British Crew Sells Stories (and credibility?) to Media

As a brief follow-up to my post Friday about the "psychologically pressured" British crew recently held captive in Iran, their actions since being released have only provided further evidence of their softness compared with past generations who suffered in POW camps in other wars.

This morning, SkyNews reported that some crew members have been selling their stories to the eager media, ensuring their instant celebrity status and fattening their wallets. British Ministry of Defense officials are now scrambling, attempting to determine what, if anything, can be done to restrict military personnel from selling their stories to the media and personally benefiting financially while remaining in military service. The decision was made in this case to allow the crew to sell their stories because of the "exceptional circumstances" they endured.

Critics of the Ministry's decision to allow the sale of the crew's stories rightly argue that stories sold for money are likely to be exaggerated in order to make the ordeal sound more "newsworthy."

The precedent set by the released crew is a dangerous one, as it is clear that Iran will be emboldened by Britain's lack of substantive response to the kidnapping and holding of its military personnel, as I described in Friday's post. One wonders how many war veterans who truly suffered as POWs never benefited even one penny from their ordeals, and more importantly, never expected such compensation.

From a propaganda perspective, the international community will find it increasingly difficult to condemn Iran for its actions when the kidnapped crew appears to be in many respects better off for their experience as hostages. Iran appears to have won the military and propaganda campaigns in this confrontation with Britain, and Britain's national security may be the ultimate loser as a result. The hostages, all smiles for the cameras, shook Ahmadinejad's hand and depositing royalty checks into their bank accounts for describing their ordeals encountered while performing military service. No punishment for Ahmadinejad and Iran, and no restraint on the returned hostages.

The contrast between the British crew and Douglas Bader and Admiral Stockdale is stark indeed.

Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors "Not An Option": Heroic POWs in History Considered it the Only Option

A lot has been stated and written about the conduct of the British sailors and Royal marines held hostage by Iran until their release Wednesday after 13 days. Critics have argued that the sailors’ behavior was disgraceful, that apologies and confessions came too quickly and too easily, and that posing for pre-release smiling photos with Iranian President Ahmadinejad ran contrary to the expected British military code of conduct for prisoners. Defenders of the sailors and marines countered these criticisms by warning that at that time it was unknown what, if any, coercive tactics were employed by the Iranians to secure the apologies and confessions, nor were any of the captured personnel extensively trained in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) techniques (hat tip to Spook86 at In From the Cold).

This morning the crew, safely returned and prepped by British officials for a press conference, spoke publicly about their 13 day ordeal and specified the interrogation tactics utilized by the Iranians to “force” the apologies and confessions. BBC reported that the sailors and marines were isolated from each other at times, and were stripped and subject to random interrogation. One marine described being blindfolded and lined up against a wall while interrogators ominously cocked firearms. An excerpt from the BBC report of the press conference follows:

They were also subject to random interrogation and rough handling, and faced constant psychological pressure.

In a joint statement the crew also stressed that they were inside Iraqi waters at the time of the capture.

Royal Marine Captain Chris Air said it became apparent that opposing their captors was "not an option."

"If we had, some of us would not be here today, of that I am completely sure," he said.

"We realised that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won and with consequences major strategic impacts.

“We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do as they asked," he said….

The officer in charge Lt Carman said: "We were interrogated most nights, and presented with two options.

"If we admitted we had strayed, we would be on a plane back to the UK soon. If we didn't we faced up to seven years in prison".

Keeping in mind that these sailors and marines were held hostage for 13 days, and that I have never faced that unnerving and terrifying situation, I believe it is fair to point out the contrast between how this young British crew conducted themselves in captivity for only 13 days with how others, who faced actual physical torture for years and suffered permanently disfiguring injuries as a result, acted much more honorably and admirably under worse circumstances. I do not imply that I would fare any better in captivity than the British crew did. The comparison is not with me but with many military veterans who have far more horrific tales to tell and did not obtain freedom after confessions or photo opportunities with captors.

For behavioral comparisons between these young Brits and war veterans who were POWs, Spy The News refers readers to Spook86’s excellent post today at In From the Cold, titled “Remembering Douglas Bader and Admiral Stockdale.” Bader, a pilot in the Royal Air Force, lost both legs in the 1930s but with prosthetic limbs became a fighter pilot in WWII. He was shot down and spent nearly 4 years in German POW facilities. He never stopped attempting to escape, despite his physical limitations. Stockdale, a Medal of Honor winner, worked tirelessly to reduce the torture inflicted on other American POWs in Vietnam through leadership by example. He disfigured his face by beating himself so he could not be used in North Vietnamese propaganda films made to fool the world into believing the POWs were being treated well in the camps. His repeated attempts to harm and kill himself rather than submit to his captor’s demands eventually worked to discourage the North Vietnamese from some of their more brutal torture and interrogation tactics as they saw his determination never to acquiesce with their demands for confessions or information.

Reading about these two men, and I would add to their heroic examples the experiences and resistance displayed by former POW Senator John McCain, the contrasts between them, could not be more evident. After only 13 days of isolation, as opposed to years of that dreaded treatment, and hearing guns cocked as they were blindfolded, the young British crew decided that opposing their captors “was not an option.” Baden, Stockdale, McCain, and thousands of POWs certainly felt that opposing their captors was the ONLY option, and to do otherwise would bring shame and dishonor to themselves and the military they represented.

I encourage readers to read about two of these men at In From the Cold, and to learn about Senator McCain’s experiences in his memoir, Faith of My Fathers. McCain candidly described the extensive and lengthy torture he endured before, much to his shame even today, he broke and provided a “confession” of his “war crimes” against the North Vietnamese. He provided them nothing of intelligence value, but the forced confession from an Admiral’s son was valuable for propaganda purposes. Comparing what he endured with what today’s British crew experienced for, in comparison, a mere 13 days prior to confessing to captors. The British officer in charge, Lieutenant Carman, made it clear that neither of the two options given to them by their Iranian captors included death or unspeakable physical torture. Instead they faced up to 7 years in prison if they would not comply, and speedy return to Britain if they would confess to having been in Iranian waters when captured. They chose the latter, with, by POW standards, minimal coercion.

What are Britain’s enemies to think when British military personnel make statements such as “fighting back was simply not an option?” Terrorists and others will likely view British military personnel worldwide as compliant and valuable as hostages, thus increasing the likelihood that more of them will be targeted in the future. Had they resisted and proven themselves determined and willing to endure interrogation rather than comply with terrorists (and let’s not cloud that issue with the fact that it was the Iranian military that seized them: the military of a terror sponsoring state consists of terrorists), they might have been harmed physically, and possibly even killed, but terrorists would have been reminded that they face a strong and fiercely unbending foe. Unfortunately the terrorists learned that seizing British sailors and marines results in no repercussions. Ahmadinejad smiled along with their happy, clean, adequately fed faces.

If British Lieutenant Carman had been Admiral Stockdale, he would have bashed his own face into a bruised, swollen mess and encouraged his fellow crew members to do the same once they were returned to each other after isolation a few nights before their release. Stockdale would never have allowed himself to be used to pose with Ahmadinejad in front of the Iranian media. Rather than submit to such a spectacle he would have beaten himself to a pulp, to condemn and embarrass his kidnapper. No such heroic tactics from this crew, however. Instead, they confessed to something they did not do (enter Iranian waters), apologized for doing what they did not do, and then smiled through their grip and grin session with Ahmadinejad, a terrorist sponsoring, holocaust-denying Hitler figure who was one of the main perpetrators of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis.

Having returned from captivity, the British crew fielded questions at this morning’s press conference and described the intimidating interrogations that caused them to confess and comply with their captors. While I am glad they are safe and have returned to their families and friends, I am wary of the message their minimal resistance has sent to Ahmadinejad and other terrorist sponsors about the current resolve of the British people. PM Tony Blair has done what he can in the War on Terror while hamstrung by British anti-war sentiment and his own liberal political policies. He is a lame duck prime minister now, and there is no Winston Churchill waiting in the wings to end the drift toward appeasement that characterized the British response to this hostage crisis. Britain should beware the consequences that will result from being perceived as weak and incapable of enduring discomfort.

What prompted Ahmadinejad to release the hostages Wednesday? There are several theories being tossed around in the media, but the one that seems most likely and that I would credit for Iran’s “goodwill gesture” is the rapid approach to the Persian Gulf of a third U.S. carrier group led by the USS Nimitz. Already staring down the barrels of two carrier groups in the Gulf, the addition of a third carrier group is certainly an unnerving situation for Iran, which appears to have released the hostages in an attempt to diffuse international hostility while Iran negotiates its nuclear programs.

With three carrier groups in the Gulf and numerous air bases in Iraq, Iran seems to have read the writing on the wall that an attack on Iran to cripple its nuclear program is becoming imminent unless Ahmadinejad changes course and becomes a responsible player on the world stage. Whether he will do so, of course, may depend on his assessment of America’s resolve and the fortitude of America’s allies. The conduct of Britain and British hostages during this recent crisis will do little to convince Ahmadinejad that he faces a formidable opposition to his desires, nuclear or otherwise. Carrier groups are, however, very convincing.

Vagueness in Politics Signals Shallowness and Danger

There is something that differentiates a truly great presidential contender from a shallow presidential pretender: Specificity versus vagueness. Among the current 2008 presidential candidates of both parties, whether officially announced or “exploring the possibility,” the old saying “some guys have it, and some guys don’t” is quite applicable as it applies to the specificity versus vagueness litmus test. For far too long, America’s voters have allowed candidates to woo them with generalities and clichés rather than demanding that candidates present detailed solutions for the problems facing our nation. An analysis of the differences between vagueness and specificity among candidates or undeclared but likely candidates follows:

Vagueness:
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) believes that the world needs to eventually rid itself of nuclear weapons. Addressing the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University this week, Richardson told the audience that the world needs the U.S. to lead “a new Manhattan Project to stop the bomb- a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide.” According to the AP article, Richardson’s goal for his “new Manhattan Project” would be to “secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands.” On the surface this sounds like a sensible idea, and it surely sounded plausible to his idealistic audience, but as with most pie in the sky statements from political candidates, Richardson’s plan to secure all nuclear weapons and nuclear material throughout the world is full of nobility but devoid of detail.

Not explained, for instance, is this perplexing dilemma: how would Richardson propose to demand that the Pakistani government, with the assistance of the IAEA, round up and secure all nuclear material located in that county? Remember, this is the same Pakistan that uniformly refuses to allow U.S. and NATO special forces units to cross the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and rout out the al Qaeda and Taliban elements that are flourishing unmolested in that mountainous region and have made nearly 20 attempts to assassinate Musharraf.

If Musharraf will not allow us to hunt Bin Laden in the area we believe he is located, it is naïve for Richardson to believe Musharraf would allow international inspectors to scour that same area in an attempt to detect nuclear material or weapons. The Pakistani government has proven too weak to confront the Taliban or al Qaeda with anything approaching consistency, and the two terrorist groups operate with relative impunity in their safe haven inside Pakistan. If nuclear material was detected in these terrorist camps and mountain hideouts, would the Pakistani government confront the terrorists, take the nuclear material or weapons by force, and then secure them for the IAEA to examine? The prospects for such an outcome are bleak indeed. It is far more likely that Pakistan would not risk international embarrassment or condemnation by exposure of the lax safeguards at its nuclear facilities. Pakistan is only one example. The former Soviet states are another matter entirely.

Richardson either knows that his “new Manhattan Project” sounds like a world changing, creative idea with no chance of becoming reality because other nations will never cooperate, or he is counting on admiring audiences to be too busy fawning over him to ask for details of his plan.

Richardson added to his credentials for vagueness in the question answer session after his speech. According to the AP article:

Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. On the third day, the issue would be global warming. . . .

Richardson apparently plans to withdraw from Iraq on day one of his presidency, with no details of a postwar plan for Iraq or for whether he would still withdraw from Iraq if the war had turned and the Iraqis were progressing toward securing their own country from the terrorists. Like most anti-war devotees, “end the war” slogans come easily and arouse emotion, but are intentionally vague about the repercussions of losing a war. On day 2 of his presidency, Richardson “would announce a plan” to cut our dependence on foreign oil. A suggestion to Richardson: You will never see the inside of the White House as anything but a guest if you run on this “I have a plan for oil dependence but I won’t tell you what it is until you elect me” platform. If Richardson actually has a specific plan for weaning America from foreign oil, let him present it publicly so it can be scrutinized.

It seems rather selfish for a presidential candidate to claim to hold the solution to our foreign oil problems in his hands but refuse to share it with the American people unless they vote for him. I suppose there is no provision in McCain-Feingold banning Richardson’s electoral extortion, and that is a pity. Of course, Richardson’s best defense would also be the most likely explanation for his vagueness: He has no such specific and viable plan to announce or he would have done so already to differentiate himself from his opponents. Perhaps Congress could subpoena him to testify about his miraculous oil plan. Then he could testify under oath whether he does or does not have a plan to announce on day 2 of his rapidly fading presidency.

Specificity:
On Monday, as part of a “talk with the candidates” format segment, potential candidate Newt Gingrich appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show. The former Speaker of the House took questions from callers and from Hannity, and was specific, as usual, in his responses. For example, Hannity asked Gingrich what, if anything, the U.S. and its allies could do to convince Iran to release the 15 sailors Iran illegally captured last week. Gingrich began by reminding the audience that Iran had committed an act of war by seizing the British vessel and crew in international waters, and had furthered the aggression by releasing video footage of the captured sailors, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Rather than give the vague and meaningless political diatribe about diplomacy and sanctions, none of which have encouraged Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, Gingrich offered a very specific and simple plan for bringing the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to their knees economically.

Newt Gingrich pointed out that Iran exports enormous amounts of crude oil, but only has one functioning oil refinery to produce gasoline for Iran’s civilian and military needs. Iran imports most of its gasoline for domestic consumption from foreign suppliers, which transport the gasoline to Iran through commercial shipping channels. Gingrich stated that the single Iranian refinery is located on the coast, within easy striking distance of our carrier groups, and its destruction would significantly impact Iran’s economy and military capability, due to loss of fuel for its tanks and planes. To tighten the economic noose, our carrier groups already in the region could blockade Iran’s ports, effectively preventing Iran from receiving any refined gasoline from foreign sources until the British crew and vessel are released.

The thinking behind this proposed course of action was specific and infused with a clear grasp of the need for a decisive, yet measured, response to Iran’s aggressive act of war against our primary ally. Most GOP presidential candidates talk tough about Iran; Fred Thompson in particular verbalizes what many conservatives instinctively feel about Iran and its behavior. Yet Thompson’s Law and Order “let’s kick their butts” type of appeal is long on bravado but short on specifics. Gingrich’s policy ideas are second to none and combine bellicosity and intellect into definable and specific courses of action.

All candidates have flaws, and Gingrich is no exception, as he has admitted publicly. However, it would be refreshing and ultimately beneficial for our nation if all candidates would, or could, talk specifically about their original ideas and policy positions like Gingrich. Generalities and vague statements like “we must reform Social Security” or “I want to keep America safe from terrorists” should never be tolerated by an American voter, or from our sound bite media. What do these statements mean? How far is a candidate willing to go to keep America safe from terrorists? Is that too far or not far enough? Decisions can only be made when there are specific criteria from which to choose.

If a candidate cannot be specific, we should assume he has no actual ideas or deeply held beliefs, as he is likely waiting to see what the polls indicate before taking a position on any issue of consequence. Vagueness in politics, like shallow waters, should require posted warning signs, lest the unsuspecting voter or swimmer eagerly dive in headlong and encounter danger.

Miniter's Anonymous Sources Place British Crew, Negotiations with Iran in Jeopardy

In an exclusive report by Pajamas Media’s (PJM) Washington Editor Richard Miniter, 2 “anonymous sources” have claimed that the U.S. is holding 300 Iranians with ties to Iranian intelligence agencies, all of whom were captured in Iraq while conducting operations against U.S. troops. All previous official U.S. government reports had acknowledged the military was holding only 5 Iranian intelligence operatives in Iraq. The sources further advised Miniter that these Iranians have been and continue to be interrogated, and the U.S. military has refused to release these prisoners despite pressure from the CIA and State Department to do so.

Ordinarily, a report that the U.S was holding Iranian intelligence operatives captured in Iraq would hardly raise an eyebrow, as it is common knowledge that Iranians have been funneling weapons, personnel, and other means of support to terrorist “insurgents” fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. However, Miniter’s exclusive report comes when tensions between the U.S., Britain, and Iran are anything but ordinary.

Last Friday’s seizure by the Iranian Navy of a British vessel and 15 British sailors and marines, which according to the official British statement occurred in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters, raised the already high probability of conflict to a dangerous level. The British are outraged by the incident and Ahmadinejad’s decision to move the British personnel to Tehran, threatening to put them on trial based on “confessions” obtained through interrogation of the 14 men and 1 woman in custody. The EU, feckless as it is at times, has united in its condemnation of Iran’s actions and issued a joint statement urging Iran to release the prisoners.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned Iran that he expects the British crew to be released within days and no longer. Adding to today’s tension, the presidents of Russia and China urged Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council demands for inspections and regulation of Iran’s nuclear program. The Security Council, to demonstrate its resolve, voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran. Iran responded today by ignoring the Security Council warning, resuming payments to Russia for nuclear fuel, and took the additional step of suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the entity charged with monitoring nuclear non-proliferation.

In this climate, with Iran simultaneously and blatantly ignoring the Security Council, the IAEA, and the EU, and anxious ongoing negotiations over the British crew and nuclear arms, Miniter’s anonymous “diplomatic and military sources” chose a remarkably poor moment to loosen their lips to report information that was sensitive if not overtly classified. The motivation for such a disclosure appears to have been related to State Department and CIA desires to sidestep General David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. Petraeus is leading the “surge” strategy to secure Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, and one key feature of the Petraeus plan was obtaining authorization to capture and hold foreign (non-Iraqi) operatives suspected of participating in terrorist attacks in Iraq. As Miniter points out, Iraqi law authorizes this counterterrorism tactic, thus Petraeus is actively enforcing the will of the Iraqi people.

According to Miniter’s report, the State Department and the CIA do not want this strategy enforced quite so strongly, and have argued that releasing the captured Iranian intelligence operatives will give the U.S. leverage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Thankfully, General Petraeus has held firm. Miniter reported:

The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.

The two sources requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence and developing events with Iran.

This brief excerpt from Miniter’s report contains a modern day Patrick Henry “give me liberty or give me death” style statement of determination by general Petraeus, but it also contains a modern day Benedict Arnold style statement of treason by Miniter’s anonymous sources.

State Department employees or military personnel requesting anonymity from a reporter because the intelligence they are revealing is sensitive is no different than a previously undiscovered rapist requesting anonymity from a reporter because rape is a crime and the rapist wants to avoid arrest and prosecution. In both cases, felonies have occurred. The number of Iranian intelligence operatives being held, the fact that they are being interrogated, and General Petraeus’ gritty promise to continue holding and interrogating them, are all pieces of information that were never intended to be distributed outside of officially classified channels.

Miniter’s sources knew that divulging this information to Miniter was a criminal act, as anyone with a government access clearance receives explicit training as to the permitted uses of the material they will see or hear. Even if one were to argue that he/she merely heard a supervisor talking and thus was not aware of the official classification level of the information when he/she provided it to the media, the anonymous source would still be in violation for not verifying that the information was NOT classified. Under ordinary peacetime conditions, such divulgence of sensitive information may have repercussions over time. During a war, in this case 2 wars in Iraq and the War on Terror, such loose lips are truly despicable and can immediately harm the war effort.

What of the motive for leaking this Iranian prisoner information now? The most likely motive appears to be a strategy by the State Department to publicly expose the imprisonment and interrogation of Iranians by the U.S. and thus gain their release through public outcry. General Petraeus, rightly, will not order their release unless ordered to do so by the civilian command structure of the military. That civilian command all too often is swayed by public opinion rather than what is working and what is right. The leaked information about the 300 Iranians will sway public opinion in some countries, and was thus sensitive situational intelligence unlawful to share outside of official channels.

The most disgusting aspect of this leak is its timing, while negotiations are underway regarding the potentially lengthy imprisonment and show trials of the British crew held in Tehran. Leaking information about the Iranian intelligence operatives held by the U.S. appears to be an effort by State to deflate world anger against Iran, particularly within the EU, which had finally united on an issue other than anti-American bitterness. With this treasonous divulgence, Iran can point to 300+ Iranians held by the U.S. in Iraq and use that fact to justify its seizure of the British vessel and crew. It will be much more difficult for the U.S. and Britain to secure solidarity on the prisoner issue from potential and existing allies now that the moral relativism card will be played.

I fully expect to hear Ahmadinejad’s next typical speech in which he vows to wipe Israel off the map, turn America into a nuclear fireball, and then slips in “and by the way, you captured 300 of my innocent Iranian faithful brothers engaged in nothing but prayer in Iraq, and we seized only 15 of your violent infidel marines so clearly in our territorial waters. I ask the world, who is worse?”

Having written a post last week titled “Government Droning too much to Media About Drones,” in which I urged government agencies to return to adherence to the phrase “loose lips sink ships”, it is a sad irony that only a few days later diplomatic and military sources leaked sensitive information during a moment of intense confrontation with Iran over hostages and nuclear weapons programs. The stakes could not be higher, and the need for integrity in keeping sensitive information within official channels has likewise never been greater. Loose lips really can sink ships, but in the case of the HMS Cornwall, loose lips may sink negotiations for release of a ship and her crew.