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.

"No one dare attack our sacred land": Iran FM's Claim Challenges Relevance of Britain, U.S. as World Powers

One week ago today, the Iranian Navy seized 15 British Navy personnel engaged in searching for smugglers in Iraqi waters. Despite GPS evidence presented by the British government that clearly indicated the British crew was well within established Iraqi waters, Iranian leaders have refused to release the hostages, whom they insist were captured in Iranian territorial waters. Ignoring Geneva Convention policies and British warnings not to do so, the Iranian government produced and distributed videotaped “confessions” in which the hostages “admit” they were in Iranian waters illegally when they were captured. Iran also floated the possibility that the lone female hostage would be released, but has subsequently rescinded that gesture. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki now insists that Britain must apologize for instigating the incident, and suggested that the hostages may yet be tried in Tehran on charges of espionage. The outcome of such a show trial is not difficult to imagine. Espionage is a capital offense under Iran’s version of Sharia law.

What steps have Britain and the UN taken to resolve this critical situation? Tony Blair demanded the release of the hostages, to which demands Iran responded with increased rhetoric and blunt refusals to comply. To add insult to injury, Iran released to the media a letter allegedly written by female hostage Seaman Faye Turney, in which Turney robotically asks her government to withdraw troops from Iraq. Tony Blair became “livid” at the Iranian attempt to dictate British foreign policy, the refusal to release the hostages, and the obviously forced confessions (hint to future Iranian fake confession writers: British citizens refer to their Parliamentary representatives as MPs, not “representatives”). Blair requested that the UN Security Council condemn Iran for the seizure and issue a resolution calling upon Iran to immediately release the British crew.

In a pathetic display of its own irrelevancy, the UN Security Council, at the behest of such stalwart defenders of international law as Russia, could not agree on issuing a call for the immediate release of the hostages. The UK Times Online reported:

The UN Security Council, voicing “grave concern”, meanwhile called on Iran to allow consular access to the detained British naval personnel and urged “an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15”.

Britain originally asked for a tougher three-sentence statement to “deplore” the detention of the British personnel and “support calls” for their immediate release, but this was blocked by Russia and several other members.

“We will not be able to accept a call for the immediate release of the 15 UK naval personnel,” Vitaly Churkin, Russian’s UN envoy, declared during the debate.

The final two-sentence statement was read to the press outside the Security Council chamber, making it weaker than a formal declaration.

Apparently “grave concern” is the extent of the Security Council’s reaction to what under international law is an act of war: forced boarding of a vessel under flag of a recognized nation, compounded by taking uniformed military personnel of a sovereign nation hostage. Whatever one thinks of President Bush personally or politically, it is clear he was justified in his blunt warning to the UN that if it did not take action against Saddam Hussein after 14 of its resolutions had been ignored it would become an irrelevant organization in world affairs. Unfortunately, terrorists have paid close attention to the UN’s reactions to provocations and Iran clearly determined that President Bush was right about the UN’s irrelevancy. Hence the brazen taking of British hostages with little concern that any nations other than Britain and the U.S. would be inclined to interfere.

The west has a tendency to underestimate radical Islamic nations like Iran, whether out of a sense of cultural superiority or sheer ignorance. Iran has proven itself an astute observer of internal politics in America and Britain and has calculated that neither government has the political unity necessary to mount an effective response to this hostage incident. The political climate in America has become so acidic that Iran is certain America will not respond militarily to this provocation against our closest ally.

Democrats begging for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment of President Bush should consider carefully the words of Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki:

To a question on probable US military attack on Iran, he said the Americans are now engaged in domestic issues and are not in a position to enter into another crisis.

"No one dare to attack our sacred land," he said.

“Engaged in domestic issues” is a euphemism for blind bush hatred in Congress. Non-binding resolutions criticizing the new “surge” in Iraq; over dramatized investigations into U.S. Attorney firings the President was constitutionally empowered to conduct; adding non-military pork funding to the Iraq War appropriations bill; and inserting ill-advised provisions into that bill to establish a withdrawal date from Iraq are precisely the “domestic issues” Mottaki and the Mullahs count on to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief. Conservative radio hosts and bloggers frequently use the term “embolden our enemies” when referring to the effects of the Democrat controlled Congress’s efforts to shackle President Bush’s executive war powers. Mottaki’s comments are proof that our enemies are indeed emboldened by this Congress and that bravado resulted in the hostage incident now upon us.

Britain is in a less rancorous but equally tenuous political position, as Prime Minister Blair is in effect a lame-duck leader until replaced in the next UK election. His liberal party has cut military expenditures so significantly during his tenure that France now has a larger Navy than Britain, which once ruled the seas. In fact, Belgium’s navy is now approximately the same size as Britain’s. Britain has been slowly reducing its military presence in Iraq, and other than typical criminal investigations did virtually nothing in response to the London Subway bombings in 2005. It is easy to see why Mottaki feels very confident that no nation dares to attack Iran. Even though Iran is known to be the world’s largest supplier of terrorist financing and equipment, to date no nation has taken direct action against it except the U.S. and then only under Republican presidents.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, interviewed on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday, expressed some hope that the hostage incident can still be resolved diplomatically, but that is the politically correct answer one would expect from the nation’s head diplomat. Hannity reminded Secretary Rice of President Reagan’s response in 1987 when the Iranian Navy attempted to mine the Persian Gulf, in which commercial oil and military vessels of various nations were operating. President Reagan considered the Iranian mining strategy a danger to American and international interests and without begging for UN permission or sanctions or written resolutions, President Reagan ordered military strikes against the Iranian ships laying the mines. After several of Iran’s naval vessels were sunk, Iran stopped its mining operations. When Iran resumed mining the Gulf in 1988, Reagan again ordered military action that resulted in significant losses to the Iranian Navy. The mining stopped and was not resumed again. Some regimes only respond to, and respect, force. Iran is governed by such a regime.

The U.S. and Britain now face a moment of decision in which the global relevancy of both nations may hinge on their response to this Iranian provocation. If Britain takes no action beyond becoming “livid” or pleading with the UN Security Council to merely “condemn” the action, Britain will certainly be targeted by terrorists for increasingly brazen attacks. If the U.S. fails to take decisive action on behalf of its dearest ally and continues being distracted by partisan sniping, it may suffer a similar fate.

President Bush warned the UN about becoming irrelevant, and Bin Laden referred to America as a “paper tiger.” Perhaps both were right. The only thing that today’s Democrats become angry enough to go to war over is paper: resolutions, appropriations bills, and hanging chads. The War on Bush has spanned more than 6 years, and the only two casualties have been the world image of the President of the United States, and the unity of the American people in the face of grave danger from terrorists. It is difficult to determine who is more gleeful over President Bush’s low approval ratings, liberals or emboldened terrorists.

Foreign Minister Mottaki’s confidence that no one dares attack Iran may be premature. According to an unnamed U.S. government source quoted in the New York Sun today:

“The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated," this official said. "Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days."

444 days is a long time to let an act of war go unpunished. It is fitting that Carter was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, because from 1979 to 1981 he contributed a great deal to the “peaceful” seizure of the U.S. Embassy and Embassy staff in Tehran through his spineless non-response to that act of war. It is no coincidence that the man whose face is circled in the picture at right with a U.S. Embassy hostage is the same man who orchestrated the kidnapping of the British crew last week: Ahmadinejad. Britain and America should hope history is not repeated in the current hostage incident. In that context, one week has already been too long to let an act of war go unpunished.

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.