It is all so clear to me now and I must say that I feel like such a fool for having been so taken in by the pantomime of ‘co-operation’ that was put on by our 15 naval personnel for the benefit of their Iranian captors and the wider world. Yes, I use the word ‘pantomime’ because what we all perceived to be a humiliating milquetoast submission was, in fact, a mere ploy to disguise a fiendishly brilliant plan to kill all the Iranian Guards by means of death from dehydration as a result of relentless and uncontrollable vomiting:
That was the last time Arthur saw Faye for six days as they were both put in solitary. Guards tried to make Faye crack by cruelly telling her she was the last of the 15 being held captive.
But, speaking of the moment they were reunited, he told how he wept and begged the 26-year-old for a hug. Arthur said: “I missed Topsy most of all. I really love her, as amumand a big sister. Not seeing her and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the whole thing.
“Then on the sixth day, when I was just about giving up hope, I was pulled from my bed in the early hours of the morning.
“They led me down a corridor and into a room, where I saw Topsy in a corner.
“I can’t describe how that felt…just every emotion rolled into one. I ran up to her, threw my arms round her and cried like a baby.
“When I’d calmed down, she asked, ‘Do you need another hug, a mother hug?’ and I said, ‘damn right’. She was just as pleased to see me because they’d told her I’d been sent home.
“Topsy said she’d always be there for me, to protect me and look after me.
Here endeth the lesson, Ahmedinejad. Those Iranian johnnies will never again make the mistake of underestimating the heroic professionalism and grim resolve of the Royal Navy.
The Iranians, must indeed, be laughing their asses off. The best commentary I’ve seen. is this photoshop(Link)
I had kinda thought that (much to my surprise) we had won this and Iran had lost… Then I read this post.
Oh fuck!
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has more on this:
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=460
Jesus Christ on a pogostick. The Royal Navy may have lost the odd battle in its long history, but has it ever been so humiliated as now?
Wow. Just wow. I don’t think I really have the vocabulary to encompass how pathetic and sorry this is. I’d thought the taking of the sailors was humilating, but somehow this little turd upped the ante by opening his damned mouth.
“Topsy” and the whole “the Islamofascists stole my iPod!” nonsense makes my head reel. This jackass needs a serious curb stomping.
I do not withdraw a single word I said about this. The wife, also ex-RN, is spitting with fury every time she picks up a newspaper.
Heads should roll both in-Theatre and above all at M.O.D. Quite a few careers need to end as soon as possible.
Yes, it is horrible to see that people who are taken at gunpoint, held incommunicado by a country with a tradition of really bad behavior and told lies might feel emotional on being reunited.
Luckily, I know that all the desk jockeys at Samizdata would withstand anything that a captor could throw at them. We know this because they’re all so manly. We also know that, on being reunited with their fellow captives, they’d feel nothing but contempt for their fellows and spit at them, just to show how manly they are. “Put me back in solitary confinement!” they’d say, “I’m too macho to need the friendship of others.”
Sadly, most military training programs try to instill strong bonds of friendship and mutual protection among their front line soldiers, not realizing how much more effective it would be if they wanted to kill each other than if they thought of each other as family. Luckily, the experts at Samizdata shall soon set them right.
This video seems to make your arguments meaningless, Perry.
These people were captured by a hostile power, were not tortured, and yet willingly let themselves be used as propaganda tools by that hostile power. They gave no thought to their duties as sailors and marines, their own honor, or that of their country. When a POW, one sure as shit doesn’t go rummaging through gift bags, smile and mug for the cameras, and thank your captors for releasing you. Jesus Christ, I’d have thought that was self-evident.
And for the record, I am a veteran, and this is absolutely damningly shameful. These people all need to be court martialed, particularly their “officers”.
this and the comment “we didn’t fight for fear of causing an international incident” show that the northeastern quadrant of the planet is in deep trouble. god help you all when the democrats take over the US. maybe the ozzies will save you.
Squawkbox,
Well… The Dutch once sailed up the Thames and beat us.
Hank,
They also released him in an “obviously fake” Hugo Boss shirt.
Did I read it right? Does Topsy Turner also call her hubby “Topsy”?
lil’ Arthur clearly couldn’t get a fuck in a monkey whore-house if he had a sack full of bananas.
(Unless of course the Mirror “cuted-up” the story for the morons who normally read that lower digestive tract organ of the press).
Whither from here? Are we going to fight the “War of Batchelor’s iPod”?
Jesus Christ on a pogo-stick. Yeah, and the Holy Ghost on a Segway.
And the MoD authorised the blabbing of this?
I am just INCREDIBLY disappointed by this lad. Faye is just, if not more to blame – giving hugs?
p.s. and what of carrying an iPod on active duty?
TimC,
There’s nothing wrong with “giving hugs”. It’s the publicizing of this and making the whole episode sound like “Day fourteen in the Big Brother House” that I object to. This is just an appalling emotion splurge. A simple, factual account (under military censorship) would be fine and probably useful in showing the IRG up for the bunch of tossers they are. Something like the account Lt Felix Wassisname gave a few days ago is the sort of thing I’m talking about.
In short, it’s the absolute lack of dignity that is appalling.
You’re dead right about the iPod though. I was always under the impression that taking personal items on a sortie was banned.
This just keeps getting worse, or more ridiculous. I can’t decide which.
Unbelievable.
Mirabile dictu, in this case, I generally agree with Perry Metzger, although I could do without the sarcasm.
Focusing on these young soldiers’ behavior is losing sight of the truly serious problems that this entire situation actually brings right to center stage.
For decades now, we have told our young people that all the old values are passe’ and should be replaced with a “new consciousness”.
The stiff upper lip should loosen up. Real men can cry. Don’t hide your feelings. Values are determined by your feelings about the current situation, not some dry, abstract rules laid down generations ago. Use of force is always suspect, even in self-defense.
Life is the most important thing, especially the lives of hostages and captives, which trump duty, honor, and even country. A soldier’s real loyalty is to his or her fellows, not some distant Queen or national ideal.
And, above all, caution. Caution, caution, caution. Don’t do anything rash, don’t precipitate an incident, don’t start any trouble, don’t “shoot first and ask questions later”, don’t be a cowboy.
Go with the flow. And so they did.
They’re our children, these young marines. We raised them, taught them, instructed them in what we wanted them to be, hugs, and tears, and caution, and all, right down to running out and cashing in on their 15 minutes. Always get the cash, and get as much as you can, as quick as you can.
It doesn’t matter if you’re fighting and screaming on Jerry Springer—you’re still a celebrity.
Good, bad, or indifferent, these are the chickens who have come home to roost.
If you don’t like what you see, it’s not the fault of the products, it’s the process that made them what they have become.
Since time immemorial, elders have asked, “What’s the matter with these kids, today?”
Want to see the problem clearly? Go look in the mirror.
Perry M, there is some truth in your commentary. None of us has been abducted. Of equal importance, though, and to take VR’s opinion from a slightly different angle, we are probably significantly older than the returnees.
Age helps us see that we are probably better off keeping mum in unexpected situations. As evidence, I have not seen any mea culpa interviews from Whitehall. And it is not because the mandarins were necessarily raised by a better society. It is certainly not because they better embody the spirit of Nelson.
Even though they know they are the ones really to blame for this fiasco, the admirals and ministers are letting their juniors take the heat again for this–as in Iran, now at home. Every inappropriate grin and anecdote by the abductees makes their “leadership” more likely to reach full retirement.
When I was probably the age of those abductees, a corporate vice president once admitted to me that the people who rise to the top are those who deserve it least. I am glad I did not understand it at the time. Age also helps one get through disillusionment. Too bad those abductees have had to learn so young how little they count for in the eyes of their masters.
Thamk you veryretired – exactly
For the ten billionth time these people were not POWs.
It is very regrettable that they have chosen, and been allowed, to sell their stories in this way.
Since their actions while captive were sensible, but not heroic, their stories are likely to be mundane, tedious and trivial, as this excerpt was. I don’t know what’s worse, selling your mundane tale to a half-witted public who think misfortune makes heroes out of everyone, or getting in a steaming huff over someone else doing so.
Funny how some people prefer it when servicemen in a high pressure environment decide to save their lives by opening fire on all and sundry, rather than when they try to save their lives my telling some lies to Iranian TV.
A lot of people who are quick to forgive soldiers for killing civilians in the heat of the moment seem pretty slow to forgive these sailors and marines. Better to err on the side of killing people, eh?
As for the armchair warriors complaining that these snivelling little oiks had the temerity to live, rather than die honourably for the fatherland – please lead by example.
veryretired,
What you say isn’t the whole truth. The elders are to blame ? Of course, but the young ones too.
It’s like the modern mantra – that criminals are not to blame for the crimes they commit – it’s the environment they grew up in – the root causes, poverty, etc.
I don’t buy it. Where’s personal responsibility ?
Whatever the (abundant) sins of the elders – the young ones are’t blameless.
Crying “shame” is justified (whoever is to blame).
Hey, idiot: we’re not the ones putting on the pretense of being soldiers.
J, you have raised so many straw men in that comment you are probably eligible for some sort of agricultural subsidy.
Yes, they weren’t POWs, so I will rephrase the sentence which so offended you.
“When a kidnap victim, one sure as shit doesn’t go rummaging through gift bags, smile and mug for the cameras, and thank your captors for releasing you”
What have your ravings about soldiers opening fire on all and sundry got to do with anything. Do they relate to any particular incident, or are you just venting?
And no one has said that the fifteen sailors should have died honourably – merely that they should at least have tried to give the impression that they were acting under duress.
Jacob –
I think there’s a difference. If you bring your children up to be greedy, and because of their greed they steal, then the crime is still their fault, even if the root cause of it is (in some sense) the fault of the parents.
But if you bring your children up to believe that stealing is right and proper and everyone does it, then it is not the fault of the child when they steal, because they did not even know they were doing anything wrong.
The issue here is that these soldiers do not consider their behaviour dishonourable. It’s not a case of them thinking that dishonour is a fair price for self preservation – they don’t think there’s anything dishonourable in what they did. And since dishonour is very much a relative concept, determined by your peers, I’m inclined to agree with them.
My initial gut reaction when they first appeared on TV was that they had behaved badly. After listening to many serving and ex-forces people, I’ve changed my mind. They behaved professionally. Modern professional soldiering may be less heroic than it’s old fashioned counterpart, but it is probably rather more effective.
More VCs were awarded during the Great War than in any other conflict, but looking back, do you think it was worth it?
Perry — Metzger — I’d be a bit careful about throwing personal insults. Some of the folk on this thread have served in the forces or been in some pretty dangerous parts of the world, like Mr de Havilland (the Balkans).
Ad hominem arguments do not work around here, so I’d shove it. The behaviour of these service folk has caused outrage not just among “desk jockeys” but among members of the armed forces.
Well this old ex-forces person would have to disagree with every word of that. That they were captured reflect poorly on their superiors who put them in that situation without suitable tactical care and those are the real villains on our side as far as I am concerned
Their subsequent behaviour upon being captured did not have to be “heroic”, but they do have an obligation not to defame their own government unless under extreme duress and nothing I have heard indicates that they were under extreme duress. I personally know people who have been through a great deal worse and done a great deal better.
As people keep pointing out, we are not at war with Iran officially, so realistically they should have realised there were limited even the Iranians would not have gone beyond and that should have helped them act with more restraint. Although I have also seen worse under worse conditions, their behaviour was not creditable in any way.
Squawkbox,
“When a kidnap victim, one sure as shit doesn’t go rummaging through gift bags, smile and mug for the cameras, and thank your captors for releasing you”
They weren’t technically kidnap victims either. And kidnap victims are recommended to cooperate if they believe it will help them be released.
J,
Faye Turney said afterwards that she did feel like a traitor for writing the letter, but they were following the orders/guidelines they had been given by the Navy. And however much the military values bravery under fire, it values obeying orders even more.
Johnathan,
Your views on personal insults made against the RN 15? I know of a few service folk fairly outraged over the personal attacks on them and the service generally, as well as others who think as you do. It’s one that seems to have polarised the community.
OJT,
Agree about the tactical error of missing the possibility of an Iranian snatch. I’m sure you know how operational risk assessments go. After doing a basic non-combat peacetime operation in nominally friendly waters 66 times without incident, you can get complacent. It’s easy to assume that if you follow the rules, the other side has to as well. I have no doubt there is an extensive review of security going on to make sure it doesn’t happen again, but that’s cold comfort after the event.
I’m sure the Iranians are well aware of how taciturn, non-cooperative “confessions” would look and wouldn’t have settled for them. If there are any, they would have been edited out. Which means that “cooperating if it will get you out” means a bit more acting, and the hope that your own side are a bit more trusting of your judgement than to think you’re really pleased and excited to get a bag of books on Islam.
I gather that even Robert Fisk didn’t believe the confessions were genuine, and as such I suggest they would be on a level with a clearly non-cooperative version. Indeed, possibly more so, since happy smiley people in the custody of the Iranians are a lot less believable. I find it sad that so many of us take the face-value of Iranian propaganda more seriously than the man who is a byword for deranged moonbattery.
I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on this. I agree that it hasn’t helped our image any (for whatever reason), but I hope the anger it has generated can be channelled into something constructive.
First on the only partly related kidnap point.
A person should not cooperate with kidnappers – one should fight or run (even if the situation seems hopeless). And one should (if kidnapped) take any chance to try and get away or fight back (even if the chance is a very slim one indeed).
This is because modern kidnappers (whatever may have been the case in the past) are not likely to let you go (whatever they say).
Sometimes a person is kidnapped for sex – and after the rape will be killed (the death do not testify).
But even people who are supposedly kidnapped for money will often be abused and killed – this is a tradition in many Latin American counties (although it tends to be ignored by most Hollywood films as it does not fit the Hollywood agenda of poor people good, rich people bad).
It is a rather like the 9/11 plane captures.
On three of the aircraft people followed the official advice, but on the fourth they sensed that the official advise was B.S. and died fighting.
“But they still died” – I think people can understand that there is a valid difference.
On the 15. [by the way we may not be “at war” with Iran, but the Iranian regime has been at war with infidels in general and the Great and Little Satans in particular since in came to power in 1979 – if our political and military leaders do not understand that they are unfit for their positions].
Actually pet names (“topsy” is a name that is given to a pet rabbit) are a tradition in some parts of the British military. As is soft playful language (I stress again some parts of the military).
The use of such names and language in no way implies that the person using these words is soft – indeed they may be hard as nails.
However, talking about all this is not part of the tradition. Indeed this tradition is part of understatement.
For example (in this tradition) “we are in some difficulty” or “things are get a bit sticky” means “we are being overrun and are all going to die”.
Nor does using pet names and soft language mean someone is homosexual (not the same thing as being soft – some homosexuals are very tough indeed).
For example, “dear”, “sweetheart” (and so on) are to be found in letters and journals from many men involved in World War One – and these men were not homosexuals.
However, surrendering without fireing a shot, saying anything one’s captors tell one to say, and then selling one’s story to the newspapers and other media………..
Well (as I will no doubt be told) all of this was official policy – the 15 only did what they were ordered to do.
But I do not like this modern practice (“you would not behave any better” – perhaps so, but so what?).
Whereas I do not mind at all if people (male of female) call each other “topsy” and give each other hugs. Although it did not use to be the practice to go and tell the world about such things.
As for hugs – some of the most bravest men in history hugged before their execution (and no they were not homosexuals).
It was once called “the final embrace, before the embrace of death”.
Of course has anyone considered how traumatic this must have been for the poor Iranian Republican Guardsmen involved in
torturingconsoling those poor Royal Marines and Navy personnel? I mean, it can’t exactly have been easy for them to come up on 2 patrol vessels filled to the brim with cut-throat infidel pirates invading Iranian waters and it must have been so traumatizing to have to give their captives the illusion that they were about to be killed. I feel the medal awarded to the IRG commander was richly deserved and I do feel that he is fully entitled to sell his story to Tehran Goatherder’s Monthly, despite what the Iranian Defence Ministry says.If the net result of this affair is that a group of young soldiers becomes the military equivalent of the “Black Sox” in baseball history, then I think an opportunity has been lost.
If the microscope under which these soldiers are currently being scrutinized could be shifted to the political and military authorities that put them in this position, didn’t support them, and, apparently, didn’t train them particularly well, either, then, as Pa says, something constructive might come of it all.
If, even more, it could spark a serious debate on the feminization of men, the abandonment of the warrior ethic, and the calamitous results of discarding centuries old traditions in favor of trendy, feel good BS, then Christmas will truly have arrived in April.
Yes, men and women, (even children, to some extent), are responsible for their actions, and the contents of their characters and value systems. But the culture that surrounded them has a role to play also, and the current confused mishmash of emotional fluff, value-free morality, and metrosexual, multicultural, nothing really means anything too firmly, and nothing is worth suffering and dying for mentality has a lot to answer for.
As I have said here many times, if an educational system consistently turns out multitudes of uneducated people, it’s not the teachers in the classroom who have failed, but the structure that trains them, and provides the curriculum they are sent into the classroom to teach.
Just like with computers, GIGO.
Much the same seems to be the case here.
While flogging these marines might be satisfying to some extent, it won’t address the true problems, both in the military and the larger society. That will require a thoughtful discussion of what has gone wrong, and what needs to be done to remedy the situation.
I would certainly hope that that discussion would focus on more significant issues than a terrified young woman wearing a scarf, or whether some young soldiers said or did something inapropriate.
If there are termites in the woodwork, a coat of paint does very little good to save the structure.
I missed Topsy most of all. I really love her, as amumand a big sister. Not seeing her and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the whole thing.
Overprotective of the females in the unit? Increased emotional involvement because they are female? Funny, I know several current Royal Marine Captains who believe this is the precise reason why females should be kept off the front line. I wonder what Captain Air thinks?
J, you have raised so many straw men in that comment you are probably eligible for some sort of agricultural subsidy.
LOL!!!
Yes, but ‘child‘ is the operative word there: as the child grows older, he/she realises that theft creates misery for others and is wrong. And indeed we’re not talking about children here. We’re talking about grown men and women with experience of the world: they didn’t join up as tabulae rasae. Whether they were following the Navy’s orders or not, they’d have had their own private view of the merits or otherwise of the way things played out. And their comments since release suggest that this view was less than flattering.
I think Old Jack Tar put his finger on why:
Whilst we’re deluding ourselves if we assume that we’d all be death-or-glory tough guys were we unfortunate enough to be captured, I think what most people would expect is that they would at least be able to offer something in the way of passive resistance: one doesn’t have to be Rambo — or even Gandhi — but it is not unreasonable to hope for something more than smiling complaisance.
Finally, the point about “chickens coming home to roost” is well taken, and it’s true that these people wouldn’t be gushing to reporters and selling their stories were it not for the modern zeitgeist of Jerry Springer et al. However, as I say, people might indeed “go with the flow”, but it doesn’t mean that they really believe in it. They may well think it wretched, and be cursing themselves for allowing it to override their scruples.
It’s amazing how fast this unravelling of the armed forces has occurred. Remember the behaviour on TV of the downed Tornado pilots John Peters and John Nicol? There were no heroics, but despite their situation being far more dire than the 15 in Iran, they at least behaved like military men and kept some sort of dignity about them.
10 years of New Labour and we’re reduced to, as someone has pointed out, nothing more than a variation of Big Brother.
It is utterly, utterly, pathetic. I guess it’s why I like reading British history so much, it’s less depressing than the present. And the lack of this Diana-syndrome I-feel-your-pain crap which is ever present in the UK is one of the reasons why living in Russia is in many ways rather refreshing.
“they do have an obligation not to defame their own government unless under extreme duress…Whilst we’re deluding ourselves if we assume that we’d all be death-or-glory tough guys…”
Can you imagine the lengths they would have to go to in order to get anyone from here to defame their own government? The very thought!
ROFL
Sorry. That just suddenly struck me as very funny; the idea that to defame ones own government could be seen here as a terrible sin. I will be interested to see how everybody treats the next person to come in here defaming our government under insufficient duress. Is hanging too good for them? 🙂
I am all for defaming the government and I would hardly come to somewhere like this site if such a notion was disagreeable to me. In fact this site has been quite revelation to this old sailor.
However I no longer wear the uniform.
When I did, I had to hold myself to a very different standard that the one which is now appropriate.
If a person is not willing to try damn hard to hold themselves to that sort of standard in adversity, they should get out and find another job they are more suited for everyone’s good because the profession of arms is much more than “just a job”.
If someone is not willing to keep their mouth shut for their country, they are probably not truly reconciled to the idea of killing or dying for it either.
Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson is reputed to have said “Kiss me Hardy” to his fellow officer,he did at least had the decency to be fatally wounded.
a “mother hug”?
It’s reassuring to think that I’m not the first to feel the feeling I did reading that. I guess others in past great civilizations probably felt the same thing at times prior to their collapse.
“However I no longer wear the uniform.”
Nor claim any special authority from having done so? 🙂
I have to say, the service personnel I know have never seemed very shy about publicly defaming our government while still serving. Just mention SA80s, and you’ll get a diatribe. Although I know what you mean – there are limits.
I wasn’t being serious in my last comment, but to follow up on the point – if you hold such a belief, and yet still choose to serve, why is it important that you not say what you think?
If it is because of the extra damage you do your own side because of your position, is that so much less as an ex-member? After all, the media often call on ex-members of the forces as experts and authorities, and they are generally respected as such. And if such criticisms are damaging in themselves rather than for who says it, then does it not apply to civilians just as much?
If it is because of the rules of military discipline, are such rules wise? Protecting the reputation of the government is immoral and eventually self-discrediting if such is not deserved, and is not progress best served by the open truth?
It is a tricky issue. Jimmy Carter can go round the world making such statements, which hold far greater weight for being of his own free will, and yet that is freedom of speech. I wouldn’t stop him doing it for the world, and believe the fact that we tolerate that sort of thing is a sign of our strength and not our weakness. It hurts us, and it can be used as propaganda by the other side, but the hurt is not considered that big a deal. If it is not such a big deal when done voluntarily that we feel the need to do anything about it, it should be less so forced. And yet it is quite apparent from the present reaction, which is widespread, that this is not so. I find that very interesting.
if you hold such a belief, and yet still choose to serve, why is it important that you not say what you think
Even though I am a firm believer in the right of free speech, I believe that the voluntary acceptance of certain positions of responsibility (from which you can resign at any time) render your rights to speak on certain subjects invalid for the period of time you hold that responsibility.
I work in the oil industry on Sakhalin Island. Were I to start exercising my right to free speech and publish inside information regarding Shell’s activities here, I would expect my bosses would have me removed from my current position in short order – and rightly so. If I want to wax lyrical on Shell in Sakhalin, I cannot expect at the same time to work for a company whose relationship and trust with Shell is essential for their commercial success. However, I should be allowed to resign from my position and say whatever I want. I also do not think the effective gagging should incude to political or non-relevant comments. But there is point at which spouting ones opinions will prevent you from doing the job you are paid to do, and the employer should be able to remove you on the grounds of poor performance.
One of the things which really annoys me about Craig Murray being held aloft as a champion of free speech is the way he misunderstood his position of ambassador to Uzbekistan to the point where he felt criticising the Karimov regime was within the remit of an ambassador. What he never realised was that the job of criticising Karimov is the job of any number of politicians, civil servants, or NGOs, and many of them did just that. But the job of an ambassador is never, ever, to criticise the regime, but instead to work diplomatically with it, no matter how unsavoury that may seem. In mouthing off from his post as ambassador, Murray prevented himself from carrying out the job that an ambassador is supposed to do, hence he got fired. He didn’t get fired for speaking his mind, he got fired for incompetence in his role as an ambassador. Any British citizen unfortunate enough to have been looking for consular support in Uzbekistan at the time would have found that diplomatic relations had been severed by Murray’s actions, against the wished of the British government who was paying him to represent their position.
Bad enough that the whole hostage thing was allowed to happen. Heads should roll that service personnel were put in a position where it did. Do they get any training as to what to do if they are captured by a regime like this? If not they ought to.
But to have to listen to what now seems to be coming out, is deeply embarrassing, one would have though almost anyone would have had more self respect.
What were the Navy thinking about when they agreed to it?
Bad enough that the whole hostage thing was allowed to happen. Heads should roll that service personnel were put in a position where it did. Do they get any training as to what to do if they are captured by a regime like this? If not they ought to.
But to have to listen to what now seems to be coming out, is deeply embarrassing, one would have though almost anyone would have had more self respect.
What were the Navy thinking about when they agreed to it?
I am not too keen on those, either, seeing as you ask, PA. I have not said it is right to insult such people. As for other commenters, including Thaddus, they can presumably speak for themselves. My problem was with Perry Metzger playing the “your views don’t count as you are sitting comfortably in front of a computer” sneer that we get, a sort of variation on the “chickenhawk” argument made by people who presumably think that civilians are not allowed to hold hawkish views on foreign policy.
Tim,
Thank you for that. Would you distinguish privileged insider information that you had been entrusted with and could cost your company, and merely bad PR, where you moan, as anyone could, about your company’s public strategy or business practices?
Because these people decided to say more or less what was asked of them, but say they didn’t divulge any classified information.
Johnathan,
Thank you also. I agree about the chickenhawk argument, and it could probably be interpreted that way. I think it was intended to be a “we’re all only human” argument – not to say that one has no right to comment or advocate a course of action unless willing to do it oneself, but that the proposal doesn’t take into account human nature, and is addressed at some sort of unrealistic heroic ideal.
People are emotional, soldiers included, although we like to pretend they’re not. Soldiers in their first real danger get scared. Listen to the stories from WWII, and one of the things that stands out is how much they talk of how scared they were at first – it is only later that they get numb to it all and do all the John Wayne stuff.
One would hope that ex-service people of all people would understand how they felt, although I can understand their disgust at letting it all hang out like that in the newspapers. I used to work across the corridor from someone who was on HMS Sheffield in the Falklands when he was younger, when it was set alight. He worked in the ops-room about five decks and innumerable hatches and ladders down. And yes, he was a professional and didn’t talk about it much (it was years before I even knew about it). But knowing him, I cannot imagine him laying into some 20 year old kid who’s lip had gone a bit wobbly the first time in. He understood.
I think the point being made was that the image is unrealistic, and that the views here show evidence of having had no contact with the I’m-going-to-die sort of warfare. Everybody thinks that sort of professionalism is natural to any red-blooded young man, or that the training somehow instils it into you, but it isn’t and doesn’t. Only experience does. “Desk-jockey” is a term applied to military personnel as well.
I think the reason for the syrupy nature of the newspaper article being complained about is that these youngsters are being advised by tabloid journalists, who know about good stories that sell papers, rather than military veterans, who know what to say and what not to. I think they’re in for a hard time.
Mostly I think this is all about the shattering of illusions.
Would you distinguish privileged insider information that you had been entrusted with and could cost your company, and merely bad PR, where you moan, as anyone could, about your company’s public strategy or business practices?
Yes, I would. But both can be grounds for dismissal. Were I to publicly moan about my company’s business practices on my blog, which many of my clients’ employees read, I could be bringing the company into disrepute to a degree which would render my doing so a sackable offence. There is no generalisation here, it all depends upon the nature of what’s being said.
Seriously, does anyone not know this?
Quite. As should we. And I think most do: the contributors above might sound stern and angry but this doesn’t mean they have no compassion. The problem here wasn’t so much the effects of nerves: it was, as you put it, “letting it all hang out like that” after the event. And you’re right; the media must shoulder a large part of the blame for the spectacle. But the question still remains as to why the naval personnel themselves thought it acceptable to “let it all hang out”. As I said earlier, the social climate (or even their training) may condone it implicitly — even explicitly — but they are adults with minds of their own. They are not children.
No, they don’t! Who said that?! I imagine that even the most armchair-bound of “desk-jockeys” here will have at least some idea of how soldiers crack in wartime. I’m pretty sure that a fair number of contributors would have read the horrifying “Shot At Dawn” testimonies. And all but the most fatuous egotist would realise that they themselves could have “funked it” in similar circumstances and ended up facing a firing squad.
Finally, I refer you to Tim’s comment:
It’s not unreasonable to hope for something more than “a variation of Big Brother“. And when our servicemen or women do have a failure of nerve, please let’s not use it as a cue to celebrate our touchy-feelyness. I agree that ideals are usually going to be unreachable — almost by definition — but civilised nations need some behavioural benchmark at which to aim if they’re to avoid disappearing into the black hole of history. Decadence always spells doom.
And at a time when our enemies monitor our implosion closely, the last thing that we need is a clear demonstration of just how deep the rot has gone.
One wonders how this lot would have fared at, say, Changi.
My guess is that not one would have made it past the first month.
But it’s just a guess.
I know Flying Officer Archibald Ives “The Mole” got a bit emotional in The Great Escape, chucking himself into the wire, but I can’t imagine Squadron Leader Roger Bartlett “Big X” allowing this sort of blubbering nonsense on his watch, especially with Professionals Boss Gordon Jackson on his shoulder.
Ok, so that was semi-fictional RAF operation, but within living memory we had the naval heroes of St. Nazaire storming Fortress Europe in flimsy balsa-wood boats to prevent the Tirpitz from marauding into the Atlantic and thus starving Britain into an ignominious surrender.
What would the hundreds of navy personnel who were killed or captured at St. Nazaire have thought of the current shower in the same naval uniforms? Would they have bothered storming ashore into a blistering hail of Wehrmacht machine-gun fire if they’d realised what kind of an emotionally-incontinent future it was they were defending?
Whatever happened to British ‘sang froid’? As Del Boy might have put it, it all seems to have gone a bit ‘menage a trois’.
Jack, and to some extent Kim,
I already explained. First time out, everyone is scared. After you’ve done it fifty or a hundred times and survived, then you get the sang froid. I’m sure if this lot did it again, they’d do it better. Life is a learning process, and it is cheating to pick the most famous stories of heroism at the end of the process to compare with.
And who knows? If they hadn’t been ordered to play along, for perfectly sound strategic reasons, but instead to resist for as long as possible, then maybe they would have given you an example more in line with your expectations.
“When I’d calmed down, she asked, ‘Do you need another hug, a mother hug?’ and I said, ‘damn right’….. Topsy said she’d always be there for me, to protect me and look after me.”
How inspiring it must be for potential recruits to the Royal Navy to hear such tales of heroism.
I feel sick.
I don’t mind the little fellow being scared, but I do object to him trousering £100 grand and exposing the Royal Navy to abject ridicule in the process. His so-called story is absolutely sick making, and I’m sure our present and future enemies are laughing themselves silly at the thought of people like him representing the Royal Navy. If I lived in the Falkland Islands I’d buy a Spanish dictionary sharpish.
“More VCs were awarded during the Great War than in any other conflict, but looking back, do you think it was worth it?”
Late comment from me but…
My name starts with a Z and is very German. But for those useless VC winners and their comrades, you would be calling me Herr Z in a low and respectful tone while I screwed your sister and took your home and most of your money.
Losing a war has consequences.
Geddit, Dumbkopf?