Should the commander of the HMS Cornwall to be arrested and charged for cowardice ?

Question

If PM Blair and the British Navy so sure about the 15 British sailors were in Iraqi water while they were arrested , why the hell the Commander of the HMS Cornhall just watched and did nothing to protect the 15 British sailors from being arrested in the first place , after all , the HMS Cornwall has sufficient firepower , as we are told now , to destroy the 5 Iranian gunboats.

Forget about Rules of engagement . the Iraqi hotel worker who died while he was in British custody had more than 90 bruises and wounds in his body , but no british soldiers were held responsible for the his death because all british soldiers closed rank with each other and refused to tell the truth. What I am trying to say is we British always look after our own kinds and it was wrong of the Commander of the HMS Cornwall not to rescue the 15 British sailors if we were really in Iraqi water.

Answer 1

Interesting point. It appears like those sailors seem to like swaggering on to boats pointing machine guns in the faces of defenceless, innocent people, yet when the tables are turned it's all brown trousers, guns down, hands up and please arrest me.

Answer 2

No, not until ALL the evidence is in:

First, the CO of the ship will be operating under ROE that most likely prohibit him from firing unless HIS vessel and crew are in DANGER.

From what I've been able to INFER from the news (BBC) and remember from flying over the area in 1990-1999... the siezure took place inside the Shatt al Arab... basically a river mouth... the 15 Marines/Sailors use the RHIBS to manuever in those restricted waters while the Cornwall would stand out further to sea. The Coalition Forces currently use an imaginary line straight down the middle of the Shatt al Arab as the dividing line.

SO, the HMS Cornwall may not have been in a POSITION to fire or interfere with the action... I don't even have word that the Cornwall had visual contact. The may have their helicopter up for overwatch... or it may just have been radio-contact with the RHIB's. NO SEE, no shoot !!

I stood a watch as TAO in 1997 when we were enforcing UN Sanctions against Iraq... the Iranian's LOVED to come out and interfere ! I was sitting 50- 50 miles or so away from the action directing the frigate CO's and Helo crews... usually at midnight !

Answer 3

No. The RN boats were surrounded and outgunned, and would have been massacred if they'd tried to resist. Modern military doctrine is to surrender if your position is hopeless, as theirs was. Here's Admiral Sir Alan West on the subject: "[...] all they had were small arms, they don't have heavy weapons. So of course to actually start fighting patrol boats would not be a clever thing."

HMS Cornwall was not close enough to give any support and could not have reached the area before the RN personnel were arrested and under way on the Iranian gunboats.

Answer 4

Quickest way to start a war is to over react.

We are supposed to be their to help rebuild Iraq. the situation with Iran is tense, he will have orders not to engage using weapons unless fired upon.
So no he should not be arrested and charged, it is the politicians who are running the show and the Navy has strict operational guidelines in the area.

Had he used force then the Iranian Airfare could have been summoned and destroyed the ship with a great loss of life.

As we stand we have 15 personnel being held prisoner, Britain has acted honourably if the Iranians fail to protect our people then any move to hostilities will be done through the UN.
The armed services personnel know what risks they have to take to do their job, the problem is we quickly forget the sacrifices they make when they return home(if we ever knew).

Answer 5

Its called Rules of Engagement. I would imagine the Commander of HMS Cornwall wanted to retaliate but he was probably under specific orders not to fire on the Iranians even if they are in Iraqi territorial waters for fear of igniting a powder keg and turning a mole hill into a mountain. There is also the possibility that Cornwall's own personnel could have been caught in the line of fire.

Answer 6

In some circumstance what you suggest might be the answer. But on this occasion i think the commander was probably in touch with fleet Head quarters in London and was most likely told to do nothing.. The trouble is that this area is very close to Iranian airfields, which could have reacted very quickly and most likely sunk the Cornwall and so made the incident very much worse. In fact if that had happened its likely that the UK would have been at war with Iran right now.

Answer 7

o'yam you are obviously an expert.

Not.

British forces have rules to follow which are designed to minimise the need for force.

US forces also have Rules of Engagement, but they won't tell anyone what they are because if they did, we would then be able to decide if they acted illegally each time they kill British soldiers in "friendly fire" incidents. (Seem more like unfriendly incidents to me). Judging by their behaviour though, it appears US policy is "bomb the buggers" and tell every one who questions it a pack of lies.

So in answer to your question, no he shouldn't be arrested, he should be congratulated for not making a bad situation even worse.

Answer 8

It is not the responsibility of the captain to declare war.If the Irans had fired on the captured personnel then there is every likelihood that the ship would engage them he took the correct course and its up to the diplomats to sort out that's what they are for and to the person going on about Arabs - Iranians are not Arabs most Arabs don't like them.

Answer 9

Commander Cornwall, did all he could. Had he fired on the Irainians, it would have been World War 3. No he should not be charged. He was maintaining PEACE.

Answer 10

In the Cornwall had gone in the sailors and marines would have been killed,regardless.
Iran would have gained sympathy from the Arab world and things would escalate out of hand.
All this was war gamed ,years ago and orders given to all the ships in the gulf.
Iran WANTS SOMETHING or wouldn't have taken the chance.
Probably,wants Britain to pull out of the middle east totally,maybe even the Mediterranean.

Answer 11

Because of aninternational problem added to his own country, as militars they have their instructions about what to do and of course, before to engage into a war with a third country the most logical is to consult such thing and the order from control comand was to wait... don´t you think that generals are not there to do what they please but there is a discipline to folow? you don´t know anything about militar forces, do you?