British sailors arrested at gunpoint by Iranian navy.

[I_am_John_Galt]

Be that as it may it is still considered a tactic of aerial warfare. Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't think so

Yes, and the Germans learned it from the Soviets during Barbarossa, and depending on how you want to define it you could count the Japanese Kamikazes as well.  It's extremely rare, but does happen in desperate times: point taken ... "'ramming' isn't really a normal tactic in aerial warfare."

Nonetheless, it is not really relevant in this case, as neither the Americans nor the Chinese claimed that the immediate cause of the Hainan Island incident was anything but an accident (though they both accuse the other of negligence).  In the case of the UK/Iran incident, both parties are accusing the other of acting illegally.  They are nowhere near the same situation.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

They can't seriously have this Kangaroo Court trial that will end up with their being convicted by backward-looking Ayatollahs! And please tell me that the punishment according to Shariah law isn't stoning for foreign soldiers for trespassing in foreign waters? 

Well, the UN might write the Iranians a sharply-worded letter ...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Since Airmich forgot the article source, here is pretty much the same article with the link:

LOL you are batting 100 lately for being wrong lately haven't you?

 

[CougarKing]

Here is the US perspective.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,130777,00.html?wh=wh

U.S. Treads Warily in Hostage Crisis
Associated Press  |  March 31, 2007
WASHINGTON - The United States is taking a low-key approach to Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines, concerned that more robust intervention might aggravate the situation and shake international resolve on Iran's nuclear program.

As the crisis entered its second week, U.S. officials kept up calls for the release of the captives but avoided harsh rhetoric against Iran despite its open defiance of such demands thus far.

That was in contrast to the Bush administration's frequent heated clashes with Tehran over its nuclear program and charges that it is providing anti-U.S. Iraqi fighters with explosives and training. Iran is one of the countries President Bush described as part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Poll: What is the best way for the British to get its troops back from the Iranians?

The State Department repeated Washington's position on Friday that the Britons were seized in violation of international law and should be freed immediately. But officials declined to discuss diplomatic or other options for what might be done if Iran does not comply.

"This is an issue between the U.K. and Iran," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, adding that the United States had been "outspoken" in urging Iran to free the sailors.

In the Democratic-run Congress, the two chambers have taken differing approaches. The Senate on Thursday approved a resolution condemning the capture of the sailors, but the House has not taken action despite complaints from Republicans.

McCormack said reported suggestions by some in Iran that the British captives be swapped for Iranians detained in Iraq would be rejected. Without prompting, he warned that any attempt by Tehran to use the incident to ease its isolation over its nuclear ambitions would fail.

"It stands to reason that they would like to use it as a means of distracting the rest of the world from Iran's current set of problems," McCormack said, referring to the latest U.N. resolution and "a number of their behaviors over recent months."

Iran was hit with new U.N. sanctions last week when the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution condemning Tehran's failure to address concerns about its nuclear program, which the United States charges is a cover for atomic weapons development. Iran denies the allegation.

The sailors were seized on March 23 off the Iraqi coast while searching merchant ships for evidence of smuggling. Britain insists the seven Royal marines and eight sailors were taken in Iraqi waters and has said no admission of error would be made.

The United States, along with Britain, has come to the conclusion that Washington should remain an uninvolved third party in the current crisis, officials said.

Until Thursday, U.S. officials had refrained from uttering the word "hostage" in connection to the sailors and then it was only when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice picked up on an interviewer's reference that it was used.

The U.S. put on a massive two-day military exercise in the Persian Gulf this week, a rare show of strength by two aircraft carrier groups off Iran's coast. Officials at the Pentagon would say little.

"It's a very delicate situation at a critical stage, so I'm going to be careful and limit what I have to say about that," Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, a deputy director of operations on the Joint Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.

Pentagon officials declined to say Friday what, if anything, they are doing in support of the British.

The two allies routinely share intelligence. The U.S. has a wide array of sophisticated surveillance technology to take photographs, listen to phone and radio transmissions and make video recordings of developments on the ground to supplement Britain's intelligence gathering.

The Senate resolution condemned the seizure "in the strongest possible terms" and called for the sailors' "immediate, safe and unconditional release."

On Friday, some Republican lawmakers criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for not following suit by adopting a similar resolution.

"I am very disappointed that the speaker chose not to act," said Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa. "The British are our closest allies, and I think we have to stand next to them in a moment like this," he said.

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Congress should not only call for the release of the British personnel but also press the U.N. to explore harsher sanctions against Tehran.

Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing for sure that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.

 

[navymich]

Look at the top of her post, the link is there. It reads "Iranian official: Sailors may be tried"

Thank you Michael.  I have been out all day and unable to respond to the questioning of my link source.  As you, and many others, noticed, my link was included.  I figured there was no sense having a long link taking up space, which is why I posted it as I did.

 

[NL_engineer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran_223;_ylt=Au4HEwea.ntYpePZuUOgrk4UewgF

Still looking for airmich's source ???

edited to fix quote

 

[tomahawk6]

Ok put your hands up and step away from the keyboard. ;D

 

[GAP]

The link is the title of the post. Put your cursor over the title and it will change to a little hand. click on it.

 

[tomahawk6]

potential of starting a major international incident

I think we are way past this being a potential international incident.

 

[Eland]

Interesting article by Victor Davis Hanson. Essentially the nations of the EU and NATO have very little punching power beyond their own borders.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGNmMzdmOGM5OTlmMzMxZDAzYjBiZDc4NjI1NjViYzU=&w=MQ==
Houses of Straw
The EU’s delusions about the sufficiency of “soft” power are embarrassingly revealed.

By Victor Davis Hanson

‘It’s completely outrageous for any nation to go out and arrest the servicemen of another nation in waters that don’t belong to them.” So spoke Admiral Sir Alan West, former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy, concerning the present Anglo-Iranian crisis over captured British soldiers. But if the attack was “outrageous,” it was apparently not quite outrageous enough for anything to have been done about it yet.

What an excellent and incisive analysis of the situation. Thanks for bringing the article to our attention, tomahawk6. Hanson is right about (the British ROE being de-escalatory in nature) - they have no other choice simply because they lack the military power needed to prosecute the action needed to deal with an emerging casus belli. At the same time, I do understand that the British (and others) recognize that an attacking Iran with the intent to save fifteen sailors could trigger a wider war which would cost many, many more lives and likely see Russian and Chinese involvement.

Speaking of countries which lack the ability to punch far beyond their borders and subscribe to the intellectually diseased and bankrupt notion of 'soft power', Canada handily fits into that group. Yes, we are making a significant contribution in Afghanistan (and in some ways bearing the brunt of the load). At the same time, there are too many Canadians walking around with the erroneous notion that war has simply ceased to exist, and too many in powerful positions willing to indulge and encourage that deluded view of things.

Yes, our new prime minister, Stephen Harper, would like to do more for the military. But he's constrained two major things: 1) The need to garner votes in Quebec, which has always had a vision of Canada as an essentially isolationist, non-aligned (especially where the US is concerned) and semi-pacifistic state; 2) A large number of Canadians are still in love with the idea of peacekeeping and don't want to let go - he has to find a way to engage these people without losing their votes. (Unfortunately for the peaceniks, peacekeeping is dead, dead, dead. It died when civil war broke out in the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Third World backwaters like Somalia. )

Sometimes I question the Afghanistan mission - that is, why are we really there? What do we get out of it? Why is it important for our soldiers to be doing reconstruction tasks that could better be handled by civilian agencies? Isn't a soldier's first, and most important job (in order to bring about the necessary preconditions for peace to take hold) closing with and destroying the enemy?
At the same time, I realize that withdrawing our troops is counterproductive. If we withdraw, the Talban and all the other Islamofascist terrorist nutbars win, we lose, and we may find ourselves getting a dose of what the Spanish got into the 'bargain', if you can call it that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Iranians have a right to develop nuclear weapons. After all, simple logic tells you that all nations which claim a right to sovereignty have a right to defend that sovereignty and to that end, to possess whatever weapons and materiel are necessary to achieve that aim. That said, it might probably be easier in the short term to let Iran have its nukes. But appeasement never works and in this case, has no chance of securing meaningful, long-term peace in the Middle East as a whole.

At the same time, I don't blame the United States one bit for wanting to squash Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions. Consider the following reasons why:

1) Ahmadinejad's regime is unstable, irresponsible and potentially genocidal; letting him have nukes is tantamount to letting a madman with murderous impulses have a gun;
2) Left to its own devices, Iran could eventually develop nuclear warhead delivery systems capable of threatening Europe, the US and Asia;
3) With such weapons, or even short-range ballistic missiles, Iran could threaten the entire Middle East into denying the US and other countries access to oil, thereby wrecking the world economy;
4) It's bad enough that Russia, China (and possibly North Korea) have nuclear weapon delivery systems capable of striking the US, Europe and Asia. Why let another party (and an unstable one at that) join that club? The US has too many threats to deal with as it is.

As inflammatory as it is, the Iranian snatch of Royal Navy personnel is a two-pronged event. It is designed to score a propaganda victory. It is also a probe designed to test the resolve of the UK and its allies - to see if they can be provoked into attacking with relatively little provocation.

 

[Kirkhill]

This comment in the Telegraph on ROE

.....a former Falklands War commander expressed fury at how the sailors surrendered to Iranian gunboats without a fight.

Maj Gen Julian Thompson called for a review of the Navy's rules of engagement, dictated by the United Nations, that they cannot open fire unless they are shot at first. "In my view this thing is a complete ****-up," he said.

"I want to know why the Marines didn't open fire or put up some sort of fight. My fear is that they didn't have the right rules of engagement, which would allow them to do this."

......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4R134PVVIA4RDQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/01/wiran01.xml

And this from the Times over the "Who's on first" issue.

THE fate of the 15 British marines and sailors held in Tehran may depend on the outcome of a power struggle between two of Iran’s top generals, write Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin.

According to an Iranian military source, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards has called for them to be freed.

Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi is said to have told the country’s Supreme National Security Council on Friday that the situation was “getting out of control” and urged its members to consider the immediate release of the prisoners to defuse tension in the Gulf.

However, Safavi’s intervention was reportedly denounced by another senior general at a meeting of high-ranking commanders yesterday.

Yadollah Javani, the head of the Revolutionary Guards’ political bureau, was said to have accused him of weakness and “liberal tendencies”. Javani is said to have demanded that the prisoners be put on trial. ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596694.ece

So there you have it.  The Military Revolutionary Guard being accused of being too "liberal" by the Political Revolutionary Guard.   I am reminded about discussions on the SS and the Waffen SS, the "Good Nazis".

I wonder if the Political type and the Military type share the same appreciation of the Miltary capabilities of the country.

According to the Times article the Basij has been mobilized and sent to the British Embassy to demonstrate and to the Iraqi border.  I wonder if they are taking their mine-defeating carpets with them?  IIRC the Basij were recruited as a Hitler Youth wing of 13 year olds during the Iran-Iraq war and were expected to roll over mine fields.  They were wrapped in carpets to keep their bits and pieces together for burial.

PS Again IIRC Ahmadinejad was a Basij.  I wonder if he can rely on the rest of the country to dance to his tune.

According to this report he apparently can't draw a crowd the way he used to -

http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2007/03/ahmadinejad_drawing_smaller_cr.php
http://www.baztab.com/news/62991.php

Another account described last minute efforts to get a crowd to the scene in time by turning out the schools.

Hamlet might say there is something rotten......

 

[tomahawk6]

What an excellent and incisive analysis of the situation. Thanks for bringing the article to our attention, tomahawk6. Hanson is right about (the British ROE being de-escalatory in nature) - they have no other choice simply because they lack the military power needed to prosecute the action needed to deal with an emerging casus belli. At the same time, I do understand that the British (and others) recognize that an attacking Iran with the intent to save fifteen sailors could trigger a wider war which would cost many, many more lives and likely see Russian and Chinese involvement.

Speaking of countries which lack the ability to punch far beyond their borders and subscribe to the intellectually diseased and bankrupt notion of 'soft power', Canada handily fits into that group. Yes, we are making a significant contribution in Afghanistan (and in some ways bearing the brunt of the load). At the same time, there are too many Canadians walking around with the erroneous notion that war has simply ceased to exist, and too many in powerful positions willing to indulge and encourage that deluded view of things.

Yes, our new prime minister, Stephen Harper, would like to do more for the military. But he's constrained two major things: 1) The need to garner votes in Quebec, which has always had a vision of Canada as an essentially isolationist, non-aligned (especially where the US is concerned) and semi-pacifistic state; 2) A large number of Canadians are still in love with the idea of peacekeeping and don't want to let go - he has to find a way to engage these people without losing their votes. (Unfortunately for the peaceniks, peacekeeping is dead, dead, dead. It died when civil war broke out in the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Third World backwaters like Somalia. )

Sometimes I question the Afghanistan mission - that is, why are we really there? What do we get out of it? Why is it important for our soldiers to be doing reconstruction tasks that could better be handled by civilian agencies? Isn't a soldier's first, and most important job (in order to bring about the necessary preconditions for peace to take hold) closing with and destroying the enemy?
At the same time, I realize that withdrawing our troops is counterproductive. If we withdraw, the Talban and all the other Islamofascist terrorist nutbars win, we lose, and we may find ourselves getting a dose of what the Spanish got into the 'bargain', if you can call it that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Iranians have a right to develop nuclear weapons. After all, simple logic tells you that all nations which claim a right to sovereignty have a right to defend that sovereignty and to that end, to possess whatever weapons and materiel are necessary to achieve that aim. That said, it might probably be easier in the short term to let Iran have its nukes. But appeasement never works and in this case, has no chance of securing meaningful, long-term peace in the Middle East as a whole.

At the same time, I don't blame the United States one bit for wanting to squash Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions. Consider the following reasons why:

1) Ahmadinejad's regime is unstable, irresponsible and potentially genocidal; letting him have nukes is tantamount to letting a madman with murderous impulses have a gun;
2) Left to its own devices, Iran could eventually develop nuclear warhead delivery systems capable of threatening Europe, the US and Asia;
3) With such weapons, or even short-range ballistic missiles, Iran could threaten the entire Middle East into denying the US and other countries access to oil, thereby wrecking the world economy;
4) It's bad enough that Russia, China (and possibly North Korea) have nuclear weapon delivery systems capable of striking the US, Europe and Asia. Why let another party (and an unstable one at that) join that club? The US has too many threats to deal with as it is.

As inflammatory as it is, the Iranian snatch of Royal Navy personnel is a two-pronged event. It is designed to score a propaganda victory. It is also a probe designed to test the resolve of the UK and its allies - to see if they can be provoked into attacking with relatively little provocation.

Eland a very well thought out post.I would pose one question to you. If the Iranians would snatch 15 UK military personnel to create a crisis, what would they do with nuclear weapons ?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Never underestimate the stupidity of socialists (I include the whole item, as the rest does offer some interesting perspective on the 'other' problem): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/01/nbook01.xml (2nd item)

FO paid back by Iran

The only wry smile to be derived from the humiliating circumstances in which our 15 sailors and Royal Marines were captured by just six Iranians came from the comment by Patricia Hewitt. "It was deplorable," pronounced our tight-lipped Health Secretary, "that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people."

Others might think that rather more deplorable was the fact that the Royal Navy should have been so careless as to allow its personnel to sail into such an absurd and predictable trap in the first place. As Ann Winterton MP asked in a letter to The Daily Telegraph, why on earth did the frigate HMS Cornwall, at a time of heightened tension with Iran, allow its boarding party to get out of "visual contact"?

If anything sent "the wrong message to our young people", it was the Iranian video showing the casual, shambolic way in which our boarding party came over the side of a dhow they had been inspecting. Everything about this affair showed a complete collapse of professional discipline, which brought shame on the Navy. But if the result has been to land our Government and the Foreign Office in an unholy mess, it must also be said they have asked for it.

Two weeks ago I reported the latest extraordinary instance of how, for 10 years, the Foreign Office has been trying to appease the Iranian regime. As Jack Straw has admitted, it was at Teheran's behest that the Foreign Office put the leading Iranian dissident movement, the PMOI, on the EU's list of proscribed terrorist organisations. When in December this was ruled by the European Court of Justice to be both wholly inappropriate and illegal, our Government again led the way in insisting that the Council of Ministers should simply put up two fingers to the court's ruling and to EU law.

The kidnapping of our sailors is merely another example of that age-old rule that appeasing tyrants does not buy them off, it only buys their contempt. From its own sorry record, no one should be more aware of this than the Foreign Office. But, as we know, the only lesson we learn from history is that no one ever learns the lessons of history.

 

[Eland]

Eland a very well thought out post.I would pose one question to you. If the Iranians would snatch 15 UK military personnel to create a crisis, what would they do with nuclear weapons ?

Good question, and one which isn't hard to answer. The Iranians would definitely threaten to use their nukes if the US and other countries didn't withdraw their forces from the Middle East (Afghanistan included).

I get the feeling that Ahmadinejad sees himself as a Messiah of sorts - a saviour of the Middle East, if you will, who can bring about the pan-Arabian caliphate the radical imams and mullahs have been jonesing for for a long, long time now and maybe even Shariah law world-wide. I think this delusional view of his own greatness is really what's driving him - and prompting US withdrawal would just be a bonus or fringe benefit for him. As a side note, it's worth mentioning that the Caliphate also includes Israel and southern Europe, particularly Spain. There are factions within Islam which have never gotten over being ejected from southern France and Spain, or forgiven the Crusaders for effectively creating Palestine (and Lebanon) as we know them today.

The kidnapping of civilians or troops by any government (or proto-government) for political gains is never a good thing, and the capture of 15 British sailors is not a good sign, either.

North America and Europe don't have many options here - they can either accept the status quo, which means seeing Iran gradually rachet up its antagonistic behaviours (which might even include an outright attack on US and British forces in Iraq), or do something concrete about the situation. Think of it this way: How would 170,000-odd coalition troops in Iraq fare versus 850,000 Iranian soldiers? Particularly when the US Army is already having difficulty with the situation in Iraq?

Iran does have a large military. However, unsupported by any other country, it cannot carry out a significant expeditionary mission any meaningful distance from Tehran, or sustain it for long. Russian/Chinese resupply could change the strategic complexion very quickly.

At the same time, Iran is not so powerful that it couldn't be quickly neutralized by heavy air strikes, if America chooses to seize the initiative. That's the good news.

The bad news, and the thing I worry about more, is the very real possibility that both Russia and China could get militarily involved. Their involvement would spark a Third World War - and, as Hanson so amply demonstrates, none of the EU countries (or Canada for that matter) is really prepared for such an outcome. I think even the US, despite its superior technology and firepower, would be hard-pressed to cope too. The Russians are just now embarking on a massive re-armament campaign, which will see some 45% of current inventory replaced in the next five to ten years, if not sooner. That alone, vis-a-vis the general situation in the Middle East, is not a reassuring development. The Chinese too, are also embarked on a massive military build-up.

Put very simply, we have two very stark choices if diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Let Iran continue playing silly bugger, thereby threatening the oil supplies - and see our economies wrecked, or go to war and still run the risk of wrecking our economies, which we allowed to become too dependent on a single source of energy. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Surely Ahmadinejad must know that.

 

[GAP]

Another thing to keep in mind is the OIL. In a pinch, the US can get most of their supplies from a combination of their own sources and Canadian Sources...the Middle East is no longer the sole source. There are industrial concerns and a lot of vested interest in the Middle East, but if push comes to shove...the US can handle the lack of oil from the Middle East for the short term.

That given, Europe can't function without ME oil without being raped by the price that will probably charged by the Russian pipeline.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder if "they" remember that North Africa, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Chechneya, etc...were christian countries at one time?

Or at very least, blissfully pagan..... >

The entire turf of Dar al Islam, the land of Peace/Submission, was taken by the sword.  Including Mecca and Medina.

 

[Shadowolf]

North and South America can be considered Western Christian countries... also taken by sword and gun.  Religion usually has to spread to prove to itself that it is the 'One True Religion' or else it dies out. 

 

[Kirkhill]

North and South America can be considered Western Christian countries... also taken by sword and gun.   Religion usually has to spread to prove to itself that it is the 'One True Religion' or else it dies out.   

Yep - true for Jesus, true for Mohammed, Buddha and Zoroaster, true for Vladimir, Uncle Joe and Adolf, and true for David Suzuki and Al Gore......Deus Vult, Insh'allah, Amen.

Thing is - is the problem with the theoretician with the DS solution, or with the person that takes that solution and its true believers and leads them where that individual wants them to go?  Is the problem with Marx and Engels and the Commissars or is it with Vladimir Ilyich and Uncle Joe?  Is it with Jesus and the Dominicans and Franciscan friars or is it with Popes like the Medicis and the Borgias?

Personally I have but one prayer - Lord preserve us from charismatic men on white horses.

Wandering wide of the mark - but given the religious underpinning of Iran's revolution and the nature of the problems we are facing it seems that it might be important to correctly identify the "centre of gravity".

 

[FastEddy]

Good question, and one which isn't hard to answer. The Iranians would definitely threaten to use their nukes if the US and other countries didn't withdraw their forces from the Middle East (Afghanistan included). .

Put very simply, we have two very stark choices if diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Let Iran continue playing silly bugger, thereby threatening the oil supplies - and see our economies wrecked, or go to war and still run the risk of wrecking our economies, which we allowed to become too dependent on a single source of energy. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Surely Ahmadinejad must know that.

Its a pity that Religion which is supposed to be the Salvation of Mankind, has usually been at the core of almost every major conflict of Mankind. Now whether that says a lot for Religion or a lot for Mankind ?, you be the Judge.

If you are forced into a psychical confrontation, just be sure you give the other fellow such a beating, that he'll never bother you again. There's only oneway to handle Bully's.

Cheers.

 

[muskrat89]

From Ralph Peters at the NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/wheres_winston__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0

WHERE'S WINSTON?

IT'S IRAN 15, BRITS 0 IN THE GULF

April 3, 2007 -- THE greatest shock from the Middle East this year hasn't been terrorist ruthlessness or the latest Iranian tantrum. It's that members of Britain's Royal Marines wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors.

Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman.

You could put a U.S. Marine in a dungeon and knock out his teeth, but you wouldn't knock out his pride in his country and the Corps. "Semper fi" means something.

And our Aussie allies would be just as tough.

What on earth happened to the Royal Marines? They're members of what passes for an elite unit. Has the Labor government's program to gut the U.K. military - grounding planes, taking ships out of service and deactivating army units - also ripped the courage from the breasts of those in uniform?

The female sailor who broke down first and begged for her government to surrender was pathetic enough. But when Royal Marines started pleading for tea and sympathy . . . Ma, say it ain't so!

Meanwhile, back at No. 10 "Downer" Street, British politicians are more upset that President Bush described their sailors and Marines as "hostages" than they are with the Iranians.

Okay, Lord Spanker and Lady Fanny - what exactly are those sailors and Marines? Package tourists?

Naturally, the European Union has praised Britain's "restraint." We've now got another synonym for cowardice.

I've always respected the Brits and quite liked those I worked with when in uniform . . . but I'm starting to wonder if I bought into a legend. While criticizing our military's approach to everything, the Brits made an utter balls of it in Basra - now they're bailing out, claiming "Mission accomplished!" (OK, they had a role model . . .) In Heaven, Winston Churchill's puking up premium scotch.

The once-proud Brit military has collapsed to a sorry state when its Royal Marines surrender without a fight, then apologize to their captors (praising their gentle natures!) while criticizing their own country. Pretty sad to think that the last real warriors fighting under the Union Jack are soccer hooligans.

Of course, bravery isn't equally distributed. One or even two collaborators might be explicable. But not all 15.

Yes, journalists and other civilian captives routinely make embarrassing statements on videos, chiding their governments and begging to be swapped for a battalion of mass murderers. One expects nothing better. But military men and women in the English-speaking tradition historically maintained high standards over long years in brutal captivity - and this hostage situation has barely lasted long enough to microwave a bag of popcorn.

Think about Sen. John McCain with his broken limbs undergoing torture in that Hanoi prison - and refusing an early chance to be repatriated because he wouldn't leave his comrades behind. Think he'd do a Tokyo Rose for Tehran?

The Iranians judged their victims well: The British boat crews didn't make even a token effort at defending themselves. Now their boo-hoo-we-quit government isn't defending them, either. Was Margaret Thatcher the last real man in Britain?

The correct response to the seizure of 15 British military hostages - if not released promptly - would've been to hit 15 Revolutionary Guards facilities or vessels along the Iranian coast, then threaten to hit 30 deeper inland the next day.

By hammering the now-degenerate Revolutionary Guards, the Coalition would've strengthened the less-nutty and less-vicious regular military and emboldened President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's growing number of opponents within the government. (It was telling that the Revolutionary Guards could only muster about 200 demonstrators to harass the British embassy - it didn't look much like 1979.)

Instead, we allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once-great military and encourage hostage-takers everywhere.

At the very least, the British naval officer commanding in the zone of operations and the vocal collaborators among the hostages should be court-martialed. And the Royal Marine company to which those wankers belong should be disbanded and stricken from the rolls.

John Bull has been cowed. By a pack of unshaven thugs. And the Britannia that ruled the waves is waving goodbye.