Botched rescue in Nigeria

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Orlanth**

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/uk/british-hostage-killed-during-special-forces-rescue-bid-7546318.html

Things are bad when the Yanks can mount successful rescues but the SBS can't.

**Tibbsy**

Any chance of a copy/paste for the work blocked?

**Albatross**

I question the wisdom of Nigerian military involvement in this operation.

**reds8n**

Sad, sad news indeed.

Must be awful for the families.

Seems the Italian Govt. are complaining that they weren't told/involved early enough.

I'm not quite sure the approval of Angela Merkel would have altered the unfortunate outcome.

**KingCracker**

Orlanth wrote:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/uk/british-hostage-killed-during-special-forces-rescue-bid-7546318.html

Things are bad when the Yanks can mount successful rescues but the SBS can't.

Guess we arnt as useless as you personally think. Odd thing this real world isnt it?

That does suck for all those involved though. Thoughts/prayers go out to the families.

**SagesStone**

Tibbsy wrote:Any chance of a copy/paste for the work blocked?

Here you go workblocked Dakkas.

Chris McManus: killed alongside an Italian colleague after a rescue mission failed

09 March 2012

A British hostage was murdered by his captors in Nigeria yesterday when an attempted rescue operation involving UK special forces ended in tragedy.

Chris McManus, who was working in the country as a building firm contractor, was killed alongside an Italian colleague as Nigerian troops and British Special Boat Service (SBS) commandos launched a failed mission in West Africa.

The UK national had been held by terrorists associated with Islamist extremist group Boko Haram since May last year after being kidnapped from his apartment by gunmen.

Prime Minister David Cameron said Mr McManus and co-worker Franco Lamolinara had been in "imminent and growing danger" and an opportunity had arisen to attempt to rescue them.

But he faced criticism last night after it emerged that Italian authorities were not notified about the covert operation until it was under way.

Mr Cameron said: "The terrorists holding the two hostages made very clear threats to take their lives, including in a video that was posted on the internet.

"Preparations were made to mount an operation to attempt to rescue Chris and Franco. Together with the Nigerian government, I authorised it to go ahead, with UK support."

Exact details of how Mr McManus died remain unclear, but Mr Cameron said initial indications were that the contractor and Mr Lamolinara were "murdered by their captors, before they could be rescued".

A Nigerian official claimed the two died in a crossfire during the rescue attempt, but the UK said it was awaiting further details.

It is believed members of the SBS were involved in the operation, which unfolded in the city of Sokoto, a city in the north-west of Nigeria, along with Royal Marine Commandos and members of the Nigerian military.

There were reports of a house being surrounded by military and the sounds of gunfire heard before an ambulance was called, according to Associated Press (AP).

Mr Cameron offered his "sincerest condolences" to the families of the hostages, saying they had "endured a terrible ordeal" after details of the failed mission emerged.

In a statement, the family of Mr McManus said they were "devastated by the news of Chris' death" but confident "everything that could be done was being done" during their 10-month ordeal.

The family, who live in Oldham, added: "We are also aware of the many people who were working to try and have Chris returned to our family, and his girlfriend. We would like to thank all of them for their efforts."

Mr Cameron informed Italian premier Mario Monti about the results of the operation by telephone and London and Rome were said to have been in regular contact throughout the long-running efforts to locate and free the men.

However, an Italian senator and a Labour MP called for an explanation of why the country was not informed about the military-led rescue effort until it was under way.

Mr Monti revealed the lack of prior warning in a statement in which he said UK and Nigerian authorities had determined the operation was the "last window of opportunity to save the hostages' lives".

He said he had requested from the Nigerian president a "detailed reconstruction" of what went wrong.

Lucio Malan, of the People of Freedom party, questioned why the British government did not inform Italian counterparts of its intentions before launching the operation.

He told BBC2's Newsnight: "It is still to be explained why the Italian authorities were not informed although they are quite present on the territory of Nigeria."

Labour MP Meg Hillier, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Nigeria, said: "I don't know how fast moving this was but it does seem odd that an ally like Italy was not actually kept informed and it is important that we find out what happened and that the Prime Minister explains to the Italians."

Mr McManus, a contract worker for the construction company B.Stabilini, was kidnapped by a "horde of gunmen" in May last year.

Raiders stormed his apartment in Birnin-Kebbi, in the north-west of the country, and captured him along with Mr Lamolinara.

A German colleague escaped by scaling a wall but a Nigerian engineer was shot and wounded in the raid.

The men were in the city building a bank.

In December a Nigerian group calling itself al Qaida in the land beyond the Sahil announced it had captured Mr McManus.

It released a hostage video to Nouakchott News Agency claiming it had kidnapped the Briton and showed a blindfolded and bearded man in an orange vest.

Three men in dark clothing stood behind him armed with rifles and a machete.

It was reported that the man pictured in the video called for the British Government to respond to the demands of the group, so they would spare his life.

He also asked for the British people to pressure the Government to answer the demands of the group so he could return to his family.

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan yesterday condemned the killing of the hostages and said those responsible for the men's deaths had been arrested. It is understood some of the kidnappers were killed.

There have been a number of foreigners kidnapped while working in Nigeria in recent years.

In September 2008 two Britons were held by the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta.

A Scottish oil worker was abducted and his guard killed in April 2009, in the Rivers State capital Port Harcourt.

Three Britons and a Colombian were kidnapped in January 2010 and in November of the same year, four men from the US, Canada and France were taken 7.5 miles offshore on the Okoro field.

In January last year two French hostages were kidnapped from Niamey, the capital of neighbouring Niger to Nigeria's north.

It's unfortunate they can't save them all.

**Tibbsy**

Thanks n0t_u.

A shame that they couldn't be saved, but I'm with Alby that involving the Nigerian military may not have been the smartest move. From the sounds of it seems like the building in question was surrounded by the Nigerians before anyone could move in. It's likely the hostage takers noticed before they could be stopped.

My condolences to the families of all involved.

**Easy E**

I am interested to hear the details. These rescue missions are a huge gamble, and usually go wrong rather than right.

I seem to recall an earlier mission by the US to rescue hostage went bad when the hostage was accidentally killed by US Forces throwing a grenade into the room where she was being held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Linda_Norgrove

Tragic.

**Albatross**

Incidentally, I hardly think this...

Orlanth wrote:Things are bad when the Yanks can mount successful rescues but the SBS can't.

...is necessary, Orlanth.

**Velour_Fog**

Albatross wrote:I question the wisdom of Nigerian military involvement in this operation.

Probably humouring them.

I think it was bad form not telling the Italians anything until the rescue was underway.

**Orlanth**

Albatross wrote:Incidentally, I hardly think this...

Orlanth wrote:Things are bad when the Yanks can mount successful rescues but the SBS can't.

...is necessary, Orlanth.

Why not?

There was a time when the rep for getting things done was second to none.
It matters you know.

This plus previous failures like the way a RN crew bottled when captured by the Iranians in 2007 exposed some weaknesses. According to several veterans I know the UK armed forces are not what they were. Over a decade of mistraining and dropping standards has seen to that. This should not effect units like the SBS but it.

Also if rumour has any value the UK special forces had a role to play in the recent Seal Team 6 exploits in Pakistan and Somalia. The US has in the past asked for our assistance in operations like these, now with the US supposedly getting better and the UK apparently declining in these fields it is a good excuse for someone like Obama to sideline us even further than he already has.

Over al our position in the world at least in part comes from our ability to punch above our weight, if we are seen aas a people who punch and miss this might embolden those who want a piece of us. Argentina for one.

Yes the rep does matter.

**Amaya**

OP is right in a way, in the 80s the SAS was the cream of the crop.

**SilverMK2**

Things can go wrong no matter how awesome the forces are that you use.

**AustonT**

Amaya wrote:OP is right in a way, in the 80s the SAS was the cream of the crop.

Kind of depends on which crop we are talking about. If you mean military special forces and ALL that that entails I'm inclined to agree. If you are referring to hostage rescues and counter terrorism such as the article is about: that title belongs to the GSG-9 as recognized by the international community for decades. One might also argue that the Sayeret Matkal have been the "cream of the crop" since their inception, or Spetznatz.
Just about every organization you can name that is similar in scope, mission, and training has had flubs. That doesn't mean the SBS is any less than top notch.

**cpt_fishcakes**

Amaya wrote:OP is right in a way, in the 80s the SAS was the cream of the crop.

A Hostage was killed and two injured by the terrorists during the SAS assault on the Iranian embassy. Until we develop a magic death ray that can kill every potential Threat to the Hostages instantly, terrorists will always have time to kill them.

Going by what little information the government is letting out. The SBS had them under surveillance and information came in that they were possibly about to be executed and it was decided to try and rescue them immediately. Which explains why Italy was not informed until it all began. We dont even know what roll the SBS played in the rescue, it all depends on how much freedom Nigeria was willing to give foreign troops.

**Albatross**

Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:Incidentally, I hardly think this...

Orlanth wrote:Things are bad when the Yanks can mount successful rescues but the SBS can't.

...is necessary, Orlanth.

Why not?

There was a time when the rep for getting things done was second to none.
It matters you know.

This plus previous failures like the way a RN crew bottled when captured by the Iranians in 2007 exposed some weaknesses.

Oh, come on - that's nonsense. I think you're venturing dangerously into armchair commando territory there. Are you honestly saying that those sailors should have effectively started a war with Iran by exchanging fire with them in disputed waters? And when they were outnumbered and outgunned? Do me a favour, Rambo. They would have all been killed... for what? Misplaced national pride? Awesome. By 'bottling', those people got to go home to their families without so much as a hair out of place, the Iranians had their little propaganda stunt and ended up looking even crazier and more stupid than they already did. They embarrassed themselves, not us. Britain acted with customary grace.

According to several veterans I know the UK armed forces are not what they were.

And according to several veterans I know, they are better. What else do you have to back your decline narrative up?

Over a decade of mistraining and dropping standards has seen to that.

What are you basing that on? Are you in a position to pass judgement on training standards?

At the end of the day, this mission ultimately failed because the captors killed the hostages before the SBS could get to them. It's sad, but it happens. You can't win them all, but UK special forces have an uncanny knack of winning 99/100. Let's remember that this event is notable because the mission failed, an outcome which is untypical of UKSF.

**Orlanth**

Albatross wrote:
Oh, come on - that's nonsense. I think you're venturing dangerously into armchair commando territory there. Are you honestly saying that those sailors should have effectively started a war with Iran by exchanging fire with them in disputed waters?

Sorry matey your being the armchair commando here. I mentioned nothing about shooting back, so dont assume. 1. Unlike some Australians in the 'same boat' a few weeks later they should have stood their ground and shouted back for the Iranians to 'feth off'. They did. The RN team however surrendered on cue. 2. Secondly the conduct of the officer post surrender who lost his nerve and did exactly what he was told by his captors starting immediately. He would have known that the capture was monitored and that Iran would not be able to get away with maltreating his team.

Albatross wrote:
And when they were outnumbered and outgunned? Do me a favour, Rambo. They would have all been killed... for what? Misplaced national pride? Awesome.

The Australians were not shot at, the Iranians backed down. Rambo not required.

Albatross wrote:By 'bottling', those people got to go home to their families without so much as a hair out of place, the Iranians had their little propaganda stunt and ended up looking even crazier and more stupid than they already did. They embarrassed themselves, not us. Britain acted with customary grace.

Apparently thats not how the Navy saw it. But I suppose I should not listen to former RN personnel when I can listen to Albatross.

Albatross wrote:
And according to several veterans I know, they are better. What else do you have to back your decline narrative up?

Are they? I find that hard to believe.
The forces are now rife with compo culture, bad attitudes (of the wrong sort) and poorer states of dress and fitness. Ask veterans.
Retention is a problem, and one that can be quantified. If people are leaving, and its hard to find recruits who will serve, it pays to consider the reasons.

Albatross wrote:
What are you basing that on? Are you in a position to pass judgement on training standards?

I am not, others are. Ask veterans.

Albatross wrote:
At the end of the day, this mission ultimately failed because the captors killed the hostages before the SBS could get to them. It's sad, but it happens. You can't win them all, but UK special forces have an uncanny knack of winning 99/100. Let's remember that this event is notable because the mission failed, an outcome which is untypical of UKSF.

Ok. How do you base this? What else has the UK special forces done recently for you to claim 99%. Last of the impressive stuff happened in Sierra Leone over a decade ago. The last rescue situations to hit the news were the Somalian hostage crisis which was 'outsourced' and a couple yaughting off the Seychelles who were tracked by the RN after being captured by pirates. The French took action in circumstances like that, the Uk did not. While blame for this is most likely Gordon Browns fault it cast a long shadow. Actually we are getting a rep for being a pushover though one reason or another. Mostly political.
A certain former serviceman who posts here explained once why he left the armed forces, and included anecdotes of how Taliban were planting IED's in full view of British troops, because they had lost their fear of them. We got a rep for dogma and inaction in spite of the quality of the soldiers. While that was not due to any fault of their own and can be firmly laid at Whitehall if you combine that with widely publicised botched opps you can get problems.

I am not saying I see any sharks, as yet, but there is blood in the water now.

**Albatross**

Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Oh, come on - that's nonsense. I think you're venturing dangerously into armchair commando territory there. Are you honestly saying that those sailors should have effectively started a war with Iran by exchanging fire with them in disputed waters?

Sorry matey your being the armchair commando here. I mentioned nothing about shooting back, so dont assume. 1. Unlike some Australians in the 'same boat' a few weeks later they should have stood their ground and shouted back for the Iranians to 'feth off'. They did. The RN team however surrendered on cue. 2. Secondly the conduct of the officer post surrender who lost his nerve and did exactly what he was told by his captors starting immediately. He would have known that the capture was monitored and that Iran would not be able to get away with maltreating his team.

Well, you've never been in that position, nor will you ever be, so you're free to speculate.

Albatross wrote:By 'bottling', those people got to go home to their families without so much as a hair out of place, the Iranians had their little propaganda stunt and ended up looking even crazier and more stupid than they already did. They embarrassed themselves, not us. Britain acted with customary grace.

Apparently thats not how the Navy saw it. But I suppose I should not listen to former RN personnel when I can listen to Albatross.

Why on earth would you listen to former Navy personel and think it's relevant to a discussion on the navy as it is at present? Also, 'the Navy' doesn't think anything - it's a large organisation of people, all with differing perspectives. Your mate down the pub is not an authority on what the Navy as a whole thinks about a given situation.

Albatross wrote:
And according to several veterans I know, they are better. What else do you have to back your decline narrative up?

Are they? I find that hard to believe.
The forces are now rife with compo culture, bad attitudes (of the wrong sort) and poorer states of dress and fitness. Retention is a problem, as it a decade of dogmatised officers who know longer think of the men first. Ask veterans.

No need, I can ask people who are currently serving.

Incidentally, I find it a little weird that you pontificate about the military as if you have some sort of inside track, when you aren't even a member of it. I was under the impression that you were, or had been, up until recently..

**Wolfstan**

Orlanth wrote:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/uk/british-hostage-killed-during-special-forces-rescue-bid-7546318.html

Things are bad when the Yanks can mount successful rescues but the SBS can't.

As mentioned already, the Yanks managed to throw in a grenade into the same room as the hostage the last time they did a rescue attempt. The Bin Laden raid was just that, a raid. People getting killed was a major worry. When passing comment on "success" you are forgeting that we have come a long way since the Iranian embassy incident. Every bugger and their cousin knows how special forces operate thanks to all the press coverage, books and films out there. I would imagine rescuing hostages safely before this stuff came out was bad enough, now it's going to be nigh on impossible.

In the real world the hostage takers aren't going to hang around at the first sign of trouble, they will pull the trigger. Added on top of all this are all the othr variables that get in the way, strangely enough real life special ops actions aren't like Tom Clancey books. gak happens, and to use it as a stick to say that our special forces / armed forces are going down the pan is a bit extreme.

As Albatross has rightly pointed out, blowing the Iranians out of the water would of been a piece of cake for the RN and I would imagine the Bootnecks weren't too happy, but they would of been told by HMG to not do it. In the time that it took for the marines and RN to react the Iranians would more than likely got off some rounds and may of killed some of our people. Even then the UK wouldn't of started a war, so we end up with dead RN/Marine personel, not hitting back and Iran having the usual Arab PR result that go after. You know the drill, we wipe out 30 of their troops, they wound one of ours and it's then all over the world press that they have given us a great big kicking!?!

**Orlanth**

Albatross wrote:
Well, you've never been in that position, nor will you ever be, so you're free to speculate.

Have you?....

The Australian team was though. So some speculation is valid.

Albatross wrote:
Why on earth would you listen to former Navy personel and think it's relevant to a discussion on the navy as it is at present?

Yes must listen to Albatross not Navy personnel, he will know so much more.

Albatross wrote:
Incidentally, I find it a little weird that you pontificate about the military as if you have some sort of inside track, when you aren't even a member of it. I was under the impression that you were, or had been, up until recently..

So not having the same opinion as Albatross = pontificating. Ok, moving on.
I am not claiming higher authority for my own opinion, why are you?
I am however giving good credence to people who have served. Like I said earlier. Ask the veterans. Try an open mind for a change.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:
Orlanth wrote:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/uk/british-hostage-killed-during-special-forces-rescue-bid-7546318.html

Things are bad when the Yanks can mount successful rescues but the SBS can't.

As mentioned already, the Yanks managed to throw in a grenade into the same room as the hostage the last time they did a rescue attempt.

They got visibly better since. Notice the word visibly. Obama makes a meal of it when his commandos pull off a job.
US special forces are improving though by all accounts, come a long long way since '79.

Wolfstan wrote:
In the real world the hostage takers aren't going to hang around at the first sign of trouble, they will pull the trigger. Added on top of all this are all the othr variables that get in the way, strangely enough real life special ops actions aren't like Tom Clancey books.

It appears the Italians were informed at one level, but are claiming they werent informed at another. There is the whole question of a Nigerian tip off. Lot of questions.
Still where is the blame going, and why. Would Italy be all upset if the rescue worked? No.
The outcome is what is relevant, not the ifs and buts.
And no this is not from Tom Clancy books. What are you trying to imply by that. To listen to you is sagacity, but to think otherwise must mean that I am getting my infor from trash literature. What arrogance! It also dioesnt explain this "Every bugger and their cousin knows how special forces operate thanks to all the press coverage, books and films out there."
Please make your mind up.

Wolfstan wrote:
gak happens, and to use it as a stick to say that our special forces / armed forces are going down the pan is a bit extreme.

This is NOT what I was saying, read carefully. It can be taken as a given that other factors other than skill are involved, the embarassment is still there.
What matters is how the incident will be seen.

Wolfstan wrote:
As Albatross has rightly pointed out, blowing the Iranians out of the water would of been a piece of cake for the RN and I would imagine the Bootnecks weren't too happy, but they would of been told by HMG to not do it.

Your jumping to conclusions even worse than he is. Blowing away Iranians at the borders of Iranian waters would not be a good outcome, never proposed that or implied it, if you read that into my commentary then you are effectively saying: I have no argument against what was actually written, so lets assume he wrote something different I can jump on it.
Bottom line, they should have done what the Aussies did. Iran is also unwilling to go too far.

Wolfstan wrote:
In the time that it took for the marines and RN to react the Iranians would more than likely got off some rounds and may of killed some of our people. Even then the UK wouldn't of started a war, so we end up with dead RN/Marine personel, not hitting back and Iran having the usual Arab PR result that go after. You know the drill, we wipe out 30 of their troops, they wound one of ours and it's then all over the world press that they have given us a great big kicking!?!

Where do you get this from? What marines for a start, there was a single armed RN team in an MV.

**Kilkrazy**

A single incident is a narrow foundation on which to build a pattern of long term decline of the armed forces.

**notprop**

Did the Aussies have helicopters in place at the time of their incident? I know it was one of the stated failing of the British incident that the Helo was no providing top cover and main vessel may not have been in a position to provide support either. I would be surprise if this set of circumstances was in place on two seperate occasions.

Anyway back on topic, the news quoted andy mcnab of stating that these things are only successful in a third of cases. A shame the hostages weren't rescued but I understand that there was a 7 hour firefight, hardly in and out. My guess is that something went wrong to alert the bad guys, but I wouldn't go so far as to blame Nigerian forces at this point (you'll probably find we trained them).

As for the italians, so what? Were they going to step up at short notice, they seemed to be completely unaware of the situation of their own man. The best they could probably do (have done) is send one of Silvios shady mates with a bag o cash.

**Orlanth**

Kilkrazy wrote:A single incident is a narrow foundation on which to build a pattern of long term decline of the armed forces.

Its indicative only of what the media and opponents can make of it. Thats my point.

The decline within the armed forces shown by other better indicators, such as the 2007 Iran incident, and its 'foundation' if you will is the testimonies of several veterans (note the multiple sourcing) I spoke to who claim such.
You could learn a lot by talking to veterans.

**Ahtman**

Orlanth wrote:You could learn a lot by talking to veterans.

The vets I talked to said the vets you talked to were wrong. Note the multiple sources.

**Wolfstan**

The team of eight sailors and seven Royal Marines in two rigid-hulled inflatable boats from the Type 22 frigate HMS Cornwall had been searching a merchant dhow for smuggled automobiles when they were detained at roughly 10:30 Iraqi time (07:30 GMT; 11:00 Iranian time) by the crews of two Iranian boats; a further six Iranian boats then assisted in the seizure.

Unless I've misunderstood the incident you are refering to, it will be these marines.

With regard to "friends in the forces saying". I refer to the old adage "opinions are like ****holes, everyone has one". Comments on the current stanadard of our military is no different to comments made on whether we should be in Afganistan / Iraq. You had ex military who were really expecting to have to go to a war zone whining about it. You then have interviews with serving military personel who just shrug and take it on the chin or are quite up for it. You only have to read books like Sniper One to see comments like that. So to give out a broad sweeping statement that this failed mission is some indication of drop in the British military standard is extreme.

As notprop has pointed out, Andy McNab has already stated that not all missions are successful.

Good to see you missed my point concerning Tom Clancey. Perhaps it's my fault. Let me try again. You appear to have the feeling that our Special Forces should get it right 100% of the time, no hostages get killed and the bad guys get wiped out, just like in a Tom Clancey book. In those books the ops go smoothly and all the intel is spot on. Which I said is not the case in the real world, so to expect our Special Force to get it right everytime is foolish and I still can't see how this and the Iranian Navy iccident shows that our forces are in decline. That's what I understand you to be basically say, sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

Concerning, "every bugger..." That is refering to the fact on top of a hostage rescue being hard enough, you have the fact that there is so much info out there on how Special Forces operate any terrorist worth his salt will be expecting most of the tactics they use, so therefore the time to get the job done decreases.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
Over al our position in the world at least in part comes from our ability to punch above our weight, if we are seen aas a people who punch and miss this might embolden those who want a piece of us. Argentina for one.

Yes the rep does matter.

Then you prove them wrong in an armed conflict, or you decide that it isn't worth the effort, or that you cannot step to the challenge.

Reputation is irrelevant, capacity is all that matters.

As for "punching above your weight" the UK is third in gross military expenditure. The only countries you could punch that are above your weight are the US, and China. The US would annihilate you, and I say that without any nationalistic sentiment of any kind. China would be more interesting, but in the long run you would still lose.

**Monster Rain**

Ahtman wrote:The vets I talked to said the vets you talked to were wrong. Note the multiple sources.

I tried talking to some vets about this, but all they kept saying was "If you aren't calling to set up an appointment for a pet, please stop bothering us."

**Orlanth**

Ahtman wrote:
Orlanth wrote:You could learn a lot by talking to veterans.

The vets I talked to said the vets you talked to were wrong. Note the multiple sources.

Please try trolling less.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
Please try trolling less.

You first.

**Orlanth**

Wolfstan wrote:
With regard to "friends in the forces saying". I refer to the old adage "opinions are like ****holes, everyone has one".

Speak for yourself if you will. Your counterpoint is no less an opinion piece.

Wolfstan wrote:
So to give out a broad sweeping statement that this failed mission is some indication of drop in the British military standard is extreme.

Except I repeatedly pointed out that wasn't the conclusion. The failure is an embarrassment, no less, no more. Yet embarrassments are damaging.

The drop in military standards for a plethora of reasons is well documented and commented on in the public domain by senior military personnel. Its not something I just made up, I wish I could say I had and it were not true. For a single example, there are serious concerns about our ability to hold the Flaklands if an invasion occurs. Personnel retention is the biggest concern IMHO, if the services weren't declining people wouldnt be leaving. Its all public domain stuff and common knowledge not a claim to have inside info.

Wolfstan wrote:
Good to see you missed my point concerning Tom Clancey. Perhaps it's my fault. Let me try again. You appear to have the feeling that our Special Forces should get it right 100% of the time, no hostages get killed and the bad guys get wiped out, just like in a Tom Clancey book.

Not relevant. What is relevant is that there have been many well publised failures or failure by inaction, but few successes. Albatross still harps on about 99% success with nothing to back it up. Yes British special forces tend not to crow about their victories but they do hit the press, especially hostage rescues. How many successful ones have we had of late?

Wolfstan wrote:
I still can't see how this and the Iranian Navy incident shows that our forces are in decline. That's what I understand you to be basically say, sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

It is indicative IMHO, you got me right on this one. The team bottled very quickly both before and after capture. I would have too, but then I am a ponti. Compare the compliance of the team after capture with the silent minimal compliance of the captured airmen of the 1991 first gulf war. There are rules and associated training regarding what you do if captured, these servicemen behaved like they were untrained. If I could see this, so could and did others better qualified to comment. Were I alone I would immediately dismiss my conclusion.

dogma wrote:
Then you prove them wrong in an armed conflict, or you decide that it isn't worth the effort, or that you cannot step to the challenge.

Reputation is irrelevant, capacity is all that matters.

Reputation is what opponents go on when it comes to whether its worth the effort. It wont stop bullets though.

Rep is important both now and historically. The Asyrrians and Romans placed great store in it, as did later nations including the UK and US. The Asyrrians in particular used the rep of their professional army to great leverage, so the concept is at least 2500 years old and counting.

It wont stop everyone, true, Islamic fanatics are a good example of that as defeat and death are not synonymous to those expecting eternal reward. However others are susceptible.

I will give you one piece of modern evidence. The bagpipes. The Scots by tradition play the bagpipes into battle, and still do. Why play musical instruments in modern warfare, it sounds daft, but its all about reputation, it says the Scots are not afraid and opponents have admittedly to be unsettled by it.

Reputation also has other effects, soldiers don't want to let down the honour of their regiment, and that is all about rep. It sounds jingoistic but it is effective.

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Please try trolling less.

You first.

Giving a straight rational on topic opinion is not trolling, whether or not it is agreed with. You might profit by learning the difference.