Originally posted by Hawco
If old Teflon Tony had any sense, he would have the boys all ready to go in there, wouldn't suprise me one bit if they haven't got enough intel gathered already to and get them, in fact they probably have been practising this Just waiting for the order.
there'sprobably a small team already in place doing a close target recconisance already.
Hawco,
Let's recast things a bit. Pretend that for some reason the US nicked 15 British sailors. Well, we know the English will want their sailors back. Let's say, for right now, we're not going to give them back.
So we've got them tucked away under guard.
Also, pretend you're the boss of the operation and have all the resources England has to offer to help you rescue the sailors. I'm sure you see where this is going. Just how do you pull it off?
What would we do if some nation "invaded" us and rescued their soldiers?
And if you like, forget the US make believe snatch of the sailors. Stick with Iran.
To take them was an act of war, to rescue them will be an act of war. Granted in either case it would not be equilivent to leveling major cities and/or rolling tanks across a border like a blitz. But in some fashion, respecting national boundries in both cases goes by the wayside.
I don't know but that we watch too many movies where we "go get our guys." Entebbe springs to mind and not much else. I'm sure someone will fill in the blanks of my faulty memory. And Grenada just doesn't count as an apt comparision.
I was in Washington DC in 1980 when Iran released the US hostages just minutes, hours, days before Regan took office with Alexander Haig as Sect'y of Defense. I've forgotten the timeframe exactly. I chalked it up to my guess that Iran didn't want to mess with General Haig. I've no proof of that. But that's how it seemed to me at the time. Though I have no way of knowing if it be so, or if other methods the Carter administration had employed paid off. And yes, I remember the botched rescue attempt too.
As to the comment, not just here, that the British response was "weak," other than writing off the sailors and attacking Iran -- in a little, med, or big way -- diplomacy, sanctions, public opprobrium abides as the only alternative.
Lastly, the Brits must be asking themselves some questions "is warring against Islam the best course of action?" For that is how it will be "sold" to and by the radical nut jobs. Also, what goes by "radical nut job over here" may be mainstream over there. Iran is not a secular nation.
Another question would be, "shall we write off the 15 sailors?" And we're back to a war v Islam, for it would be impossible to war just v Iran in the minds of many. The list of nations brought into the mix were such an action taken would be significant. Who would not be on the list? Some nations, sure, but you get my drift.
The only reason to go "all in" is that the West may well have to do it anyway in the future when Islam may be stronger. Though I can't see Islamic countries gaining that much military might to fight a conventional war and even coming close. Also, I know you didn't advocate large scale military action, I'm just musing aloud.
I guess they could write off the sailors, bomb into oblivion some cities killing millions, bar all Muslims and middle easterners from entering England, and lob more bombs whenever Iran makes a peep publicly. Not easy choices if you are hesitant to committing the sons of British mothers to all out war.
Then there's the oil. All of it would be a conflagration like the world has yet to see. My own personal wish is to shut them all up and make them play nice. HAH! Fat chance on that one.
Hopefully,
you are correct! There's a plan afoot to rescue them; and after it's all over, that operation will go down in history as textbook example of shrewed planning and execution.
