Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Harry’s story

This is New York Times on how the Prince Harry story broke (Matt Drudge didn’t observe the news blackout), and how it was kept secret for three months. Harry is back in England, but no more Eastcheap for this boy man. He is determined to go back. The BBC has a number of stories on this.

Addendum: He was brought home to kept safe. Ironically, home bred "Muslim fanatics labelled Prince Harry a target for assassins last night after his heroics against the Taliban."

Discussions - 6 Comments

Funny how the Brits panic when any word gets out that one of their royalty might become a target. If I were the prince, I wouldn't allow them to ship me home early, and in effect leave my unit behind. This action makes Prince Harry's unit in effect one man short, and all because the British are paranoid about potentially losing on of their royalty (a position, of course, which is never earned. It is given by birth). What makes this man so exceptional that he must be rushed home at the first sign that the public knows he is gone? The fact that he was born into a royal family is enough to end his combat term in Afghanistan? This is ridiculous. All royalty is, in my opinion, is an excuse to feel superior than one's peers. Not a legitimate excuse, of course, but an excuse to make someone feel heads above others. Rushing Prince Harry home would only further provoke this feeling of royal superiority.

Of course, that's a fundamental difference between Americans and the British. We don't have royalty.

In all seriousness, it would be more beneficial for Al Queada if a high ranking military officer, such as a Colonel, would be killed rather than a prince. But I don't see the British Army rushing all their high ranking officers home.

All in all, an interesting article, with a clear insight into the travesty that is the British class-system.

And furthermore, shame on Prince Harry for allowing himself to be shipped home prematurely. When he signed up to serve in the military, he understood the risks involved. The fact that the public now knows about his service in Afghanistan shouldn't change his contract, which the Brits have in effect done.

John I think you are missing two points. First, his unit is better off without him there once his cover is blown. They would be under a much greater threat of attack if the Taliban knew the Prince of England is at FOB such and such. Second, the prince is still bound to the chain of command. I pretty sure he didn't want to come home, but he has to obey orders like everyone else.

Well, I suppose it was unfair of me to think he wanted to come home, without doing any research. It turns out he expressed regret about being shipped home early. For that, I am glad.

However, it also appears he was in a relatively "quiet" area of Afghanistan (I know its a warzone, so it is always dangerous, but his area seemed to be less dangerous). "It can now be revealed that until Friday night's flight he had been deployed with a squadron of light tanks in the desert close to the former Taliban stronghold of Musa Qaleh. The British army took control of the area in December." (http://tinyurl.com/224sr8)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to underscore the safety of his unit, but it just seems as though a precision attack against a specific soldier, from the Taliban (or any other terrorist organization) seems to be a remote possibility. From the reading I have done (not much, but enough to get a general idea of weapons-capabilites of the enemy) it doesn't seem as though they would be able to carry out a large scale assault either.

Now, maybe the higher-ups in this situation knew something I don't (undoubtedly) that they haven't released to the public, so I suppose I should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Still, though, I don't necessarily like the situation.

John, I think the British military made the best decision that they could, and I feel sorry for Prince Harry as it seems he really wanted to serve his country, but his presence was too much of a threat. Killing a member of the British Royalty would greatly demoralize the British people and be a huge victory for the enemy, meaning that they would try to focus on killing the prince in the hopes of scaring the British out of the area (not saying that is what would happen, though, as I don't think the Brits would run away) and it would also fuel the Taliban's propaganda ("We killed the 3rd-in-line to the British throne!"). This would put the men and women serving in his unit under greater threat of being killed or injured just because Harry is with them. Al Qaeda has other ways of trying to assassinate people without needing to conduct a large-scale assault or try pick him off in the battlefield; this are, after the all, the people who specialize in bombings of all types and sneaking into places where they should not be.


Shame on the Drudge Report for compromising the security of that unit and for interfering with the Prince's wishes to serve his country. And shame on these those in Britain who seem to the think that the Royal Family is not supposed to support Britain's national security. "The Royal Family is supposed to be neutral. If Prince Harry wants to be neutral he should not fight against Muslims.”

I certainly agree with blaming the Drudge Report, as well as the Royal family. My first post was trying to criticize the idea of a royal structure in general.

Yes, I know it would put Harry's unit in at least slightly higher danger, but I still maintain that his unit was in a relatively safe are of Afghanistan, in which the Brits had been in control in December.

See, none of this could have happened if the British didn't place so much importance on their royalty. By a simple accident such as birth, one man's life is now valued as if he is a demi-god.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/12021