Monday Morning QB
I hate to be one, but hell, I agree with this.
The Brits should've blown them out of the water.
Good 'ole Churhill:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
5 comments:
Dude, the year is not 1939. Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Britain isn't led by Chamberlain.
Let's say Britain carried out an attack on Iran in retaliation. What purpose would this serve?
The benefit: you get your soldiers back, or if you don't get them back, at least get some revenge. Your strikes may act a a future deterrence for similar Iranian actions.
The drawback: you inflame nationalism and anti-British sentiment in Iran, thus solidifying support for hardline Islamist Mullahs and relegating moderate Iranians to the margins.
I am skeptical that the benefits outweigh the cost here. I think if Britain takes the high road in the diplomacy, they have more to gain, and can show the world what assholes the Iranians are. Not every battle is worth fighting, and this one, given there is no indication the troops are being ill-treated, doesn't seem worth escalating at this time.
I wasn't proposing a retaliation attack. I was proposing an attack of self defense...when the Iranians tried to kidnap them, why not fight back. I don't know the exact circumstance, but if you're sitting there with a big gun and a kidnapper is taking your troops right in front of your nose, you have a right to self protection.
And the troops are being ill treated in that they are being paraded around on television reading prepared statements under obvious coersion.
I see your point, but if you give low-level officers the freedom to launch attacks when they pereceive themselves to be under threat, that can lead to a lot of trouble. For all we know these kind of misunderstandings happen a lot, but we don't hear about them because heads remain cool.
As for the British prisoners being ill-treated on TV, I think this is a PR coup for the West, showing how ignorant and mean-spirited the Iranian government is that they would do this. They shouldn't be allowed to do this indefinitely, but in the short-term, I think this really weakens Iran's ability to make a case to the world that it is being bullied by the West.
i don't see why you use the term "perceive," as if one doesn't know when they are being attacked. if you aren't sure what's going on, i understand being hesitant. but i'm working under the assumption that you know you're being kidnapped when you're being kidnapped and a right to self defense applies to everyone - including a british soldier.
Well, I'm guessing by the time the Iranians made clear they were kidnapping the sailors and not just talking to them, any attempt to rescue the sailors via attack would jeapordize the lives of those sailors. The only way around this would have been to launch of an attack before the Iranians got anywhere near the British boat, which is the kind of thing that sets a bad precedent.
Post a Comment