that's a bit more complicated. Pueblo case is vague (resistance of the crew in captivity, and the "Hawaiian good luck sign" photo, were positives if I recally clearly). I was not impressed with our reaction to the P-3 incident.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-06 01:39|| 2007-04-06 01:39|| Front Page Top

#4 I understand the sentiment, but I've read that the transfer to/from a small rubber boat, as the Brits were doing, is a very vulnerable time for the crew doing an inspection. Sounds like they got jumped and didn't have an oversight force package in place.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-04-06 02:32|| 2007-04-06 02:32|| Front Page Top

#5 HOT AIR.com [Michelle Malkin?] > Possible new AQ tape coming out - UNCONFIRMED as of this post. Tape may, or may NOT, allegedly feature OSAMA, or ZAWAHIRI > contents allegedly may warn of NEW ATTACKS BEING PLANNED AGZ USA. US CENTCOM investigating???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-06 02:44|| 2007-04-06 02:44|| Front Page Top

#6 Verlaine, I agree. And I will throw stones. The whole British affair must be reviewed. The two vessels should never have been tasked in such a manner as to not have adequate protection.

Posted by Captain America 2007-04-06 04:26|| 2007-04-06 04:26|| Front Page Top

#7 Are they operating in the mode that they don't want to get too close to another ship in case it attacks them? In any case, they should be able to do better or not send the dinghies at all.

Posted by gorb 2007-04-06 04:40|| 2007-04-06 04:40|| Front Page Top

#8 BTW: Pueblo was on its own out of necessity. It would have looked funny for it to be escorted by a destroyer.

The P3 was accidentally taken out by a hot-dogging Chinese pilot. The Chinese just jumped on the opportunity. Again, there wasn't a need and still isn't a need for a fighter escort.

Feel free to cast stones! :-)

Posted by gorb 2007-04-06 04:43|| 2007-04-06 04:43|| Front Page Top

#9 Pueblo? EP-3 on Hainan?

There is a thing called Ruales of Engagement. If you cause a major diplomatic incident for your nation or even carry it into a war because you shot gainst orders then you deserve to be discahrged or jailed.

If your ROEs allowed to defend yourself and you didn't then in the good old times you could be executed for cowardice.

Now about the whiole mess:

1) Dinghis don't go tens of miles away from the mother ship. First because of that thing called the sea who can sink them, second because they don't carry the fuel, third because when sending a boarding party you need the big ship as a deterrence against any attempt to resist before (dinghis are vulnerable to bullets) or after the boarding. That means that the whole thing happenned in sight range from the frigate.. Thus the frigate commander either had previous orders not to fire gainst Iranians or he radioed to higher authority and some pussy at Whitehall, the MOD, his chain of comand or Blair himself told him to hold fire. Or he decided from hios own authority.

2) One thing is allwing to be captured because such are the orders and another thing is teh deisgarceful behaviour of those "Marines". Collaborate with enemy's propaganda agsint own country is an act of trason and should be punished as such.

British are no more, the British islaes are now inhabited by Euros.

Posted by JFM ">JFM 2007-04-06 07:00|| 2007-04-06 07:00|| Front Page Top

#10 In June 2004, Iran took eight British marines and sailors from their patrol boats, keeping them for three days, saying they had breached the maritme border. Seems like the Brits either didn't learn the first time...nor changes their ROE to prevent a second event. Fool me once...shame on you...fool me twice...I must be a Brit!

Posted by RN">RN 2007-04-06 07:24|| 2007-04-06 07:24|| Front Page Top

#11 Read one story saying that the ship they wanted to search was in water too shallow for the frigate to approach. They think now it was a trap to lure the Brits away from any support. And the boarding party only had a few handguns, no heavier weapons.

Posted by Steve 2007-04-06 07:31|| 2007-04-06 07:31|| Front Page Top

#12 Read one story saying that the ship they wanted to search was in water too shallow for the frigate to approach

Too shallow for so far that the frigate had to remain beyond horizon not to mention outside teh range of her weapons?

Posted by JFM ">JFM 2007-04-06 07:49|| 2007-04-06 07:49|| Front Page Top

#13 Well, with the ROE, they could've (carefully) sailed between their sailors and the maurading Iraninan boats. Except the water was too shallow to maneuver.

Posted by Bobby 2007-04-06 08:06|| 2007-04-06 08:06|| Front Page Top

#14 The Cornwall has the 114 mm Mark 8 naval gun. That gun has a range of 12 nautical miles according to Wikipedia. There is no way the boarding party was out of range of that gun.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2007-04-06 08:25|| 2007-04-06 08:25|| Front Page Top

#15 RVW,
You're right to ask about both those incidents, and I'd like to add a bit to Verlaine's response (if I may).
The Pueblo had two single-mount .50s for armament, and her crew was only barely trained to use them. In addition, under the ROE imposed on her crew, the weapons were secured (wrapped in tarps, IIRC) and the ammo was stowed belowdecks. Pueblo's crew also thought they had standing protection, and therefore CMDR Bucher simply tried to keep his crew safe until the help could get there. They were badly outnumbered and outgunned. In addition, the water temperature that morning was cold enough that without survival suits the crew's survival time would have been measured in minutes. Let me respectfully suggest you take a look at the similar ordeal of the crew of the frigate Philadelphia in 1804, where William Bainbridge faced a similar choice. There are eerie parallels between the two stories. As fr as the EP-3 goes, Gorb speaks truth - an idiot Chinese pilot decided to get froggy and made himself a hero. Though the US government may not have handled things well, by all available accounts the EP-3s crew did exactly what they were supposed to do. Time constraints kept them from destroying everything aboard the plane but they did their best, and the crew conducted itself well. They were absolutely unarmed, so any shiow of resistance would not only have been futile, it could have led to unnecessary fatalities.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-04-06 08:56|| 2007-04-06 08:56|| Front Page Top

#16 Also depends a lot on who is in power. I would bet you if this was 1993 and it was US troops that the Iranians were trying to get, the exact same result would have happened under Clinton and the Dhimocrats. 1996, maybe would have been different since Clinton needed something to take away the press from a Blue Dress.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-04-06 09:44|| 2007-04-06 09:44|| Front Page Top

#17 IIUC the weather conditions were not clear, so they could have been out of sight of the Cornwall, even when relatively close.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-04-06 10:29|| 2007-04-06 10:29|| Front Page Top

#18 verlaine wasn't the P-3 incident under Clintons' watch? Masybe why you didn't like how it was handled

Posted by sinse 2007-04-06 10:32|| 2007-04-06 10:32|| Front Page Top

#19 Fox just had the Brit Sailors and Marines live. They stated they were very quickly surrounded by Iranina boats that were faster and very heavily armed. It was a trap. They were definately in Iraqui waters but had almost nothing with which to defend themselves. Seems it was very well planned and executed by the Iranians.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-04-06 10:35|| 2007-04-06 10:35|| Front Page Top

#20 sinse, the P-3 was under Bush.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-04-06 10:44|| 2007-04-06 10:44|| Front Page Top

#21 I suppose we'll get an inquiry (either with results announced or leaked) on the facts of the situation, in due course. The behavior of the captives is a separate matter, but one that on the surface at least is at least as worrisome, if not more so.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-06 10:58|| 2007-04-06 10:58|| Front Page Top

#22 I heard that the US Navy flew over the only Iranian refinery leaving contrails, prolly spelling out 'U R SCREWED'. Then, the tide turned and the Brits were set free. Now we should repeat the flight and spell out 'TELL THE WORLD THAT YOU SET A TRAP IN IRAQI WATERS JUST TO MAKE DINNER JACKET LOOK GOOD AND TUFF'.......'OR ELSE, U R SCREWED'. 'P. S. NUKE INSPECTORS WILL B THERE IN AM'.
I mean, when you got 'em by the balls, why not extract payment ?

Posted by wxjames 2007-04-06 11:41|| 2007-04-06 11:41|| Front Page Top

#23 The P-3 needed to ditch, not deliver itself to the PLA. IIRC in reading, the seas were rough, so there was some hazard in ditching due to heavy seas.

The Pueblo incident was a great screwup. Same thing, we delivered our secrets to the NORKS, FOB.

It seems to me that these screwups go back to ROE and mission planning

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-04-06 11:55|| 2007-04-06 11:55|| Front Page Top

#24 I just heard Col. David Hunt (ret) on the radio saying that the Brits are part of Centcom and that Centcom probably told them not to shoot as well.

Of course that could be Hunt just shooting off his mouth.

Posted by remoteman 2007-04-06 12:08|| 2007-04-06 12:08|| Front Page Top

#25 again a translation of the comments by the two officers who were in command of the boarding party made today in London. Not a shining moment for the Royal Navy and certainly not a shining moment for thier junior officers:

Translation:

They had guns and might have hurt some of us! So we decided to give up so we wouldn't get hurt. Then they were mean to us and scared us with maybe going to jail and being called bad names, so we said what they wanted on television so we could go home. We got presents and the mean man in charge smiled at us and gave us pretty suits to wear home. When we got home we got to put on our nice uniforms again and march around and act brave again. And the prime Minister said he was very proud of us for not getting hurt or hurting anyone. Now our government has decided our national policy will be not to do this anymore so nobody else might get hurt or have to be scared. Also we can park our boats so they won't get used and can look nice and cost less next year.

Captain Air, Royal Marines,
Lieutenant Carmen, Royal Navy

Posted by Just AboutEnough 2007-04-06 14:10|| 2007-04-06 14:10|| Front Page Top

23:56 Mac
23:39 Throger Thains8048
23:36 twobyfour
23:35 WTF
23:32 Jackal
23:27 Jackal
23:26 Procopius2k
23:19 Procopius2k
23:18 Frank G
23:14 3dc
23:08 trailing wife
23:05 trailing wife
23:04 WTF
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 Barbara Skolaut
22:53 C-Low
22:51 Barbara Skolaut
22:49 USN, ret.
22:49 Frank G
22:42 newc
22:42 trailing wife
22:41 Frank G
22:35 trailing wife
22:26 newc