Iraq: By their fruits shall you know them

So who the group ISIS really serve ?

Well we can apply some advice from the Son of God on this one:

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰ Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7:15-20

Harry not off to Iraq

Prince Harry is not to serve in Iraq - the news has just flashed up on my screen.

At last some common bloody sense seems to have taken hold in the MOD and with the government.

What were they thinking of in the first place ? It was an obviously suicidally stupid idea in the first place - so that'll be a NuLabour idea then ....(But with Blair, Browne and Reid back peddling so the military would take the blame for their failure to protect the crown and its line of succession.)

Other blog reactions here:

Paul Hurst - thinks what kind of message does this send to the families of those who died in Iraq. He is also not the first person to suggest sending Tony Blair instead !
Lastingtwilight - thinks its a bit of a shame for Harry, and wimpy of the armed forces.
Ron Lyre, over at the Strumpet blog thinks its the insurgents that are getting of lightly - given Prince Hal's well deserved reputation in nightclubs etc ..
Corpus Juris wonders if anyone is surprised due to the obvious problem of Harry's deployment. (Quite).
Robert Fox over at The First Post thinks (and he's usually well informed) its the Iranian threat that has finally convinced the Army. Somehow Tony Balir has managed to spin it that he gets why he shouldn't be sent - ( well I remember Blair saying he could see not reason why he shouldn't go. )
Cranmer puts it all into his perspective, a feels a little sorry for Harry.

It is the duty of HM Government to say no to Harry

It looks like the British Army is having second thoughts about sending prince Harry to Iraq ( who is 3rd in line to the throne ).

I say about time. A little thought shows why. Three things need to be considered:

1. What would the consequences be of Harry being captured/killed be ?
2. Do the insurgents and their various nation state backers have the capability to capture Harry ?
3. How likely is it.

The answers are - 1) if we are lucky they would at best hold him to ransom and a public relations fiasco that would make the Navy's someone stole my iPod experience pale into insignificance would follow. Or, more likely, they would slaughter Harry in their usual sadistic way and post the video on Youtube.
2) Yes and they have clearly demonstrated this recently.
3) Quite likely. Given the draw down of British forces in Iraq those remaining become more vulnerable. Do we really trust the Iraqi army that much ?

It seems to me that prince Harry's pride will have to take a bit of a knock (I have no doubt he's a brave young man) for the good of his country.

HM Government clearly has little choice, if it is to take its duties seriously, and must refuse to send Harry. This is not the same as the Falklands with Prince Andrew.

Not that this has occurred to Blair, who's been on radio getting things very mixed up again. He's saying if Harry stays or goes is not up to him ( reported from Radio Stafford ?). Well it is exactly up to him. One of his prime duties is to protect the monarch and their potential successors to the throne. (Though with Cherie refusing to curtsey to the Queen and the usual NuLabour believing they are themselves monarchy you can see how confused he gets).

If Harry feels very strongly he should relinquish his claim on the throne and become a commoner. Then I don't see how he could be refused. Otherwise he has to stay outside of Iraq.

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.