saluki9 said:
Nords, you're a betting man. What do you think the chances were that they would have killed one of those prisoners? If this were afghanistan it would be a different story entirely (if you read a little history you will see that they are without a doubt the allstars when it comes to killing POWs) Iran has a political agenda and there isn't a chance in hell they would have hurt them.
I can't speak for the British Navy, but they don't need my help. I'll stick to what I know of the U.S. Navy.
I'd say the chances were pretty darn high that an obstreperous, resistant, angry, combative POW would be killed a lot more quickly than a cooperative, smiling, reasonable POW. There was no reason to kill a POW on purpose but there were plenty of opportunities to kill one by accident. In fact those Iranian "soldiers" would scare the hell out of me with their poor training, lousy weapons technique, and generally unprofessional behavior that gave them all those POWs in the first place. The time to kick their assets would have been
before I was captured. After the capture I'd be a combination of Guy Smiley & Gumby until I met someone who I trusted to be able to safe their weapons without shooting off parts of my anatomy. Their senior chain of command would appreciate the additional leverage offered by a live POW instead of a dead enemy.
Second, an obstreperous, resistant, angry, combative POW is not only a liability to his own health & safety but also to that of all his shipmates. If he's not cooperating then they'll just shoot one of his shipmates somewhere (hopefully) non-lethal until he calms down a little. If he's not answering questions then there's no need to start shooting (see the previous paragraph) but if he's raising a ruckus then they'd feel justified. Better yet, they know these infidels go crazy when they mess with their women-- so maybe they'll start there. They've seen just as many Abu Ghraib photos as we have and they're probably just as creative.
Third, an ORAC POW is not helping to facilitate the escape attempt. We want the guards to be lulled into a sense of false security by our Oscar-winning impressions of being scared little bunny rabbits. There's plenty of time to be a predator later, especially if they're bunched closer together to snicker with each other instead of spread out for mutual defense. Or maybe we'd be better off ditching the predator bit altogether in favor of departing with surprise, speed, and distance.
Fourth, an ORAC POW is not helping their chain of command with whatever mission they were trying to accomplish. It's kinda hard to lay ordnance on targets when your POWs are handcuffed to their rooftops. Stay out of trouble, stay alive, and let the bosses work on getting them out. It's a lot easier to rescue prisoners who are ambulatory than those who've been beaten, shot, and so forth.
Fifth, an ORAC POW is not helping their country's diplomatic & national command authorities. If everyone behaves themselves then we can keep talking until meaningless diplomatic semantic apologies are exchanged and hostages are released. If a POW's behavior leads to public retaliation then the POW's govt may feel it has no choice but to make an example of not negotiating with terrorists. Kinda tough on the shipmates and their families, but that's what happens when the govt makes decisions based on the needs of the many instead of the needs of the few.
All those POWs had to do was exactly what they did. They sat tight, followed their code of conduct, and waited for the next step. No one faults them for any video or documents or statements that were obtained under duress. It's the same thing the U.S. Navy's EP-3 crew did on Hainan-do and what Scott O'Grady did after flunking his F-16's Bosnia missile-evasion practical exam. It's the same thing that the U.S. Navy teaches at its Survival, Evasion, Resistance, & Escape school and the same thing the Army teaches its Rangers & SF. For the rest of us who didn't get to attend that kind of training, it's precisely why articles III, IV, & V of the
U.S. military's code of conduct (hey, thanks Rustic) are written the way they are... in the blood of Stockdale, McCain, Galanti, and the rest of the POWs. I don't think the words "pussies" or "self-respect" are in there either.
For those of you not familiar with Paul Galanti, he was the pilot in the POW movie who was averting his face and scratching his neck with his middle finger in a gesture that wasn't recognized by the NVA. When the Russians explained that little cultural oversight to their NVA counterparts, Galanti paid a high price for a defiant gesture that served no purpose. In his defense, he says that he was young & stupid.
I can't speak for the Taliban but my nephew the Army Ranger has a couple deployments' hands-on experience. I'll ply him with a frosty beverage or two next month and see what he can tell me.
See, if the Iranians really wanted their British POWs to spill their guts, all they had to do was to start pouring the Guinness...
When I was a student at Monterey, my physics prof (about 75 years old, maybe older) was mugged outside a San Francisco restaurant. He tended to have a problem with not being allowed to do what he wanted, and he had the police record to show for it. Sure enough he started to chew out his assailant, make a scene, and threaten the guy with the gun to the point where the mugger shot the professor in the face until he was dead. He was defending a wallet with some ID, charge cards, and a couple hundred bucks. No doubt that was a huge consolation to his widow and the rest of his family.
You're correct, Saluki, that the military is supposed to resist. But there's a time & place for it. That resistance has to have a purpose and it doesn't work if you or your shipmates are dead. Self-respect and testosterone poisoning have nothing to do with it.
