Also at DKos.
Sometimes it pays not to play Rambo.
Several voices in the media have been critical of the conduct of the recently released British service members captured by Iran. Among those critics is retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, MSNBC military analyst and Congressional Medal of Honor Winner.
On Friday, Jacobs castigated the British sailors and marines for allowing themselves to be captured without putting up a fight, and for cooperating with Iranian propaganda efforts.
I’m very glad Jack Jacobs wasn’t with that British boarding party.
Pavlov’s Dogs of War
Right wing blog NewsBusters provides a partial transcript and a video of one of Jacobs’s Friday interviews:
I don’t know where to begin, I’ve gotta tell you, that was the most disgusting, disreputable, dishonorable performance I can remember in more than forty years of my relationship with the military service. I think every man, every woman who wears the uniform, or who has ever worn the uniform of his country, no matter what country it is, ought to be disgusted by this… And I can tell you that my feelings are almost undoubtedly echoed by everyone I know who’s worn the uniform.
Well, no, Colonel. Some of us think that the British sailors and marines played the situation as smartly as it could have been played by anyone.
At a press conference with six members of the recently released boarding party on Friday, Royal Marine Captain Chris Air said, “Let me be absolutely clear: From the outset, it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option… We were not prepared to fight a heavily armed force who, it is our impression, came out deliberately into Iraqi waters to take us prisoner.”
The “heavily armed force,” according to Air, consisted of eight Revolutionary Guard speedboats armed with heavy machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. “We realized that had we resisted, there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won with consequences that would have had major strategic impact.” (Italics added.)
Bingo. By committing themselves to a battle that would have led to their certain slaughter, the British boarding party would have created a far more shocking international incident than the one that actually occurred. Mr. Bush might have used such an incident to justify a full scale naval and air strike on Iran.
As to the “confessions” that they were in Iranian waters, Royal Navy Lieutenant Felix Carmen 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 U.K. soon. If we didn’t, we faced up to seven years in prison.” He also said “At all times, if you listen carefully to what we said, we always used words like ‘apparently’ or ‘we were perceived’ or ‘according to this evidence.’ At no time did we actually say, ‘We apologize for intruding in Iranian waters.’ At all times, we stuck to our guns, and we were conducting our operations legally.”
And it’s obvious to anyone familiar with prisoner of war resistance techniques that the sailors and marines who made taped statements were sending clear verbal and physical cues that they were speaking under duress.
The 15 British sailors and marines are home safe now. Thanks to the level headed thinking of a small team of junior British troops, led by a Royal Marine captain and a Royal Navy lieutenant, they did not turn into a cause for war by getting themselves killed in a hopeless battle, nor did they make themselves into a critical vulnerability by becoming long-term hostages.
With all due (and well deserved) respect to Colonel Jacobs and his magnificent service record, he displays the classic symptoms of the Pavlov’s Dogs of War syndrome. Like many U.S. military officers of his generation, he can think analytically about military and foreign policy issues, but only up to a certain level. At some point, his cognitive processes short circuit and migrate from the head on his neck to somewhere below his belt.
In a written commentary, Jacobs wrote “one can recall few instances in recent memory in which a group of uniformed service members acted with less professionalism and more dishonor.”
Jacobs seems to have forgotten the laundry list of scandalous behavior by U.S. troops in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Guys like Jacobs have selective memories when it comes to grinding their pet axes.
Jacobs quoted the part of the U.S. Military Code of Conduct that says: “I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist,” and added “By contrast, these British geniuses surrendered without a shot being fired in their own defense.”
These “British geniuses” were trapped in rigid rafts and armed with relatively small caliber side arms, and were surrounded by superior numbers of speedboats equipped with significantly superior firepower. They did not have the “means to resist.” Nothing in the U.S. Code of Conduct or Standing Rules of Engagement requires an individual or a commander to commit certain suicide, and surrendering in the face of hopeless circumstances is hardly an act of “free will.” The way Jacobs frames things, all fighting men and women who allowed themselves to become prisoners of war are cowards. One has to wonder how the survivors of the Baatan Death March or the Hanoi Hilton like being marked with that label.
In print and on air, Jacobs inferred that U.S. troops taken captive are sworn to only give their names, ranks, serial numbers and dates of birth. As a graduate of the U.S. Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training, I can assure you that is not true. For hopefully obvious reasons, I won’t go into details of what SERE teaches about resistance techniques, but from everything I’ve heard and read, the British captives were isolated from each other (contrary to Jacobs’s assertions that they weren’t) and the threat of seven years imprisonment if they didn’t confess to having been operating in Iranian waters was entirely credible.
The Brits had no hope of escape. Even if, unarmed and unequipped, they managed to slip their captors, they never would have made it out of Iran. They had no hope of rescue either. As good as the British Special Air Service commando force is, it couldn’t possibly have snatched them from captivity deep inside of Iran. The captives’ only hope was to seek release, and the best way to achieve that was to make the non-confessional confessions they made. As far as we can tell, they didn’t give up any vital operational details or strategic intentions information that might have presented a security breach.
Jack Jacobs referred to Royal Marine Captain Chris Air as a “meathead,” but the biggest meathead in this scenario is Jack Jacobs. Captain Air appears to be a modern warrior who understands the strategic consequences of tactical actions. Jacobs is an old soldier who thinks we’re still fighting World War II, the kind of warrior who still thinks that “brave” and “smart” are mutually exclusive virtues, and who likes to hide his lack of intellectual integrity behind his combat decorations.
Note to MSNBC: it’s time for Jack Jacobs to fade away.
#
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.
He’s been cashing in on that CMH for too long. He’s never been in the position those sailors were in and cannot possibly say how he would have behaved.
Name, rank and serial number is strictly for John Wayne films. In the real world, everybody talks under duress.
Kiss my ass, Jack.
I’ve always thought that surrendering in the face of certain annihilation was the honorable thing to do. The commanding officer is responsible for the lives of the soldiers who serve under him, and if there is one thing he (or she) owes those soldiers, it is to refrain from wasting their lives. Soldiers know they may be called upon to give up their lives in the pursuit of some larger objective; that’s what soldiering is about. There’s a big difference between necessary sacrifice and pointless suicide. The British CO in this case seems to have understood that difference, while Jack Jacobs does not.
I can tell you who I’d rather serve under.
Given the overwhelming force they were faced with, they did the right thing by not fighting. Especially given that the UK and Iran are NOT at war. So why start one by resisting, when resisting will only get you killed? In any case, that is the kind of political decision that it is unreasonable to ask the soldier on the ground to make.
However, I am a little bothered by the statements they made. It seems to me that they shouldn’t have done that.
I think they made them in the proper way, AND it helped get them home.
The best things they could do for their country were a) not get killed and b) not become long term hostages.
Exactly. It was very noticeable that the Brit captives always used qualifications like “apparently” in their statements. That they never made an unqualified statement that they were in Iranian waters. That the Iranians released them even though they didn’t do so shows that both captor and captive behaved properly and honorably, in my opinion.
It always was just a game, which is why I didn’t take this crisis very seriously. The Brits are quite good at this kind of game—they practically invented it—and evidently the Iranians understand it, too.
It is the Americans and Israelis that are bad players. That is because they put their own felt specialness above the instinct of the gentleman to want to play the game well.
I cannot remember the title but there is an old black and white James Stewart film in which he is captured (I think by the Nazis) and forced to make a propaganda broadcast. He ends the speech with an exhortation to tell his story to your friends and above all “tell it to the Marines”.
Meanwhile the group have, exceptionally, been allowed to give interviews and tell their stories in exchange for payment. This has received much criticism on two grounds. The first (the more honorable) is that it looks like an extension of a propaganda effort by the Government. The second is the criticism of them receiving payment per se when four soldiers were killed the day they were released. That seems to be led by the newspapers who bid for the stories but lost out, in particular when the female Leading Seaman chose a deal where the TV interview was by a veteran presenter, himself an ex-serviceman, in preference to a higher cash bid.
I guess those US airmen in that spy plane forced down in China a few years back should have made a kamizake attack on the nearest Chinese military installation then? Great point about the Hanoi Hilton too. Someone should ask John McCain if he considers himself to be a meathead for having the nerve to bail out over Vietnam…
I don’t think anyone should criticize a bunch of kids for making a decision to save their life and possibly avoid triggering a war. I think that most of the criticism comes from those who need a little more war porn to wank to and are itching for a war with Iran.
Now that you mention it, perhaps they merely lacked the inspirational leadership of men like jacobs, and this dipstick: RAF Air Vice Marshall Walker…
there’s something seriously wrong when people with theswe attitudes are in positions of authority.
“after you, sir“… indeed.
Lovely, thanks for the post.
Best,
Jeff