Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: UK rules of engagement forced the Brit sailors & marines to surrender
Herc the Merc    3/26/2007 4:15:13 PM
Forget friendly fire, the ROE assured that the sailors and marines could not even reach for their weapon. Rules of engagement Our sailors and marines - why did they not defend themselves? They were not allowed to ... their rules of engagement did not permit it. This was raised in Defence Questions today by Ann Winterton MP. She put to the defence minister that "the current rules of engagement that allow no conflict in Iraqi waters with Iranian forces" and thus suggested that "this led directly to 15 of our service personnel being abducted by the Iranians". Defence minister Adam Ingram was evasive, telling MPs not to speculate. "Let us stand back and understand the sensitivity of the situation," he pleaded. "There is too much speculation about what happened and what did not happen." Then, in classic fashion, he went on not to answer the question, offering only obscurity: "Those carrying out that mission clearly have to respond to the level of threat that is posed to them ... We will have to investigate that when they are safely returned to these shores and we get their version of events rather than the speculation that is being paraded around in the media and elsewhere." But Winterton was not speculating. Directly from extremely angry servicemen recently back from Iraq, she had received information that boarding parties were under rigid instructions that left no room for discretion. Even though faced with Iranian Republican Guards, every one of the Party knew that to fire a weapon (even a warning shot) would have ensured their personal Court Martial. This still does not explain, however, why the boarding party was caught by surprise by six Iranian vessels (and no one has disputed that figure). The team was equipped with fast, highly manoeuvrable boats and, given an alert overwatch, the members should have got enough warning to enable them to break for the shore or call up reinforcements. Interestingly, no further light has been shone on this murky episode in the unofficial Army forum, where such matters are often discussed at length. A moderator moved in quickly to delete threads and shut down further comment, on the grounds that, "there now exists a real danger that speculation and reported remarks influenced by genuine anger will be to the detriment of the safety of our people and OPSEC (operational security)". That the incident is being widely discussed on media forums and comment threads seems to have escaped the board moderators, demonstrating an acute sensitivity on the subject. As it stands, therefore, it looks like the boarding party members were set up like rats in a trap, unable to defend themselves, leaving the Iranians only to say thank you very much indeed for the free hostages. And instead of facing their own military courts, our people are now at risk of being paraded through the Iranian courts, to the utter humiliation of a nation which cannot even safeguard its own troops.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
flamingknives       3/26/2007 4:37:38 PM
Of course, it doesn't endanger our troops in the slightest if people publicise the parameters under which they will respond, and how much.  
I'm pretty sure that RoEs are classified, at least to restricted.

I bet that this is that utter pillock North again. The man makes my blood boil, mainly by being a) opinionated and b) frequently wrong, ill-informed and plain ignorant.

Apart from anything else, why would be discussing naval operations with any degree of inside knowledge
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger    Spies   3/26/2007 11:34:50 PM
In addition to kidnapping the British troops, the Iranians are now threatening an additional outrage: putting the soldiers on trial as spies.
By law, soldiers in uniform can't be tried as spies, so the Iranians are further flaunting international law.
How about a blockade?  We've needed to do that for the longest time.  Now we have an excuse.
Quote    Reply

appleciderus       3/26/2007 11:57:46 PM
I have to wonder why Western Civilization handcuffs itself with "political correctness" while it's enemies are throttling the very civilization being protected by weaponless military abducted by an armed enemy.
The inmates are running the asylum!
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       3/27/2007 6:32:05 AM
Quite right that the arrse discussion was shut down, too many people potentially too well informed and giving something away to Teheran.
The obvious problem is that when outnumbered and outgunned it is generally not a good idea to start shooting at the forces of a nation that you are not at war with (just a small point of detail).  
As too surprise its difficult to know without having more detail, but I understand the Iranians use very fast boats and its possible they were lurking close by and out of sight before they moved over a fairly short distance.
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    Arsse silenced   3/27/2007 10:44:12 PM
Several web messageboards that I 'frequent' have locked and deleted discussion of anything related to the kidnapped fifteen. Too sensitive a negotiation and too many new posters fishing for expert opinions. Perhaps nobody knows what they are talking about on here, so it is safe. LOL
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/28/2007 5:12:35 AM
Both the Iranian and British regimes no what the options are better than anyone else, neither side is going to be influenced by uninformed internet chit-chat.  To think otherwise is just to be a twit and think your opion is worth more thn it is.
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       3/29/2007 5:45:03 AM
Heroic assumptions about how arrse in viewed and understood in some foreign parts.  Better safe than sorry.
Quote    Reply