Warning: The soapbox-o-meter rating of this post is “high.”
At a Republican debate in South Carolina a while back, in response to a question about the recent highly publicized interaction between boats from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy and a group of U.S. Navy ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz, former Senator Fred Thompson is reported to have said, “I think one more step, and they would have been introduced to those virgins they're looking forward to seeing.”
When I first heard this, I paid little attention, though for some reason, the words stuck in my mind. They kept resurfacing, causing more and more irritation like a developing canker. It wasn’t until a few days later that I eventually realized I was offended. In fact, upon sober reflection, I find the phrase, and the manner of Mr. Thompson’s use of it, highly offensive indeed.
Now, I don’t offend easily, so this is something of an unusual sensation for me. It isn’t just the pejorative, over-simplified and tasteless slur against the Muslim conception of heaven – he clearly knew well that his audience wouldn’t be interested in an extended discourse on the nature of houri – nor even his hawkish, jingoistic tone, though both of these were inappropriate enough on their own. But what really bothered me was the flippancy with which he invoked a serious and potentially life-threatening incident for nothing more than a clever sound bite, garnering a quick laugh and a few ignorant cheers. Thanks for the vote of confidence, sir, but no thanks.
Frankly, I might accept (though wincingly) such a crass expression of bravado from one of the Sailors on those ships, or from someone else who has actually been through a similar situation in the past. But from a politician putting a spin on a headline? Such an ostensible expression of confidence is but hollow praise to one who knows better, for it is not so simple.
I have driven a warship through those very straits many times, been queried by the IRGCN, the Royal Navy of Oman, and all the rest. I have stood on the bridge and watched, with my hands clenched tightly around the stock of a weapon or a flare gun, as dozens of fast boats cut across my bow, (most of them selling “freedom” to Iran in the form of smuggled cigarettes and pornography) never knowing when and if one of them might suddenly veer in on a collision course, loaded down not with dirty magazines but with high explosives, leaving me only seconds to react.
In the early spring of 2003, my ship was harassed by an Iranian helicopter in broad daylight, and I remember the elation I felt when I saw our own “pony” come racing back, powering up to altitude in order to interpose themselves between us and them. I suppose I might have uttered something similar myself in the heat of the moment, though I like to think I held my tongue.
In another part of the world, I have stood on the deck of a ship, at night, in another country’s territorial waters, literally looking down at a vessel attempting to come alongside. Pirates attempting to board? Terrorists preparing to detonate themselves and us? Or just fishermen, perhaps attempting to sell us their day’s catch? They had ignored warnings to stay clear, but flares and flashing lights might be misunderstood, and it was probably too dark for them to see the weapons directed at them, despite our attempts to illuminate ourselves. Was their intent truly hostile? To shoot, or not to shoot? That was my question. As the individual solely responsible for the defense of that ship, I had to make the decision, and quickly. I was within my rights to use force, but if they were in fact merely confused fishermen, I would be responsible for the death of innocents, and at the least, a major international incident. On the other hand, if they were in fact terrorists on a suicide mission, holding fire would not only result in the failure of my own mission, but would almost certainly cost me my life, and the lives of several people in my charge. That night, I trusted my instincts, and ordered my troops not to shoot. I was right, and all was well. That time. But I did not sleep well that night.
The behavior of the IRGCN on Jan. 6th (and on many other days) was reckless and irresponsible, whether they were the source of the threatening radio signals or not. Such brinkmanship can only lead to tragedy. But, Mr. Thompson, until you have had to make that life or death decision, until you have had to determine intent from the scantiest and most conflicting of clues, until you have had, in the merest of seconds, to weigh the risks of killing an innocent or starting a war against a possibly deadly threat to yourself and others who depend on you, until then, you should speak with more precision, and more respect.
Coming from you, such crude and inaccurate comments are not bravado, nor a method of blowing off steam, but merely base demagoguery. Not helpful, not constructive, and in fact disrespectful to those who put themselves in harm’s way and yet display enough professionalism to describe such incidents without passion and without slander.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008