Heart of oak are our ships,
Jolly tars are our men,
We always are ready,
Steady, boys, steady,
We’ll fight and we’ll conquer
Again and again
Once, the Royal Navy was rightly feared throughout the world. Even at the end of the 20th Century, while stripped of much of its granduer and power, it was still an aged bulldog—able to occasionally lash out and bite the incautious. And even in its relative weakness, it seemed to have maintained its spirit and tradition, long the pride of the naval world.
Now we have been treated to the shameful and degrading spectacle of watching 15 British marines and sailors meekly surrender to Iranian motorboats. Now, if this had happened in some deep insertion mission after days dodging Iranian patrols, it would be one thing. But it happened under the guns of a British frigate not 5 miles away. Literally under its guns, since the frigate’s main gun has a range of at least twice that.
And as fast as they are, Iranian speedboats don’t just appear. The British must have tracked them for minutes at least, and yet nothing was done before, during, or after the capture of a boarding party executing a standard mission they’d done dozens of times before. Small groups of troops are always in danger of being overrun and captured, but for their ship to stand by and do nothing? Oh, Nelson, if you’d lived to see this day! From its origins as pirates to the sad state of prey—surrendering its sailors to the first thug happening by—how the Royal Navy has fallen!
The British understood, once, that allowing petty tyrants to push your navy around means your navy isn’t worth spit. In those days, there was a simple phrase for what the Iranians pulled off: Act of War. And a simple response: inflict superior damage on the enemy so that he learns the error of his ways. Sadly, the Royal Navy long ago traded that tradition in for touchy-feeling multi-culti bullocks, narcissistic self-esteem rubbish, and soft-hearted European idiocy. “Acts of war” have become “public relations issues”, to be managed and spun and packaged. Respond to a blatant hostile action by threatening Iran’s navy? Barbaric, sir!
When the Navy’s policies force an officer of the hardest, most competent marines in the world to explain that he avoided fighting back because people might have been, well, hurt, and there might have been, gosh, an international incident, you wonder what the point of having a Navy is anyway. Surrender doesn’t really take much in the way of training, technology, or tradition. It’s certainly not what the marines and sailors signed up for.
Let me emphasize that: I don’t place blame on the marines and sailors captured. Rot this deep runs up through the ranks. And, in this case, it’s clear that the commanders on the scene failed utterly to defend their men. From the First Sea Lord on down, there’s a disgusting uniformity of spin and denial. When your top staff is this rotten, you can’t blame Jack Tar. This rot spread from Whitehall, and it’s turned the once-proud Hearts of Oak into a pulpy mess.
It’s a dangerous world, full of petty tyrants, dangerous fanatics, and unbalanced despots, and if the Royal Navy is unwilling or unable to protect its men—and its honor—it should do the right thing: mothball its fleet, sell off its assets, and close up shop. There’s no room for a Navy whose admirals have lost the will to fight.
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
April 12, 2007 at 11:56 am
Sir,
Give peace a chance, man! Iran’s leaders—despite their lunacy—know that a military confrontation with Britain and her allies is a non-starter. In such a scenario I’d wager that even Russia and China would cut ties and support embargos/sanctions/etc.
The job of the Royal Navy is to protect the interests of all Britons. An immediate military response would’ve been shortsighted and likely would’ve given a seriously bad jolt to the global economy (not good for Britons or anyone else). Besides, what would the endgame of such a scenario be? Turning Iran into a parking lot? “Regime change?” Or just release of the captive sailors?
This incident proves that when cooler heads prevail, and leaders don’t reflexively pull the trigger, at the very least the status quo is maintained and larger (unnecessary) conflict prevented.
Yours,
AC
Chelsea, London
April 12, 2007 at 1:12 pm
[…] Joe B. wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHeart of oak are our ships, Jolly tars are our men, We always are ready, Steady, boys, steady, We’ll fight and we’ll conquer Again and again. Once, the Royal Navy was rightly feared throughout the world. Even at the end of the 20th … […]
April 12, 2007 at 2:58 pm
That’s true only if Iran is an innocent party. Since they, in fact, are set on a course of provocation, terrorism, and intimidation, it will merely lead them to “bigger and better” actions. Look for a shooting attack on an Iraqi patrol craft next. Complete with dead Iraqi sailors.
You assume Iran is a reasonable nation with reasonable goals. Sadly, that’s not the case.
April 12, 2007 at 4:07 pm
You seem to assume that Iran will seek to escalate the current row into something more sinister and (literally) explosive. If that is the case, why is a military strike the most appropriate response? What about diplomatic means? What is Iran’s incentive for escalating the situation to a full-on military confrontation with the UK/US? What would the UK/US gain from such a confrontation?
And to reiterate a question from my previous comment, what would be (or would’ve been) the goal of a military response to the sailors’ capture?
-AC
April 12, 2007 at 5:08 pm
More sinister? The Iranians invaded another country, assaulted soldiers working with that country, kidnapped those soldiers, held mock executions, tortured confessions out of them, and isolated the lone woman and told her that the others had been released and she alone would be kept by the Iranians, I’m not sure simple murder would be more sinister.
The goal of the Iranian actions is to show that the British can be bullied, which builds their reputation among their neighbors and satisfies their leaders’ egos.
Since I presume you’d disagree, what do you think the purpose of invading Iraqi waters and seizing British commandos was?
To answer your question, goal of a prompt military response by the British would be to demonstrate that the cost of unprovoked hostility is high enough that the Iranians should avoid a repeat performance.
April 13, 2007 at 9:31 am
The Iranians invaded another country, assaulted soldiers working with that country, kidnapped those soldiers, held mock executions, tortured confessions out of them…
“Invaded?” It was an armed boarding party. Let’s not exaggerate the matter.
Yes, the Iranians’ actions and methods were despicable; were they any worse than the US policy of/European complicity in extraordinary renditions? If we follow certain practices in the treatment of military prisoners, are we supposed to hold our enemies to a higher standard in their treatment of military prisoners?
[W]hat do you think the purpose of invading Iraqi waters and seizing British commandos was?
To force London into a direct dialog with Tehran. With military conflicts consuming the countries on its western and eastern borders, and increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Washington, is it all that surprising that Tehran would resort to extreme measures in order to spark some sort of diplomatic conversation? Taking and releasing 15 sailors accomplishes this end while also giving the appearance (domestically) that the gov’t is in control and can deal with Western powers without being cowed.
[G]oal of a prompt military response by the British would be to demonstrate that the cost of unprovoked hostility is high enough that the Iranians should avoid a repeat performance.
Ok, so the cruise missile strikes/carpet bombings/other destruction of strategic targets begins when the Iranians take the sailors and ends when…?
Perhaps part of the reason no shots were fired was because this isn’t the first time this has happened.
April 13, 2007 at 10:04 am
“Invaded?” It was an armed boarding party. Let’s not exaggerate the matter.
While invaded is the wrong word, they did cross into another countries soverign territory and abduct guests of that country while in that country’s waters. What Iran did was a blatant violation of international law.
Yes, the Iranians’ actions and methods were despicable; were they any worse than the US policy of/European complicity in extraordinary renditions? If we follow certain practices in the treatment of military prisoners, are we supposed to hold our enemies to a higher standard in their treatment of military prisoners?
While we have violated the Geneva convention, and should be held to task for it, it doesn’t give the Iranians permission to do so as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
To force London into a direct dialog with Tehran. With military conflicts consuming the countries on its western and eastern borders, and increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Washington, is it all that surprising that Tehran would resort to extreme measures in order to spark some sort of diplomatic conversation? Taking and releasing 15 sailors accomplishes this end while also giving the appearance (domestically) that the gov’t is in control and can deal with Western powers without being cowed.
Tehran is seeking nuclear missiles. They don’t get to kidnap people and say “We just wanted to talk!”
The UN has been trying to talk to them for ages, and they won’t give up their nuclear ambitions. This is a serious problem. The lack of conversation at the negotiating table isn’t the UK’s fault, it is Iran’s, and I completely fault them for that. Kidnapping soldiers is not a valid way to start a discussion, it is a valid way to start a war.
Apologizing for Iran, their violations of the human rights of their own citizens, flaunting of international law, and attempts to obtain nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Saying “Well we’re no better” isn’t a valid excuse for them either, we are better, and even if we weren’t, one person’s bad behavior does not excuse another’s.
Ok, so the cruise missile strikes/carpet bombings/other destruction of strategic targets begins when the Iranians take the sailors and ends when…?
Iran gives back the sailors. This situation was 100% Iran’s fault.
April 13, 2007 at 11:29 am
Tehran is seeking nuclear missiles. They don’t get to kidnap people and say “We just wanted to talk!”
I’m not at all suggesting that Iran’s actions were in any way acceptable, appropriate, or otherwise OK.
The UN has been trying to talk to them for ages, and they won’t give up their nuclear ambitions.
The UN is too broken to do much of anything right now (see also: Darfur). And given the lead-up to the current Iraq situation, it’s obvious that whatever the UN says or does, the only decisions with any relevance are being made in the Oval Office and at 10 Downing St.
[Iran’s nuclear ambitions are] a serious problem. The lack of conversation at the negotiating table isn’t the UK’s fault, it is Iran’s… Kidnapping soldiers is not a valid way to start a discussion, it is a valid way to start a war.
Nuclearization anywhere is a serious problem; doubly so when it’s a regime that openly despises the existence of another heavily-armed power in the region (Israel). Both sides (the West and Iran) are being obstinate to a fault in their public posturing and general refusal to speak to one another.
Apologizing for Iran, their violations of the human rights of their own citizens, [etc.]
Who’s apologizing? I’m certainly not. Nor am I excusing Iran’s actions. I’m trying to look for an explanation of why they acted out and trying to determine if military action is the only recourse to prevent them from doing so in the future. My conclusion is that no, military action alone is not the appropriate tool in this case. Diplomacy is.
Because of its military superiority, the West has the upper-hand diplomatically. Over the last 5 years, it has used only its military in the region with no serious effort at diplomacy. If the only “negotiation” occurs with bullets, missiles, and bombs, is it reasonable to expect any real change to occur? The violence in the region (and globally) directed at Westerners and their interests will continue as long as those fomenting the violence have a means to lure people away from rational, peaceful methods of conflict resolution. Yes, the West should seek to destroy or detain those who would harm them, but if the West makes no real effort to give those would-be enemies a meaningful alternative to the hate spewed by extremists, nothing gets solved. Until substantial diplomatic efforts are made to involve regional actors (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan) in bringing stability to the region, what are the real chances of success? That means possibly talking with unsavory characters and it means building diplomacy from the ground up, rather than enforcing it from the top down.
April 13, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Over the last 5 years, it has used only its military in the region with no serious effort at diplomacy. If the only “negotiation” occurs with bullets, missiles, and bombs, is it reasonable to expect any real change to occur?
This is nonsense. Let’s leave aside diplomatic action throughout the world which resulted, in among other things, Libya and Pakistan moving away from rogue state status. We’ll also avoid numerous attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem that has vexed every attempt at a solution, by anyone. Let’s just focus on Iran.
In the case of Iran, in particular, when the US invaded Iraq it could have sealed the border with Iran, refused passage for religious leaders and common folk, and responded to the nearly constant Iranian violations of Iraqi sovereignity with overwhelming force.
It did none of those.
Iran, in response to the open borders and free trade and travel, has funneled money, weapons, explosives, and advanced missiles to Iraqi insurgent and militia groups, funded Sadr’s vicious thugs, sent commando units in to kill Iraqi soliders and officials, and in every other way shown contempt for its neighbor and us.
When we finally respond by capturing its intelligence agents at work fomenting violence in Iraq, it then reacts with this latest action.
Let me ask a question. Would you trust a nation run by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts to engage in rational foreign policy? Would you give them the benefit of the doubt? Iran is run by a group which makes those three look like secular atheistic pacifists. Rational diplomacy does not work with tyrants who think they are in a position of strength. They see it as appeasement.
Since we do not, in fact, like slaughtering people, we should continue to make diplomatic overtures, even to tyrants. But we must couple those overtures with forceful responses to their provocations. They don’t respect reason, kindness, or mutual interest. They misinterpret restraint as weakness. If you don’t couple diplomacy with force, they will ignore the diplomacy and assume you will never really use force. And by the time they realize their mistake you’ll have no options other than really nasty ones.
If you want to avoid the devastation of Iran, you should support a forceful response to these provocations. Because otherwise the Iranians will keep pushing, until we finally push back a final time.
April 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Until substantial diplomatic efforts are made to involve regional actors (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan) in bringing stability to the region, what are the real chances of success? That means possibly talking with unsavory characters and it means building diplomacy from the ground up, rather than enforcing it from the top down.
What do you think we have been doing?
Here are the results of the enlightened and effective foreign policy of the Clinton years:
1. Nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India.
2. North Korea develops atomic weapons.
3. Massive destabilization in Israel and Palestine.
4. Loss of hundreds of American lives to Al Qaeda terrorism.
5. Rise and consolidation of the Taliban
6. Establishment of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
7. Massive Pakistani support for Taliban and Al Qaeda.
8. 9-11
Here are the results of the arrorgant and failed foreign policy of the Bush years:
1. 9-11
2. Elimination of the Taliban regime.
3. Elimination of main Al Qaeda resource and training bases in Afghanistan.
4. Reduction in Pakistani aid to Al Qaeda.
5. Libya abandons nuclear program, rejoins community of nations.
6. Massive destablization in Israel and Palestine.
7. North Korea may give up atomic weapons.
8. Overthrow of Saddam Hussein, chaos in Iraq.
I don’t list this to blame Clinton or priase Bush, but to point out that progress is virtually impossible no matter how you approach it. The Middle East has been a place of violence and oppression for hundreds of years. It won’t get better quickly, if at all. Has Bush missed opportunities? You bet. Did Clinton miss them too? Absolutely.
But, ultimately, Osama bin Ladin was right when he said that the Arabs respect strength. They pay lip service to fairness but they respect strength. That’s why Hussein was revered everywhere but Iraq. That’s why Hezbollah’s stock went up outside of Lebanon. That’s why Iran is behaving as it is.
I’m not saying we should be assholes. But appeasement is not wise. We should talk, but we should also keep the big stick always at hand. And we better make sure those we’re speaking with know we’ll use it.
April 13, 2007 at 2:43 pm
There was no diplomacy occuring. Diplomacy is the fancy word for the terms the winner gets to dictate to the loser when the war is over.
April 13, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Why stop at Clinton? The whole clusterf—- goes at least as far back as T.E. Lawrence 😉
The big stick certainly is at hand, and it’s being swung by a deaf-mute giant. I agree that things aren’t likely to improve quickly, and chances are certainly nil as long as both Bush and Ahmadinejad are in power.
My general argument in all of this is that the military card has been overplayed and has not been complemented by a sufficient amount of diplomacy. Yes, Libya finally came around, score one for us. What happened to the momentum from that? Was there ever any? Meanwhile, we continue to pound on things with explosives and aren’t making significant progress in terms of stemming the chaos. Opening a third battle theater in Iran is not the domino effect we should be pursuing.
Osama bin Ladin was right when he said that the Arabs respect strength.
Well, good thing Iranians are mostly Persian and Azeri. 😉
April 13, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Well, good thing Iranians are mostly Persian and Azeri.
True that. Sadly, Islam is profoundly Arab in its origins and assumptions (and this is particularly true of the more fundamentalist strains in both Sunni and Shia Islam). One reason that many Iranians are ambivalent about both their official religion and their official government. 🙂
April 13, 2007 at 7:12 pm
From a purely tactical view, AOC is absolutely right. His point is very valid, the UK has taught Iran that the next time they want something, all they need to do is kidnap or put in jeopardy some of Her Majesty’s citizens and they will get their way.
The UK has a duty, as commonly understood by secular individuals, to protect their people from harm, not expose them too it. By not responding in a way that would dissuade Iran from putting their citizens in jeopardy in the future, but instead encouraging such behavior, they have fundamentally failed their duties as interpreted by a secular individual.
HOWEVER, AC and the UK did the right thing for the wrong reasons. A peaceful resolution is one which as Christians we must pursue, even at the cost of our own lives. The UK achieved a peaceful solution, but it was not the best peaceful solution nor did they seek it for the right reasons.
What they should have done was stand firmly on the side of truth and adamantly forced the Iranians to comply through logic, reason, and love. They should have been willing to die for the right thing, but not to kill.
Instead the UK turned their tail and kowtowed to falsehoods, lies, and evil, while they did turn the other cheek, they did so in the wrong way for the wrong reasons.
April 29, 2008 at 11:34 am
[…] sure it’s being foisted on the RN by someone else—needs to be sent to an asylum. Hearts of Pulp, indeed. Of course, perhaps Britain is simply waxing nostalgic for the piratical past of Hawkins and Drake, […]