Navy chief defends hostage rescue bid
THE head of the Royal Navy angrily hit back at criticism of his sailors' attempts to rescue a British couple kidnapped by pirates.
First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said reports that the Navy did not do enough to rescue Paul and Rachel Chandler after they were snatched by Somali hostage takers did a "disservice to our sailors".
-

First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope
During a keynote speech on his vision for the future of the armed forces, he insisted his team did a "tremendous job" in its attempts to secure the couple's safety.
He said: "I want to be absolutely clear – this was and remains a hostage situation and for this reason it's not appropriate to discuss specific details.
"[Supply ship RFA] Wave Knight did exactly the right thing. She acted professionally and in accordance with purpose, which was to ensure the safety of Paul and Rachel Chandler.
"I take real issue with some of the emotional and scarlet language used to describe the actions of my sailors.
"The naval service is delivering operational success all over the world in everything from fighting in Afghanistan to search and rescue operations, our sailors are known for working hard and they are working very hard."
Mr Chandler, whose 98-year-old father Alfred Chandler lives in Dartmouth, South Devon, and Mrs Chandler disappeared on October 23 as they sailed from the Seychelles in their 38ft yacht Lynn Rival towards Tanzania. They spoke on camera for the first time last week to warn that their captors were "losing patience" and could kill them within a week.
Admiral Stanhope, speaking at Chatham House in central London, backed the Navy's actions in not forcibly recapturing Mr and Mrs Chandler.
"The sailors did a tremendous job in finding the Chandlers' yacht in the first place but once you have a hostage situation your military options, as most people would understand, are inevitably limited.
"Had there been an opportunity to intervene, while being sure of guaranteeing Paul and Rachel Chandlers' safety, they would have done so.
"The decision not to was undoubtedly the right one."
Sir Mark pointed to Medical Assistant First Class Kate Nesbitt, who received the Military Cross yesterday, as a "shining example" of the service's "bravery and professionalism".
The Navy chief outlined his vision that the country should not lose sight of "conflicts beyond Afghanistan".
He said: "While the focus on Afghanistan, and the priority that has been placed on achieving a successful outcome is unquestionable, we have to appreciate that international frictions do persist elsewhere and the possibility of state-on-state conflict within the next 20 years – either directly involving the UK or, more likely, indirectly affecting our vital national interests – cannot, and must not, be ruled out.
"We in defence are stretched, certainly, but I think we are also delivering across all of our business."
He admitted delivering the service on budget created "an obvious tension".
The Admiral said: "The financial realities are such that the UK is considering adjustments in defence while at the same time the ability of our allies to share the burden of defending our common values may also reduce.
"That creates an obvious tension, and any defence strategy, whatever assumptions underpin it, must reconcile the competing demands of policy and resource."








5 Comments
by Polly Fiuller, UK
Monday, November 30 2009, 3:08PM
“Perhaps if Kate Nesbit had been there , instead of the wimps on the Navy ship, the Chandlers would have been rescued.”
by Michael White, Brugge, Flanders
Monday, November 30 2009, 8:26AM
“It would seem the First Sea Lord, and quite a few junior to him, have no knowledge of the words of the Marquis of Montrose:
'He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who will not put it to the touch to win or lose it all.'
Perhaps the SAS motto derives from these words of encouragement.”
by henry Blince, devon
Sunday, November 29 2009, 12:10PM
“Why can't the pair of you accept that these people - you know, the ones that go into difficult and dangerous situations regularly and as a matter of course - know a great deal more about both the situation and their capabilities and let them handle it in the way they think best. If they believe their actions would risk the safety of the hostages then that should be enough. Or perhaps you'd like to go out there and have a go. No? I thought now.
Or would you rather listen to what the Daily Mail have to say about it. That's the Daily Mail that likes to tell its readers that using Facebook gives you cancer.”
by Allan, Brasil
Saturday, November 28 2009, 4:18PM
“Too much media coverage and wasting valuable time in this sort of situation.The U.K. it is said, have the best soldiers I.E. S.A.S. so why do they not just go in sort the problem and leave at that .So, us the public know nothing about it.So no out cry and complaining.This strategy could be used to take out all the nasties in the world.What the eyes dont see,the heart does not grieve over.Respect to to all involved.”
by michael murphy, Teignmouth
Saturday, November 28 2009, 2:28PM
“After the shambles of the Persian Gulf and now Somalia I think Admiral Stanhope should take some lessons from the American Navy, who managed to rescue their hostages !”