The answer to the question asked by Richard Norton is simple and, for me, obvious when looking at the (non-)actions of the West and the UK during this episode: the marines were in Iranian waters, it was a fair cop and the UK government knew it. It had nothing to argue about and so settled the thing diplomatically away from the public gaze.

John Murpjhy, Lauris, France

I appreciate the level headedness of this article, and that things will be done to prevent the like happening in the future. It appears that in an effort to provide an unthreatening presence in the Gulf, the boarding crews were acting more like customs officials, lightly armed and selected more for personality than imilitary effectiveness. I understand the importance of civilized presence, but this may be carrying political correctness too far, especially in a war zone. What I don't understand is why as yet only Iran has protested incrusion into "their waters," and Iraq has been singularly silent about violation of its own territorial waters by elements of the Iranian navy and with deliberate intent to kidnap officials operating under a U.N. mandate. Cool head on Mr. Blair's part, but still not our finest hour.

Hugh Malafry, Victoria, Canada

As an Angliophile, I take no pleasure in what I write. The behavior of the captured military must have made their forebearers cringe. They had an officer but his "briefing" was not what might have been expected of a leader. The rapidity of the caving in of the hostages was breathtaking. Perhaps the sailors might be excused but were the Marines involved? If so, that is a sad statement about the vaunted training of that branch of service with a great tradition.

James O'Brien, M.D., Janesville, WI/USA

Could it be that our political leaders were looking for a catalyst to spark the invasion of Iran?

An unprotected force working in disputed waters were highly likely to be apprehended!

Then Tony Blair goes on the tele and raises the stakes before rushing off to get international support.

Anybody who does not believe that our politicians can put innocent lives at risk for political reasons should study the story of the last British plane into Kuwait before the invasion.

This whole affair stinks! If not of conspiracy then of incompetence, which ever, heads should roll.

Peter Beswick, Romsey, Hampshire

Perhaps the Navy just isn't very good. HMS Nottingham went aground off Lord Howe Island mainly through incompetence - the navy didn't even try to blame it on 'wrong cold war kit'. The £40 million cost of repair and repatriation would have gone some way to buying 'the right kit' which the Navy always seems to be short of. Naval incompetence during the Falklands campaign is not hard to find (along with professionalism and bravery). A long and glorious past with fine traditions counts for little if you can't deliver today and tommorrow.

tim makepeace, leeds, w yorks

Don't believe there will be any real constructive inquiry/debate. There will be the usual "Whitewash". No one will be to blame as per usual in "New" Britain.

Ian Blaber, Brisbane, Australia

There was no shortage of vessels to protect the Cornwall boarding party.

Commodore Lamert was commander of Coalition Task Force 158 and thus had available for deployment 11 warships in addition to Cornwall - including two Cylcone-class patrol vessels which could have easily operated in the shallow waters where the boarding party inspected the freighter.

The question should be, therefore, not why there was a shortage of warships, but why the assets available were not used.

Richard North, Bradford, England