F*** off, mate!

Read - F*** off, mate! How the Aussies repelled Iranian gunboats (unlike our own hapless sailors)
By RICHARD SHEARS in the Daily Mail.

After reading the above article you're left wondering what has gone wrong with the Royal Navy. Mixed ships, Lesbian brawls in port, poor leadership and no one taking responsibility.

The Royal Navy's reputation is in tatters, and they will have to work very hard to get it back - if they ever start.

The white wash investigations published recently just make matters worse. There may well be internal processes ( maybe even confiscated iPods - but that sounds a bit risky for the Navy ), but leadership demanded demonstrable action and accountability. Yet again the Navy failed.

This plain refusal to serve the nation started with NuLabour's willingness to just lie if they thought they could get away with it - deny facts and mislead.

The cancer has spread.

Update see also EU Referendum here.

Did HMS Cornwall have its eye off the ball ?

Read Robert Fox over at the First Post who is suggesting that the crew of HMS Cornwall were distracted by performing for the media and may even have had their radar switched off ! ( Since you can get radar detectors for cars - its not unreasonable to expect the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to spot such things - perhaps it even gave them the opportunity. If any of these allergations are true then heads will have to roll.

Slowly but surely the pieces are starting to fall together. Shouldn't Sky News (the media outfit being entertained by the Navy at the time) have been the ones breaking this -why haven't they ?

It stinks.

To see ourselves as other see us

Read Mark Styen over at the Chicago Sun-Times.

Lets be clear here - because of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown under equipping the Royal Navy and allowing for its humiliation our standing in the world has dropped considerably.

Those of us who work and travel in the middle east are now all at more risk and the likelihood that Iran will try something bolder on the Royal Navy ( why not capture a whole ship ? ) goes up.

What would the Cornwall's response have been to sea skimming missiles ? To avoid escalating the situation perhaps ?

The 15 British military personnel behaved in the bare minimum of what could be expected. They certainly did not distinguish themselves. No one in the Arab world is going to fear the likes of them.

And no fear means no respect - which in the current circumstances is very serious indeed. As no doubt Iran intended.

I don't really blame Des Browne - the media fiasco in a minor footnote - skilfully used by Blair and Brown to deflect from the urgent failure of their military and defence policy.

"firm but calm" - spins Blair

As ever Blair is ready to take credit for anything. On the public relations side the Iranians win nearly hands down ( their initial mistake on making up the kidnap coordinates spoils what would other wise have been a well executed bit of international one up man ship on Britain).

It will be interesting to hear what the crew say when they get back.

Incidentally watching The Falklands play on DVD this afternoon just brings to mind how different in terms of principals and capability the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher and the shaming shower of a sofa cabinet that Blair tries to be leader of the band of.

The currency of Britain's reputation - won as great cost in the South Atlantic has been cheapened by the inadequate support of our armed forces in the gulf and the pathetic attempts at diplomacy by this government.

For "firm but calm" read "pathetic and supine".

One day, maybe soon, we will have to pay the price of all this...

Update: The BBC can't get the word Joy in enough on the news at 10pm tonight. Lots of rejoicing - the BBC's reporter smiling at the president of Iran like a giggling school girl.

The BBC should perhaps ask for direct funding from Tehran, given the services they provide.

They should hang their heads in shame.

Further: Talking of shame - see the Barnabus Fund's analysis of the treatment of Faye Turney here copied below:

Faye Turney and the Hijab

The parading of British Leading Seaman Faye Turney on Iranian TV, her head covered with an Islamic hijab, has caused great consternation and perplexity to many in the UK.

One of our indignant supporters wrote us the following:

"It is outrageous that the Iranians paraded a British service woman on TV dressed in enemy uniform (i.e. a hijab). It was a detestable policy to treat us with contempt and derision. Even the Germans in WW2 didn't make their prisoners wear Nazi Swastika armbands!"

Analysis

It is clear that the Iranians consciously want to humiliate the UK and stress the superiority of Islamic Iran. Islam traditionally prizes power, domination and honour and the concept of Islamic superiority is central to its worldview. In a Hadith Muhammad is quoted as saying:

"Islam is always more excellent and never inferior." [1]

Feelings of humiliation at the hands of a superior West is one of the driving forces of the contemporary Islamic resurgence including the Islamic Revolution in Iran. As a result, one of the regime's main fixations is the display of Iranian Islamic superiority and the humiliation of Western nations at every opportunity.

The capture of a British woman serving in the armed forces has given them an opportunity to brazenly display their contempt for British (and Western) non-Muslim nations, cultures and values. It fits in with Muslim cultural practices of shaming opponents by abusing their womenfolk.

Forcing Faye to wear the Islamic head covering enforces the Iranian Mullah regime's Islamic ideology of male domination and female subordination in the face of Western values of gender equality. In most Muslim countries including Iran, women still suffer from second rate status, unfair treatment and legal handicaps. Muslim cultures are still predominantly patriarchal and misogynist, and family honour is still a burden mainly women have to bear. In Iran women are still forced to wear the all-covering black chador in public as a symbol of their inferiority.

Forcing Faye to wear the hijab also has a political aspect of humiliating Britain and asserting Iran's independence from any moral constrains in its fight against non-Muslim regimes. It also serves to identify and display the enemy as weak and subject to Islamic authority to Iran's own population.

This humiliation of prisoners of war, while in contradiction of international rules of treatment for POWs, is in accordance with Islamic rules of humiliating non-Muslims and forcing them to adopt Islamic Shari'a norms. Forcing Faye and other captured British service personnel to make public, obviously script written confessions of guilt over the TV and in letters further magnifies Iranian pride in their own power and the powerlessness of Britain to do anything about it.

Finally, this affair raises the issue of British Muslim women calling for the wearing of the hijab as a free choice for Muslim women in the UK to display their Islamic identity, stressing its supposedly liberating aspects. However this case shows that the core principle of the Islamic hijab is the enforcement of the Shari'a-sanctioned subordination of women to men.

[1] Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. II, Funerals (al-Jana iz), No. 79, (Arabic-English, Tr. By Muhammad Matraji,New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2002, Vol. 2, pp. 310-311.

We need to descide what were about.

It is starting to look like Iran is going to use its kidnapped hostages to help intimidate the rest of the region.

The British government needs to decide what its about. Sit down and discuss just how far we are willing to go. If the answer is a Blair clime down of the type he carried out over the British EU rebate then he should take the humiliation now and withdraw our forces from the Gulf. [It may be that the military's advice is that we have no choice - in which case its better to listen now. Though of course Balir gets the blame for letting this come about.]

But if not, than planning for war needs to start ( and none of that disgraceful NuLabour not ordering equipment in case their own pathetic back benchers get a little upset ). Not I'm not talking about invasion, but destroying large amount of Iran's military infrastructure and major elements of its economy. This can be achieved by the RAF.

We will need an airfield, perhaps building one in southern Iraq, as the Royal Navy can't protect itself any more. By making such intentions clear to the Iranians, but not public we may be able to resolve this issue without any further trouble - but we will be able to finish it if we need to.

What are the betting on NuLabour being to pathetic to do either ?

PS If you think the Argentines aren't watching re:Falklands then you are very naive (perhaps your a Labour MP).

Update: Blair - as ever trying to cash in on Mrs T's more popular moment - tells us he would have sent a task force to regain the Falklands also. I think this is rubbish - and now his bluff has been called.

And now the MSM starts to ask questions

Man in a Shed said this was a failure of the Royal Navy straight away (24 Mar 07).

EU Referendum has also been raising questions.

Now the MSM is starting to zero in. See "Vulnerable Royal Navy boats 'like sitting ducks'", by Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph.

In my opinion this is a direct government failure for which the directly responsible minister is Des Browne - but the real responsibilities lie with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The Royal Navy has been allowed to get into a state of dangerous imbalance and lack of resources. So much so that it couldn't now provide over the horizon air cover of the type the Sea Harrier ( retired by NuLabour) could have given. If the American's weren't in the Arabian Gulf then we would not dare go there alone.

There are many unanswered questions about this basic failure. The Iranian's are humiliating the Royal Navy and through this threatening the Gulf Arabs who might expect protection from us.

Its a national disgrace. Its very dangerous. Appearing weak is what caused the Falklands War - the last time the Navy was about to be cut back. Appearing weak in the middle east is doubly dangerous.

MOD admits Iraniains crossed 3.1 kilometers to kidnapp British service people

So how did they get so close to the boarder and not be detected or stopped on the way in or out ?

This is the elephant in the room here ! The MOD quotes nautical miles at 1.7 (just had a BBC news flash - will confirm distance latter ) - perhaps in the hope of minimising the distance in peoples minds (most of us have forgotten that a nautical mile is longer than a mile - hence the 3.1 kilometre's ).

So the Iranians had to travel 6.2 km stopping mid way to carry out the kidnap.

This is a spectacular embarrassment for the Navy and Britain's NuLabour government.

Update: BBC web page now up - they quote the 1.7nm, interesting to see if they convert it to km as the day goes forward.

Further update: EU Referendum gets what I'm talking about here - as does Ann Winterton.

What's odd about the kidnapping of 15 British service people

There is a place for quiet diplomacy, but I am starting to think the government has been too quiet over the abduction of British personnel from Iraqi waters.

It could be diplomatic - but I'm starting to wonder. Think about it the Iraqi area of sea is quite small, but strategically crucial for the flow of oil out of Iraq. Given current tension with Iran it should be protected, airborne radar etc and intelligence looking all over it.

Rumour also has it that the Iranian abducted the service people well inside Iraqi waters, not just near the edge.

So how come the British and Americans had no assets that could:

1) Detect the incursion on its way in ?
2) Prevent them leaving with their prisoners ?

Is part of the reason that No10 and the NuLabour government has been so quiet not the masterful diplomacy that is hinted at, but some real embarrassment at their own failures.

If it turns out that the the incident happened well inside Iraqi waters then there was time for command decision to be referred to HMS Cornwall and perhaps even higher up the chain of command. Have any Journalists asked if political control was exercised as the incident took place - eg by Tony Blair himself here ? (They surely should have been aware of a possible wish by the Iranians to exchange prisoners with the Americans arrest of revolutionary guards for assisting in terrorism in Iraq.)

They seem to have been far to keen to play this quiet and as we now all know this government doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Update: An article on this in the DT here ends - there's something fishy here and certainly in Adam Ingram's answer:

Questions were asked in the House of Commons yesterday about whether Britain's rules of engagement in Iraq prevented the Cornwall from opening fire on the Iranians.

Adam Ingram, the Defence Minister, said: "There is too much speculation about what happened and what did not happen."

And further: Suppose the government does produce all the evidence that the abduction took place well inside Iraqi water - what that shows is they can take photos, but not control the area. Its like a CCTV camera with no police available on call out.