Hornblower & the Ice-Cream Navy

William S. Lind over at d-n-i.net weighs in on the Royal Navy debacle:

For Britain, and especially for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the incident ended in utter disgrace. The initial surrender of the British boarding party to what appears to have been a much larger Iranian force is the only defensible British action in the whole sorry business. Even in Horatio Hornblower's Royal Navy, a British frigate captain was not disgraced if he struck to a French or Spanish ship of the line. Force majeure remains a valid excuse.

But everything else that was said or done would have given Hornblower or Jack Aubrey an apoplexy. The failure of HMS Cornwall to foresee such an event and be in a position to protect her people; the cowardice—there is no other word for it—of the boarding party (including two officers) once captured; their kissing the Iranian's backsides in return for their release; and perhaps most un-British, their selling their disgraceful stories to the British press for money on their return -- all this departs from Royal Navy traditions in ways that would have appalled the tars who fought at Trafalgar.

Yet that is not the worst of it. The worst of it is the reaction of the Navy's higher-ups. According to a story in the April 7 Washington Times, the Royal Navy's top commander, Admiral Jonathon Band, leapt to the boarding party's defense with virtually Jerry Springeresque words:

He told the British Broadcasting Corp. he believed the crew behaved with "considerable dignity and a lot of courage" during their 13 days in Iranian captivity.

He also said the so-called confessions made by some of them and their broadcast on Iranian state television appear to have been made under "a certain amount of psychological pressure."…

"I would not agree at all that it was not our finest hour. I think our people have reacted extremely well in some very difficult circumstances," he said.

Had the captives been 10-year old girls from Miss Marples' Finishing School, Admiral Band's words might make some sense. But these were supposed to be fighting men from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines! Yes, I meant men. What Politically Correct imbecile detailed a woman to a boarding party?

I've reserved my opinion on who is culpable in this mess on the grounds that it is unfair to judge a man in a tight spot, but after the appalling way that both the former hostages (I almost hesitate to acknowledge them as Royal Navy) and the government has acted in the aftermath, it is clear that this is an episode that the Navy and Her Majesty's Government can only look back upon with shame. I'm willing to give all the benefit of the doubt to someone who falls into the hands of a load of murdering Jihadists and is forced to make propaganda against his will, but there are limits. Compare these images of RAF pilots John Peters & John Nichols that were broadcast on Iraqi television during the first Gulf War:

To this one of the fifteen hostages in Iran:

They didn't even have enough pride (or sense) to leave those blasted "goody bags" behind. Talk about selling your birthright for a mess of pottage! It's one thing to cooperate with the enemy to the absolute minimum under extreme pressure. It is quite another to do so with such enthusiasm after what we now know was so little persuasion-- unless fear of missing a daughter's birthday or being called "Mr. Bean" now counts as duress vile (And no, I have not forgotten the mock executions. On that point I refer back to Private Moyes).

As Mr. Lind points out, far more blame can be placed on the commander of HMS Cornwall, who sent his men into harm's way without adequate protection-- indeed, we now learn no protection at all. No RN officer should be in a position where he can't say this (courtesy of C. S. Forester):

Capt. Horatio Hornblower, R.N: If I am not back aboard the Lydia within one hour, she'll train her guns upon your fort and reduce it to rubble.
El Supremo: With you in it, Captain?
Capt. Horatio Hornblower, R.N: That is my order.

Near enough blame can also be placed with the boarding party officers who did not order their men to give the enemy as little as possible and a great deal more blame can go to Faye Turney and Arthur Batchelor, who sold their stories to the press regardless of whatever Whitehall fathead said that it was okay to do so. At the very least, I hope that a fistful of official reprimands are being shoved into service records.

But the real villian in the piece (aside from the Iranians, but that's irrelevant, as they should have come out of this with nothing but a few shot up patrol boats and a stern warning to never try it again) is the Blair government, who from the first were more worried about spin than giving the armed forces the support they need and deserve and it's going to take a damn sight more than Des Browne falling on his sword to put things right. According to Michael Smith and Maurice Chittenden in the Sunday Times,

The origins of the shambles lie in the navy’s concern over cuts. At the height of its power in the mid-19th century, it could muster more forces than the seven next biggest navies combined.

Now it is the Cinderella of the three services and has been largely sidelined during the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Royal Marine commandos and the SBS, still both part of the navy, have fought with distinction in both operations, but the main contribution from the navy proper was to fire off a few token cruise missiles on the opening days of each war. Even then the United States snaffled all of the best targets.

During the attack on Afghanistan, said one senior intelligence source, the Royal Navy’s expensive cruise missiles had done “little more than rearrange the rubble” at a couple of disused Al-Qaeda training camps. Her Majesty’s ships have not seen any serious action since the Falklands and are struggling to attract the right calibre of recruits.

Even the royal family now give the “senior service” a miss. It used to be standard practice for royals to serve in the navy, a tradition followed by George V, Edward VII, George VI, Edward VIII, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh. But Princes William and Harry have both preferred the army, although William is scheduled for a short spell in the navy next year.

Fearing further decline, navy chiefs ordered a publicity drive centred around HMS Cornwall, a frigate sent to take over last month as flagship of Task Force 158, the allied flotilla protecting the Iraqi oil installations and territorial waters.

Television crews from Sky and the BBC were flown on board the ship to film the crew at work monitoring the northern Gulf; Cornwall was to be the front-page story in Navy News, the navy’s in-house journal. But from the start the publicity drive went awry.

Cornwall, known as “the ice-cream frigate” because of its designation F99, travelled to the Gulf via Barcelona, Malta and Croatia. Along the way the crew engaged in a series of sporting events with local teams; they lost every match.

From the wooden wall to ice-cream frigate in two centuries. Ye gods, if the shades of Cochrane, Fisher and Churchill aren't howling and clanking through the corridors of Westminster and affording Mr. Blair et al not a moment's peace, then they are seriously wasting their afterlife.

I remember during the Falklands War that I remarked that the conflict in the South Atlantic marked a crisis in British history. This was a moment when afterwards Great Britain would have the choice of either becoming once again a world-class power or joining her Continental brethren in slinking off to historical obscurity.

It looks as though Horatio Hornblower has been forsaken for Mr. Bean.