Allah P. writes:

Blair’s talking tough but his foreign ministry people are doing their best to downplay it, going so far as to pretend that the kidnapping is an isolated territorial dispute . . . They nabbed 15 members of the British military one day before a vote on UN sanctions and two days after the AP dropped a bombshell about Mahdi Army involvement with the Revolutionary Guard, and yet the Foreign Office would have us believe that one has nothing to do with the others? Seriously?

Either there’s an exchange program with Foggy Bottom or the spines of the members of England’s “diplomatic corps” are made of the same type of Slinky as ours.

UPDATE: Allah found this, too — evidently these same chaps run the milit’ry as well:

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner – who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged – said he was “surprised” the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive. Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: “Agreed. Yes. I don’t want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team’s training is a little bit more towards self-preservation.”

The executive officer – second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall – said: ” The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?'”

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines – including one young mother – will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain’s determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting … Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away.”

Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. “I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us,” he said.

Quite. Look, it is not unreasonable to take a hit from time to time in order to preserve peace and to be in command of how and when you use force. Ronald Reagan did this with the Russkies in the day, and many of us screamed; yet he won the big show.

On the other hand, this is a theater of war. It is a fundamental mistake to introduce troops into a “shoot to wound” situation. Did Iran choose to pick up the Brits knowing they were under orders to play no more than patty-cake? Remember — these limeys were “vastly outnumbered and out-gunned.” Perhaps Teheran merely took a tactical opportunity presented to it. (UPDATE:) Or planned it very carefully.

Either way, bloody bad show.

That’s how I am about the Iraq war. So much executed so poorly — perhaps. I’m not even convinced of that; all alternative scenarios posit perfect execution and all the other things 20-20 hindsight makes so magical. Some things, yes, are inexcusable, such as Abu Grab. But it’s absurd to postulate that because soldiers died and Arabs are killing each other, as they’re known to do when there are no Jews around, that the war was “lost” — how can you “lose” when the other side leaves the field and its commander in chief is hanged by the government you put in to power?

But not only that: In concept, I cannot bring myself around to believing it was a mistake. I’m not the only one. Though it is pretty lonely.

The only big mistake was and is the Administration’s poor handling of the marketing of the whole situation, exacerbated by the White House’s unfortunate cronyish style. That’s a huger error, because (as I have said before), you can’t put on a war in a democracy unless you’re prepared to sell it, and follow through with the sale. This government was not prepared for that, and if we didn’t learn that from Vietnam, shame on us.  (UPDATE:  Oy.)

Defiance, however — for that, GWB gets credit. He believes in this policy, and all the conventional wisdom and smirking second guessing in the world have not swayed him. It has cost his party plenty to do the right thing, and at the end of the day I don’t know just how much a good PR strategy would have helped. War is hell, after all. But the right thing, it was, and Bush gets credit here for his defiance of … just about everyone.