Prince Harry In Afghanistan

[AngusThermopyle]

AW, the point is that he is a high value target as has been pointed out. It's not about class or wealth, its about assessing risk and taking steps to minimize that risk. Knowing he is there and the regiment he serves with would ratchet up the risk factor for all involved. Yes, war is one huge risk, however that doesn't mean that you should increase the risk for no good reason. Cheap sensationalist stories for the titillation of the mindless masses is not in my opinion a good reason to increase those risks.

[jazzer]

AW, the point is that he is a high value target as has been pointed out. It's not about class or wealth, its about assessing risk and taking steps to minimize that risk. Knowing he is there and the regiment he serves with would ratchet up the risk factor for all involved. Yes, war is one huge risk, however that doesn't mean that you should increase the risk for no good reason. Cheap sensationalist stories for the titillation of the mindless masses is not in my opinion a good reason to increase those risks.

Well said.

[Wilber]

Again, I give Harry all the credit in the world, and "quite simply," he should have been allowed to serve his tour, same as everyone else. And that, and only that, has been my point. "Risk value" has no place in who does or doesn't serve in war.

The risk factor here is not to him personally. Is his getting to serve there worth the possible negative political and PR consequences of something happening to him? Clearly not. Too bad for him because it isn't his fault.

There has never been a problem with royals wanting to go to war. Government's problem has been finding ways to stop them.

[Guest American Woman]

AW, the point is that he is a high value target as has been pointed out. It's not about class or wealth, its about assessing risk and taking steps to minimize that risk. Knowing he is there and the regiment he serves with would ratchet up the risk factor for all involved. Yes, war is one huge risk, however that doesn't mean that you should increase the risk for no good reason. Cheap sensationalist stories for the titillation of the mindless masses is not in my opinion a good reason to increase those risks.

I realize that he's considered a "high value target," and that's what I've been responding to. And I repeat: I think all should serve, whether they are considered a "high risk" or not. As I've said repeatedly now, war presents a huge risk to eveyone who's involved in it. As I've also said repeatedly, some in said wars are at more risk than others for a variety of reasons. Some have a more competent leader than others. Some have a higher caliber of troops in their unit than others. Some are sent to higher risk areas than others. All of those things would put the troops in those units at higher risk, just as having Harry in his troops' unit could. I'd love to know how the troops in his command felt about his being relieved of duty instead of having everyone else speak for them.

But who said Harry should be allowed to serve for " cheap sensationalist stories for the titillation of the mindless masses?" I said he should be allowed to serve for the same reason every other soldier who's sent to war serves. If it's a good enough reason for everyone else to fight, it's a good reason for them to fight. You can't say the reason for war is a good reason to put some at risk but not others. So again, I said "risk" shouldn't be a factor in determining who should or shouldn't serve. I said if risk were to be considered, none of the children of the high profile politicians/presidents/prime ministers etc., those who are responsible for us being at war, would ever be required to serve in a war.

Everyone who goes to war is at risk, and again, some more than others. I don't believe we should pick and choose whose risk should be evaluated, whose risk should be considered "too high" to be sent to war; I don't think "high profile" people should be "protected" from war. I don't think other peoples' kids should have to be put at risk as "high profile" people's kids aren't. I believe Harry had the right idea and should have been allowed to carry out his tour of duty.

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer. I haven't mentioned class, I haven't mentioned wealth. I'm referred only to "risk" and in a war where everyone's life is at risk, some shouldn't be protected from being exposed to that risk. Yes, Harry might have been at more risk, those in his unit might have been more at risk than some, but everyone at war isn't exposed to the same risk and we don't say "we can't go on this mission because it would put this unit at more risk than that unit." Once again. War involves risk. High profile people should not be exempt from that risk.

Edited March 1, 2008 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Everyone who goes to war is at risk, and again, some more than others. I don't believe we should pick and choose whose risk should be evaluated, whose risk should be considered "too high" to be sent to war; I don't think "high profile" people should be "protected" from war. I don't think other peoples' kids should have to be put at risk as "high profile" people's kids aren't. I believe Harry had the right idea and should have been allowed to carry out his tour of duty.

Harry is a soldier, he doesn't get to chose where he serves. The people responsible have to decide whether having him there is an asset or a liability. Obviously they have decided that having it made public presents a greater liability than anything that could be gained by keeping him there. He is not serving his country if the risk involved with keeping him there puts greater stress on the others. Risk has to be balanced against reward whenever people are put in harms way, not just high profile ones like Harry. The damage that would be done should something happen to him presents a far greater risk than the average soldier, so the reward for keeping him there needs to be correspondingly higher to make it worthwhile. The last thing they need is Harry staring in another Daniel Perle video.

Too bad the media couldn't give the guy a break an keep their yaps shut until he finished his tour.

[Guest American Woman]

He is not serving his country if the risk involved with keeping him there puts greater stress on the others.

Where was the concern for the risk of those others when they were sent to war without the proper equipment? Where was the concern for their risk when the standards for accepting new recruits was lowered because they couldn't get enough new recruits otherwise? Where is the concern for their risk when tours of duty are extended over and over again, to the point of mental and emotional exhastion?

Risk has to be balanced against reward whenever people are put in harms way, not just high profile ones like Harry.

When else has "risk" ever been a factor in determining who should or shouldn't go to war? Certainly it's not a factor in the ordinary John or Jane Doe, so of course it's "just the high profile ones like Harry." Furthermore, if "risk" is going to be a factor, then, as I have said repeatedly, the children of those who make the decision to go to war will never have to fight themselves, and that's completely off the wall.

It used to be that people in positions of power did their share. They didn't shirk from their duty because of the "risk" involved, and those fighting with them were inspired by their being there, not frightened because they felt they were at "increased risk." As I said previously, I'd love to hear how the troops under Harry's command feel about this decision. I doubt they are saying 'thank God for this decision! I felt I was at so much greater risk!'

The damage that would be done should something happen to him presents a far greater risk than the average soldier, so the reward for keeping him there needs to be correspondingly higher to make it worthwhile.

The "damage" that you speak of is the same no matter who it is. Dead is dead no matter who you are, and it's just as tragic no matter if it's Harry or an "average soldier." But what I'm reading here is that only "average soldiers" should serve in war.

The last thing they need is Harry staring in another Daniel Perle video.

I would think the last thing "they," we, any of us needs is anyone staring in another Daniel Perle video. But every soldier who is there runs that risk because Daniel Perle certainly wasn't at higher risk than the "average soldier," yet there he was.

Too bad the media couldn't give the guy a break an keep their yaps shut until he finished his tour.

It is too bad. I agree with you there. But that's really not the issue. The issue is whether or not children of "high profile" parents should be able to/required to serve the same as everyone else, and the answer is a most definite yes.

[Carinthia]

I don't know if I admire Harry for wanting to go to war. It seems he wanted to go simply to experience "normal" for a short time. He has always had problems with the status quo regarding the life he was born into. He is a Royal and privileged, which affords him tickets to things that ordinary folks would be denied. As a Royal, he should have been denied the opportunity to put others at risk. Unfortunately for him, "priviliged" can work against you, it works both ways. Did they really need one more man so desparately that they would risk the lives of others and all this hullabaloo?

As for Prince Andrew fighting in the Falklands, wasn't he in an air or sea battle? Who would have known what plane or boat he was on? Somewhat different than a platoon strategically located on the ground with a high profile enemy combatant leading the show.

Harry threw a Royal tantrum and got his way and now the game is over.

Harry is a good sort and he has done good work in Africa in contributing to bringing their plight to the forefront. I think, as he grows older and more mature, he will always do good work but it should remain in the realm of how the Royals have always traditionally conducted their humanitarian missions.

Edited March 1, 2008 by Carinthia

[Rue]

Drudge didnt break the story. Australian print media did. Drudge merely picked it up. Dont lose sight of the fact that the pics and story were in the can long ago w Harry's understanding. The Brit papers had agreed to hold back at the req of the Queen.

Rue, as a publisher, you would have done the same. Its called a scoop.

True Drudge did not break the story G. Say I thought there was a deal to hold off until April when he returned and someone broke that deal?

[Rue]

AW, the point is that he is a high value target as has been pointed out. It's not about class or wealth, its about assessing risk and taking steps to minimize that risk. Knowing he is there and the regiment he serves with would ratchet up the risk factor for all involved. Yes, war is one huge risk, however that doesn't mean that you should increase the risk for no good reason. Cheap sensationalist stories for the titillation of the mindless masses is not in my opinion a good reason to increase those risks.

Right AT. I mean Guyser I know it brings up this issue as to whether the press should sit on news stories or not and that is a complex freedom of speech/info issue. Appreciate that. Just wish there was a way not to sensationalize this for the wrong reasons and endanger soldiers on the front line.

Was it too much to ask the press to hold off until he returned?

[Wilber]

Where was the concern for the risk of those others when they were sent to war without the proper equipment? Where was the concern for their risk when the standards for accepting new recruits was lowered because they couldn't get enough new recruits otherwise? Where is the concern for their risk when tours of duty are extended over and over again, to the point of mental and emotional exhastion?

We are taking about the British army here aren't we?

It used to be that people in positions of power did their share. They didn't shirk from their duty because of the "risk" involved, and those fighting with them were inspired by their being there, not frightened because they felt they were at "increased risk." As I said previously, I'd love to hear how the troops under Harry's command feel about this decision. I doubt they are saying 'thank God for this decision! I felt I was at so much greater risk!'

Who says anyone is shirking their duty? It has nothing to do with him personally or the people who are there with him. The fact is the risk involved in having him killed or captured far outweighs any advantage there is to having him there. It's a practical decision made by the people in power which is the government, not his family.

I would think the last thing "they," we, any of us needs is anyone staring in another Daniel Perle video. But every soldier who is there runs that risk because Daniel Perle certainly wasn't at higher risk than the "average soldier," yet there he was.

The fact is, there have always been people we wouldn't send to war because the downside of possibly losing them isn't worth what they could accomplish by being there. Harry is not your "average soldier' and never can be no matter how much he or anyone else would like it. That's just the way it is. In the past royals could go to war because their job and location could be kept secret, just like any other soldier. With todays media and the internet that is an impossibility. Its amazing they managed to do it for ten weeks.

[HisSelf]

We are taking about the British army here aren't we?

Who says anyone is shirking their duty? It has nothing to do with him personally or the people who are there with him. The fact is the risk involved in having him killed or captured far outweighs any advantage there is to having him there. It's a practical decision made by the people in power which is the government, not his family.

The fact is, there have always been people we wouldn't send to war because the downside of possibly losing them isn't worth what they could accomplish by being there. Harry is not your "average soldier' and never can be no matter how much he or anyone else would like it. That's just the way it is. In the past royals could go to war because their job and location could be kept secret, just like any other soldier. With todays media and the internet that is an impossibility. Its amazing they managed to do it for ten weeks.

Helmand is not bad. If he had served in Kandahar like our people, I'd say it's a bigger story.

I have to give the man chops for his balls. And a big piss-on-you to the press for breaking the story.

Once again the press is bollocks. They are sucking camo-co*k when it comes to the invasion but when the easy money is to be made, they're just a buch of w*ores...

[Carinthia]

He was probably ready to come home and grab a shower anyhow.

The press don't tell us all they should, when they should and tell us too much when they shouldn't. Wonder if they'll ever get it right?

[moderateamericain]

Its really too bad. I know how enlisted men view it, how can they expect him to earn the trust of the men he is to command? hes a trained soldier and wants to earn his way in life. I say good for him. Like you all said 3rd in line to the throne. Let the boy take lifes lumps if he wants it. And this rubbish about getting people killed. I gurantee you ask those soldiers and they will tell you that they are proud to have him in there unit. How far the world has come when we dont WANT people of privilage to take up the same chance as the rest of us do. I call arm chair general on the lot of you who think its a bad thing for him to serve his country. God forbid royalty actually lead and not just send others into the meat grinder. A few of our politicans in the USA should do the same.

[capricorn]

God forbid royalty actually lead and not just send others into the meat grinder.

In the second world war, the Royal Family could have escaped the bombing of Britain by seeking refuge anywhere in the world. They put aside their personal safety to stay in the midst of their people during a devastating time. No one can say the British royalty are wimps in the face of a challenge. Harry is just carrying on that noble tradition. Too bad he couldn't serve his full term in Afghanistan. Once his whereabouts were disclosed, the only right thing to do was to pull him out to protect him and the troops serving alongside him.

[Carinthia]

Its really too bad. I know how enlisted men view it, how can they expect him to earn the trust of the men he is to command? hes a trained soldier and wants to earn his way in life. I say good for him. Like you all said 3rd in line to the throne. Let the boy take lifes lumps if he wants it. And this rubbish about getting people killed. I gurantee you ask those soldiers and they will tell you that they are proud to have him in there unit. How far the world has come when we dont WANT people of privilage to take up the same chance as the rest of us do. I call arm chair general on the lot of you who think its a bad thing for him to serve his country. God forbid royalty actually lead and not just send others into the meat grinder. A few of our politicans in the USA should do the same.

Yes, they stayed in London right through the blitz when they could have been evacuated to northern England and Scotland as many ordinary citizens were.

[Topaz]

I just hope Harry doesn't go off in the deep end again and bring himself attention that's not good. We hardly hear about Princess Anne or the young Edward so why can't Harry find some piece of mind from the press? Since he's third in line why can't he leave England and live somewhere else. Can you imagine how life is for the two brothers? No private time, can't go out in public without cameras going off.

[Wilber]

I just hope Harry doesn't go off in the deep end again and bring himself attention that's not good. We hardly hear about Princess Anne or the young Edward so why can't Harry find some piece of mind from the press? Since he's third in line why can't he leave England and live somewhere else. Can you imagine how life is for the two brothers? No private time, can't go out in public without cameras going off.

He should stay on active service. There are plenty of things he could do, just not Afghanistan. At least not until they can do it again on the sly.

[jbg]

The "boys" will be very happy to see him tramping in the knee deep dust. Good for morale to see the high rollers getting dirty.

This shows the Brits still have what it takes.

[guyser]

Can you imagine how life is for the two brothers? No private time, can't go out in public without cameras going off.

On the other hand.......lots of money, privilege, dare say it...women , travel.

Harry wants to go back very soon. If the pics are any indication, Harry seems to enjoy being one of the boys.

Good for him, and wonderful to see his service to country.

[eyeball]

Perhaps if Harry had been killed more people would heed the current call to arms. I guess we'll never know.

Pulling him out now actually speaks volumes about how soft and mushy the old empire really is about its current involvement in Afghanistan. Harry was forced to cut and run even before he was in any obvious danger. There really is nothing more pathetic than a reluctant empire.

I'm reminded of Monty Python's "Run away, run away!"

[capricorn]

Harry was forced to cut and run even before he was in any obvious danger. There really is nothing more pathetic than a reluctant empire.

Are you saying that serving in the front lines does not carry any danger? Think of what you're saying here man. Hellmand province is a war zone. Or is it your opinion that it is not a war zone.

There were two considerations for pulling him out. One was Prince Harry's personal safety and the other was the safety of his comrades in arms. Had the Taleban known his whereabouts they would have spared no effort to get to him and that endangered all those around him. Imagine the bargaining chip and the morale boost the Taleban would have had if he had been taken prisoner.

[eyeball]

I doubt very much if his commanders would have allowed him to be put in any real danger. I'm quite ceretain we would have heard or seen evidence of real danger if there ever was any being used, as propganda. Besides there's no such thing as a real frontline in Afghanistan, just the rhetorical one.

You don't think his death or capture would have resulted in a greater recruitment of new soldiers dying to go?

Edited March 2, 2008 by eyeball

[jbg]

You don't think his death or capture would have resulted in a greater recruitment of new soldiers dying to go?

Bad pun.

[Melanie_]

According to CBC, Prince William may also see active duty this year...

The Defence Ministry said on Saturday that Prince William, second in line to the throne, is also likely to serve overseas with the military, probably on board a Royal Navy warship.

Officials said he could be deployed later this year on a tour to areas including the South Atlantic, the Persian Gulf, the Pacific Ocean or the West Indies.

I don't imagine there is too much danger to be found in the West Indies, though.

[capricorn]

I don't imagine there is too much danger to be found in the West Indies, though.

Canada has military members serving in many parts of the world. Their service is no less worthy because they are not deployed to Afghanistan. Would this not also apply to Prince Harry? It seems to me that some posters here would like him to lead the charge in combat and that would be the only way he could prove his worthiness as a true soldier.