h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In Iran's view they're humiliating the west by showing up the way we dress our women.

Whereas the very concept of men dressing women over here is laughable, because of course men know nothing about fashion. Hell, I'm pretty sure my dad's entire wardrobe is completely navy blue, probably for the exact same reasons that hijab and burkhas are so drab.

Perhaps western women should start having a go at Muslim women for dressing their men badly?

One of the BBC news articles said that the frigate couldn't move in because the water was too shallow, can't remember which one.

Which raises the question - "Why is HMS Cornwell - a deep water sub-buster - operating in the Gulf ?

Could it be because our support ships are currently being de-commissioned before being sold on ?

I just saw the news conference where several of the sailors were interviwed. They made the point that the woman was subject to particular abuse. They said she was told that all the other sailors except herself were sent home. No surprise there then that the Iranians singled her out. I think this only adds weight to my suggestion that this may affect our military's thinking about where women might serve in any situation involving Islamic countries.

And thinking further about it I would have thought that it maybe particularly risky to allow women soldiers knowledge of sensitive material if they are going to be more especially subject to psychological attack.

However much we in the west may believe in equality for all it would seem that we have to face the reality of dealing with cultures that do not. So in a conflict situation they will naturally exploit this.

First a thought on the treatment of woment in battle zones in the Arab world:

I remember this debate in the lead up to the first Gulf War (which was actually the Second Gulf War, but the First Gulf War got renamed the Iran-Iraq war when the West got involved in a Gulf War). But it turned out to not be much of a problem and it didn't seem to be a problem in the most recent Gulf War (one thinks of Private Lynch who was rescued with the help of Iraqis. Does preferential treatment count as discrimination?). In Afghanistan the Taliban have managed make Canadian history by giving us the miserable honour of our first female combat fatality (Nichola Goddard http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/17/afghanistan-cda.html). I don't expect that the trend will change: Western soldiers, male or female, will be targets for death, not humiliation, because . . .

Second (bear with me while I try to phrase this carefully), the coveage of the press conference given by the returned British sailors and marines is remarkably reminiscent of the claims of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. All that is missing is flushing Bibles down the toilet. It's as if the Iranians said 'okay. Here are the things muslims have endured at Guantanamo Bay; let's do the same to the British.'

Here's the careful part: I don't mean to draw *any* analogy between the British sailors or their mission and the detainees at Guantanamo and their missions (after all, some were taxi drivers. [okay, that wasn't a very careful bit.) My point is that it's like in this particular instance the Iranians were trying to draw attention to what seems to be going on at Guantanamo.

Does that make sense?

It would - except I don't think the Iranians are that subtle. They would be shouting at the top of their longs about the analogy, if that was the message they intended to convey.

ps - I have had thoughts along the same lines, but mine ended with the conclusion "well if it's got to come to this (e.g. neither side has the moral highground) then we've got more guns, so they should just hand em over."

"Second (bear with me while I try to phrase this carefully), the coveage of the press conference given by the returned British sailors and marines is remarkably reminiscent of the claims of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. All that is missing is flushing Bibles down the toilet. It's as if the Iranians said 'okay. Here are the things muslims have endured at Guantanamo Bay; let's do the same to the British.'"

I had similar thoughts but I doubt it's part of some sort of "revenge" for Guantanamo so much as people trying to humiliate others tend to do similar things. I think the Iranians were trying to humiliate their enemies in the same way the Americans are.

"My point is that it's like in this particular instance the Iranians were trying to draw attention to what seems to be going on at Guantanamo."

Again, I doubt it. If the Iranians wanted to "draw attention" to Guantanamo then they'd have simply said so in their press conferences.

Incidentally, I don't think the Iranians give much of a toss about Guantanamo. They're interested in extending their power in the Gulf region and probably see themselves as a rival of Al-Quaida more than an ally. If they managed to apprehend any suspected Al-Quaida operatives in Iran they'd probably put a bullet in the back of their head.

"I just saw the news conference where several of the sailors were interviwed. They made the point that the woman was subject to particular abuse. They said she was told that all the other sailors except herself were sent home. No surprise there then that the Iranians singled her out. I think this only adds weight to my suggestion that this may affect our military's thinking about where women might serve in any situation involving Islamic countries."

This is an excellent point which I hadn't really considered before.

"2) This is a victory for Iran. The second most powerful navy in the world has been humbled by a few guys in speedboats."

I don't think the Iranian navy consists of a "few guys in speedboats".

It's not a victory for Iran because Iran accused the RN personelle of violating its territorial waters and then released them back to Britain without charge. If I was a rightwing Iranian, I'd consider that a humilitaing climbdown. Ahmadinejad and the regime he serves are good at spin but ultimately they lost. They kidnapped our sailors claiming they had broken the law, we said "give them back", Iran gave them back. That's it.

"3) Iran has publicly shown Britain to be a paper tiger. For all the bluster: this crisis was started, maintained and ended at the whim of Iran - *not* Britain."

Paper tigers don't get their personelle back unharmed.

SWL, you're continuing to push your irresponsible line about how we should have used military force to achieve what we managed without any such thing. That would have jeapordised the lives of the personelle which we are responsible for and have given Iran an excuse to attack Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf thereby helping the Iraqi insurgency (some of whom may be Iranian proxies). All that was necessary was that Iran return our personelle without charge and that has been achieved. We won, Iran lost and we managed it without firing a shot. Maybe that bothers you but it doesn't bother me.

This story might be of some interest to this thread:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259413,00.html

I'm well aware of the capabilities of the Iranian Navy, (6 subs, 3 destroyers, 3 frigates, various small craft). That doesn't take away from the fact that on this occasion it was a few guys in speedboats.

Unless some secret deal has been done, (which we may never know about), it is far more likely that it was the intervention of Syria into this affair that persuaded the Iranians that they had achieved all they were going to.

Look at what has been achieved - the RN has suspended all stop & search missions. The UN refused to act to protect personnel operating under UN auspices. The Iranians have 15 filmed confessions to show their own public and a demonstration of apparent statesmanship from Ahmindinejad to reassure the moderates.

Somebody said earlier that the time for consequences would come when the hostages were returned to the UK. That has happily happened. What should the consequences be?

"If they managed to apprehend any suspected Al-Quaida operatives in Iran they'd probably put a bullet in the back of their head."

I'm sure there must be people in Iran with the imagination to appreciate the utility of such a hypothetical find as a bargaining chip or a propaganda instrument. At the moment they seem rather keen on adopting western rhetoric and throwing it back for their own purposes: "no, George Bush is the terrorist". So, "we caught a terrorist and didn't have to violate anyone's national sovereignity," could probably be spun into something usefully catchy.

'could probably be spun into something usefully catchy.'

Like 'we'll trade this terrorist for the five Iranian diplomats that are still being held by the U.S. in Iraq' perhaps.

"diplomats" being the operative word.

Or *operatives* being the diplomatic word?

I didn't say it!

A TOTAL review , from the top down of the function and the operations expected of and carried out by the nnavy.

A Board of Enquiry into the exact sequence of events, with specific emphasis on why the navy personnel were left unaware ( it seems) of the approach of the Iranian craft, including a a examination of the decisions taken by the Commander of HMS Cornwall.

A TOTAL ban on the sale of the captives stories to the media.

What happened to them should be the subject of official releases from the MoD ( no great faith there I'm afraid )not a 'personal' story sold for a mess of pottage.

Novo

Sorry folks,

That was in reply to SWL. And I know the MoD has now banned the sale of peronal stories, but what will happen to those who have sung already?

Novo

The Navy allowing the personnel was the best bit of media spin I have seen in a long time...is anyone actually talking about why the Navy let their personnel get caught? No, everyone is talking about the selling of the stories which really isn't *that* damaging to the armed forces. Yes, it's pissed people off but it's pissed them off on something that the Navy have done on the PR side rather than the operational side of letting 15 of their people get kidnapped at gunpoint.

What should be happening is the head of the Navy being grilled about why the sailors were allowed to be caught not about why they were allowed to sell their stories.