As Admiral Horatio Nelson and his fleet descended on the Combined Fleet of the French and Spanish in the final calm moments before the Battle of Trafalgar, Nelson ordered a now-famous signal to be flown from the halliards of HMS Victory. “England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty.”

In the years since Nelson’s crushing victory, his signal has come to embody the Royal Navy’s spirit — that even in the darkest moments, no matter what the threat or the odds, the Royal Navy would do its duty to protect Great Britain.

But during the recent incident that resulted in the capture of fifteen sailors and Royal Marines by Iranian forces, at least one officer failed to live up to Nelson’s standard.

Earlier, I attempted to articulate my view that the men and women who were taken by Iranian acquitted themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

Their commander, however, did not. Commodore Nick Lambert had direct command of twelve coalition vessels operating in vicinity of the incident the day it occurred. Two were fast moving, shallow draught American patrol boats equipped with heavy weapons. His own flagship, HMS Cornwall, is a modern Type 22 frigate, equipped with substantial fighting strength, including two Lynx MK 8 helicopters, one of which was on the scene of the ambush when it began.

Somehow, when a hostile force approach his lightly armed boarding party, Commodore Lambert failed to act and, instead, allowed his party to be taken.

According to various reports, the rules of engagement governing the operations of Commodore Lambert and his squadron clearly allowed for action in response to an imminent threat. Yet Commodore Lambert did nothing.

Early reports suggested that the Admiralty in London ordered him to stand down and not take any action. If this is the case, I apologize to the Commodore and instead indict his desk-riding superiors. (Although one could argue that, in the spirit of Nelson, the Commodore should have showed some initiative and taken action in a crisis situation without phoning home.)

But whether it was the Commodore or the Admiralty, at least one senior officer of the Royal Navy failed, in the most fundamental way, to do his duty.

A few days ago, I suggested that in the age of Nelson, the officers responsible for this capitulation would have been set on the beach without a command for the balance of their lives. That decision would have been made swiftly by a decisive Admiralty Board or even, a Court Martial composed of the officers’ peers.

Times have changed. Instead of a Court Martial, we’ll likely see a commission appointed. But in the long run, I would be willing to lay a small wager that one or more of the officers involved in this mess will, indeed, be quietly set on the beach. I suspect Admiral Nelson would approve.

UPDATE: Blog EU Referundum has an excellent post along the same lines as this one, but with greater insight into the current Royal Navy way of doing things. The author doubts that any serious action will be taken and is highly critical of senior commanders in general and Commodore Lambert in particular. Streiff at RedState calls it a cover-up. I’m not sure it rises to that level yet, but his analysis of the events is, as always, spot on.

UPDATE II: Commenter Jeff poses an excellent question. Wasn’t Commodore Lambert’s greater duty to avoid provoking a war? Perhaps. But every indication suggests that if he had managed his operations competently, the Iranians never would have attempted the ambush in the first place.

Jim: Marshall, I’ve been trying to come up with something to say beyond “ditto.” There’s something very disturbing about this story, in that, if what we have been told is accurate, this team of British sailors was captured from foreign waters without either side firing a shot.

I’ve been arguing with the Mrs. this morning. I understand the effort to prevent the incident from triggering an all-out war, but it appears that the Iranian Navy is hell-bent on starting an all out war. There’s no other term to describe crossing a border to forcibly capture foreign military personnel, parade them in front of television cameras in direct violation of international law, force “confessions” out of them, etc.

(Read the Huffington Post on this topic, and all you hear are endless comparisons to Abu Gharib and the declaration that Iran is more moral than the U.S.. It’s become cliche to say that they’re not anti-war, just pro-the-other-side, but at this point it’s clear that to a significant minority in this country, Iran can do no wrong; the U.S. and its allies like the U.K. can do no right.)

Anyway, I realize it’s easy for me to say this, but if another country so blatantly seeks a war, I’m half-tempted to give them one and let them reap the whirlwind they have sowed. Clearly, we have a breakdown in deterrence; at this point nothing deters Iran from engaging in military offensives against targets of opportunity in Iraqi waters.

Yes, fighting a war is terrible, but it’s worse when only one side is fighting it and you’re not that side.

Yes, I know that any U.S. or U.K. military action would give Ahmedinijad and the mullahs an excuse to consolidate their power, to scapegoat the West, and to crush dissent even more brutally than they already have; I also understand the argument that the only thing that unite Iranians under the mullahs was the use of military force from an outsider. But at some point, all of that pales as a side issue to protecting your people.