Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

The Spectator’s Notes

Charles Moore

Wednesday, 4th April 2007

Friends with military experience ponder two questions about the Iranian kidnap of the 15 British sailors. The first is, ‘Why didn’t they put up a fight?’ The answer seems to lie with the rules of engagement. This was effectively confirmed by Sir Alan West, until recently the First Sea Lord, who said that the rules were ‘de-escalatory’, and part of the British attempt to be a ‘force for good’ (the government’s cant phrase about our armed services). ‘Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were... captured,’ Sir Alan explained, apparently with approval. So enemies who know that we have these rules, and are themselves absolutely happy to be a force for bad, can attack almost with impunity. Is it surprising that the services experience difficulty recruiting people? The second question is, ‘Have the sailors had proper Conduct after Capture training, especially the more advanced course called Resistance to Interrogation?’ The damaging things that the captured servicemen said on Iranian television appeared to go right against the rules about what can and cannot be said, and most did not appear to contain the coded signals to indicate duress in which the sailors should have been trained. One of the most powerful weapons of torture which does not inflict actual violence is sleep-deprivation. I gather that, because of human-rights considerations, this can no longer be applied in our training to resist interrogation, so our service personnel are more vulnerable to the real thing. The Iranians are doing brilliantly, and we are helping them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page