The Student Room Group

Why weren't the SAS sent into Algeria?

It's incredible that David Cameron managed to trust the Algerian government over handling the situation. This whole sorry affair has ended in a massive bloodbath. There were sources close to Downing Street saying that Cameron had the SAS on standby. Looks like he backed out on that option and decided to trust the Algerian special forces who cocked up the situation leaving dozens of people dead.

We could've at least went to our main ally the Americans and ask them to bend the arms of the Algerians. They could've sent their Navy SEAL forces.

Scroll to see replies

Because ultimately if the Algerian government denied our assistance, we had no right to send in our special forces.

No matter how better prepared they were.
Reply 2
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
Because ultimately if the Algerian government denied our assistance, we had no right to send in our special forces.

No matter how better prepared they were.


I don't think it's ever stopped us before and it certainly didn't stop the Americans going into Pakistan without the government's permission to kill Bin Laden. We could easily have went in and I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid.
Original post by tinkertailor
I don't think it's ever stopped us before and it certainly didn't stop the Americans going into Pakistan without the government's permission to kill Bin Laden. We could easily have went in and I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid.

Yes we could have, unlike the Americans though we are not international cowboys, who storm into other peoples houses, wander through there kitchen then **** of without so much as an apology.

As it was this was an internal hostage situation that was taking place within Algerias borders, and under the jurisdiction of there military to resolve.
It would have been much smarter to ceed tactical management to the SAS, however they had no obligation to, and as a country which must deal with threats against themselves, they should not be rolling over and begging outside help every time an event like this occurs.

As it was, with the Algerian Military on such high alert, and the situation as delicate and violence-prone as it was, sending in an armed response unit, without inivitation or even expressly against the wishes of the Algerian Government.

Would not have been safe or sensible.
Reply 4
you can't just go and do whatever you want in someone else's country
Mind your own business. You can't apply your laws on foreign soil.
Reply 6
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
Yes we could have, unlike the Americans though we are not international cowboys, who storm into other peoples houses, wander through there kitchen then **** of without so much as an apology.

As it was this was an internal hostage situation that was taking place within Algerias borders, and under the jurisdiction of there military to resolve.
It would have been much smarter to ceed tactical management to the SAS, however they had no obligation to, and as a country which must deal with threats against themselves, they should not be rolling over and begging outside help every time an event like this occurs.

As it was, with the Algerian Military on such high alert, and the situation as delicate and violence-prone as it was, sending in an armed response unit, without inivitation or even expressly against the wishes of the Algerian Government.

Would not have been safe or sensible.


Well it certainly wasn't safe leaving the situation to the Algerians. It's been reported many times that they have very little experience in dealing with hostage negotiations. Plus the situation had become an international matter involving citizens from across the globe, on an international oil company and gathering the attention of governments from around the world. We had a major interest of course since it was revealed that British citizens made up quite a lot of the total hostages captured. This was a terrorist attack that had been sparked by the French assault in Mali. This wasn't some random domestic crime.

You make it sound as if the international community would be outraged if we had went in. For example the Israelis send Mossad hit squads to assassinate people in foreign countries. No one bats an eyelid. As long as we had went to the Americans at least and let them know of our intentions (they would've backed the SAS), no one would attack us for going in. Like you point out, the Americans are the cowboys aren't they?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by tinkertailor
Well it certainly wasn't safe leaving the situation to the Algerians. It's been reported many times that they have very little experience in dealing with hostage negotiations. Plus the situation had become an international matter involving citizens from across the globe, on an international oil company and gathering the attention of governments from around the world. We had a major interest of course since it was revealed that British citizens made up quite a lot of the total hostages captured. This was a terrorist attack that had been sparked by the French assault in Mali.

You make it sound as if the international community would be outraged if we had went in. For example the Israelis send Mossad hit squads to assassinate people in foreign countries. No one bats an eyelid. As long as we had went to the Americans at least and let them know of our intentions, no one would attack us for going in. Like you point out, the Americans are the cowboys aren't they?

Just because people do it all the time, and no one would bat an eyelid, does not mean doing it is right.

As it was in this situation, Algeria did not want our presence, therefore sending the SAS in would only have cost more lives due to confusion and BoB
Original post by tinkertailor
I don't think it's ever stopped us before and it certainly didn't stop the Americans going into Pakistan without the government's permission to kill Bin Laden. We could easily have went in and I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid.


The Algerian military didn't do a bad job and the Algerian government is committed to fighting Islamic fundamentalism (hence the request for help from the French military) our military going in to their country without their permission would cause a massive strain on our relationship, something which would be beneficial to our enemy.

No one trusts Pakistan for good reason, half the government are inbed with fundamentalists and the other half would sell out their "allies" at the drop of a hat. If the US told the Pakistan government about their operation Osama would have been out of there, giant porn collection in toe, within the hour.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by originaltitle
Mind your own business. You can't apply your laws on foreign soil.


Original post by Jack93o
you can't just go and do whatever you want in someone else's country


In a nutshell.
Reply 10
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
Just because people do it all the time, and no one would bat an eyelid, does not mean doing it is right.

As it was in this situation, Algeria did not want our presence, therefore sending the SAS in would only have cost more lives due to confusion and BoB


There's no point moralizing over whether our actions would've been 'right' or not. Our country along with the Americans gets accused for a lot crap all the time but no one does anything about it. But on this particular situation alone, it would've been perfectly reasonable to have went in.

The focus on Islamic terrorism is switching from Afghanistan to north Africa. It's a surprise why north Africa hasn't been on the agenda until now. I don't think the Algerians are up to it to fight militant Islamism alone.
For all we know, the SAS could have been sent in. There would be no point in it if the whole world knew they'd gone, and the public aren't told everything. For example, someone I know served with the navy in Libya. At the time, were the public told about that?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 12
( because the s.a.s are the best of the best) HOWEVER ask yourself this ..... what would we say if something like this happened in our country and they offered the same what we did?? exactly! just another energy rich country were looking to sniff around in to see what we can thieve of them! i would put money on this happening again and the story becoming .... ( the usual) terrorism!!
Would Britain let Algeria handle a hostage situation in London?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 14
The Algerians didn't want our assistance, because they were planning to rescue the hostages anyway using their own military. Who are we to demand that they pull back from a siege in their own country and let the foreign SAS take over? A joint operation would most likely have resulted in even more casualties, both among hostages and rescuers, due to the inevitable communication problems between two forces with different languages and different standards of training.

What would you think if, at the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege, the Americans had demanded that we hand the situation over to SWAT?
Reply 15
It wasn't our place, nor is it the place of any government, to send in foreign troops to an territory which has refused access in cases like these.
Yet another non-story used to distract people from how the govt. is ****ing them over. No disrespect to ALL the victims, but sending the SAS or (LOL) the Seals for that would be equivalent to sending in the army in a domestic siege. I have actually witnessed a siege once on the outskirts of Norwich where a woman and baby were being held at gunpoint in a house. They sent in a helicopter and loads of cops.

To the US, getting Osama's head was more of a priority than saving several Brits ever will be. Also, I don't understand the extent to which British nationals are under the protection of the UK while abroad, if any.
Original post by Flying Cookie
Yet another non-story used to distract people from how the govt. is ****ing them over. No disrespect to ALL the victims, but sending the SAS or (LOL) the Seals for that would be equivalent to sending in the army in a domestic siege. I have actually witnessed a siege once on the outskirts of Norwich where a woman and baby were being held at gunpoint in a house. They sent in a helicopter and loads of cops.

To the US, getting Osama's head was more of a priority than saving several Brits ever will be. Also, I don't understand the extent to which British nationals are under the protection of the UK while abroad, if any.


A madman with a gun and 2 hostages is rather different to an international, well-funded terrorist organisation known for killing people taking dozens of hostages from around the world in an oil refinery in the Algerian desert... Sending in the SAS would not remotely have been comparable to using the army in a "domestic siege" (whatever that's meant to mean).

The British government has a duty to look after British citizens no matter where they are in the world. Obviously that has reasonable limits on it - they don't have to scatter the army around the globe to look after British tourists etc. - but they have a responsibility to do as much as they feasibly can.

Original post by tinkertailor
For example the Israelis send Mossad hit squads to assassinate people in foreign countries. No one bats an eyelid.


I'm sure people do "bat an eyelid", but the very nature of international intelligence agencies means it's rarely front-page news. I'd be shocked if British agents don't assassinate people in foreign countries on occasion.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by tinkertailor
It's incredible that David Cameron managed to trust the Algerian government over handling the situation. This whole sorry affair has ended in a massive bloodbath. There were sources close to Downing Street saying that Cameron had the SAS on standby. Looks like he backed out on that option and decided to trust the Algerian special forces who cocked up the situation leaving dozens of people dead.

We could've at least went to our main ally the Americans and ask them to bend the arms of the Algerians. They could've sent their Navy SEAL forces.
The SAS could have been sent in if the Algerian Government had asked for it, but you can't just send them in, but you have to be ready in case the opportunity arises.

First of all they work abroad covertly, you can't work covertly when the world is watching. Second of all, even if they completed the mission they have still operated without permission on Algerian soil and could face consequences. Finally there were not just Brits held, there were multiple nationalities, if we go in they get killed how does that look.

Bin Laden was completely different, first of a relationship exists between Pakistan and the US, and the mission was conducted covertly not when the whole world was watching.
Reply 19
Even if the Algerians had wanted the assistance of the SAS (which they didn't - they appeared to want to show they could handle this on their own) there is the simple matter of logistics. Although the SAS are rapid response they still need to be mobilised, equipped and flown to Algeria which would take some time. They would then need to prepare for an assault on the compound, study maps of the layout of the compound, learn as (well as they could) how many hostage takers they were and what they were armed with and how they would likely respond to an attack, as well as learning the names/appearance/background of as many hostages as possible. This would take a long period of time - anyone who thinks it could be done in hours/days has been watching too many Hollywood action films.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending