Prince Harry will serve in Iraq
Harry is off to Iraq. Like his uncle Andrew during the Falklands conflict, Harry will go to a war zone.Harry's unit, the Blues and Royals, has been told it will serve in Iraq as part of the latest deployments.
I remember during the Falklands war being stupid enough to think, "Good on Andrew for doing that". It was only later that I realised that he was obviously a huge target for the Argentinians and that the air force were going to inordinate lengths to keep him safe. So rather than actually aid the war effort the presence of a royal can actually be a huge drain on military resources.
And you can bet that no commander or general is going to want to be the one to tell Tony or the Queen that anything has happened to him, so they'll probably be keeping him well within the barracks.
So whilst, on the surface, it appears that he's doing his bit, the whole thing in the end is simply a drain on resources and a PR excercise for the royal involved.
Indeed, when there was talk of not sending him some months ago a defence spokesman made it quite clear what the official position was on this.
They've actually said it all themselves. Not only will he be a target, but he makes the situation more dangerous for all his fellow soldiers... so "a judgement call" will be made in those circumstances. In other words there's no way he'll ever be placed at risk.“We can’t have a situation where Prince Harry’s presence draws enemy fire.” He said that the Army hierarchy faced a huge problem as Prince Harry’s unit, The Blues and Royals of the Household Cavalry, was set to go to Iraq next year. The MoD had a “duty of care” towards every member of the Armed Forces. If Prince Harry’s presence in an operational area attracted undue attention, “we will have to see what mechanics might be needed to deal with that”.
Clarence House said: “Prince Harry is very clear that he is joining the Army, and the Household Cavalry in particular, to serve his country as an operational soldier. On occasion, there may be some circumstances in which his overt presence might attract additional attention and increase the risk for his regiment and for himself. In these instances, it is a judgment call which would principally be made by his commanding officer.”
So what the Hell's he going there for? His mother's PR gene appears to be hereditary.
In an interview to mark his 21st birthday last year, he said: "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country. That may sound very patriotic but it's true."See what I mean about the mother's gene? He's good. It's like saying, "I may sound brave and heroic, but it's true. I can't help being a hero."
Click title for full article.
3 comments:
Kel,
I know you guys have a "constitutional monarchy," whatever that really means, but can't the bloody Queen say, "off with his head," a rid your country of his pernicious presence?
Just asking...
Blair, that is, not Harry.
Bhc,
The oddest thing about living in a constitutional monarchy - let's leave aside the fact that we, who are not a democracy, feel perfectly fine exporting democracy abroad - is that the Queen does have the power to dissolve the government.
Of course, she'd never use that power as that would demolish the fantasy that most Brits indulge themselves with: namely, that we live in a democracy.
It's why the Royals shit themselves every time it looks like there might be a hung Parliament here. Were that ever to actually happen, most Brits might realise that they are still living with the ramifications of Charles II. And the "Mother of all Parliaments" hasn't essentially changed since the days of Cromwell.
We all still owe our loyalty to the crown. Astonishing in the 21st century, but still - a fact.
Post a Comment