Cornet Wales of the Blues and Royals will apparently not be deploying with his men to Southern Iraq after all:
Britain’s Prince Harry will not be sent to Iraq as previously planned, Britain’s army chief said yesterday, citing safety concerns.
The third-in-line to the throne was said to be “very disappointed” by the announcement, but a royal spokesman said he would not quit the army.
Gen. Richard Dannatt acknowledged Harry’s feelings, but said the risk of him and fellow soldiers being targeted was too great.
“I have decided today that Prince Harry will not deploy as a troop commander with his squadron,” he said in a statement, adding that his decision was “final.”
Somewhere in the UK, an already over-burdened NCO heaves a sigh of relief – junior officers are always a trial to their senior enlisted, never more so than when in a combat zone and the prince’s presence in the region would have been an irresistable goad to all the wrong sort of people.
Even if security measures could have been implemented to deny terrorists actionable intel – members of his regiment swore to wear “I’m Harry” t-shirts once deployed in theater – the actions taken to protect him from the kinds of random incidents of war, including roadside bombs, for example would probably have jeopardized other soldiers, not least a highly trained SAS escort that the MoD had planned to detail for his security: Superb soldiers of limited numbers and with specialized skills who frankly have much better things to do with their time.
Mission above all, princely desires after. Good for Harry to have threatened to resign his commission over the matter. Even better for having the maturity not to petulantly follow through with his threat.
Duty first.
I agree with your analysis but have to ask then what is the point of being in the Army, why indeed did he drag his “sorry arse through Sandhurst”.
Someone dropped the ball here bigtime, if this was going to be the outcome it ought to have been made clear. His older brother has never been eligible for deployment as second to the throne.
All that has happened is the enemy have been given a PR coup. Perhaps it would be better if he were steered toward choppers like his uncle.
Cap’n,
See, on this point I must, with great reluctiance, and a huge amount of respect, disagree with you.
The Prince is either an officer or he is not. He is either a soldier, or he is not. He has trained with his battalion, occupying a slot in the TOE, learning his skills and developing the trust of those both beneath and above him in his command.
Now, because of some misplaced ideal of over-reaching protection, he has been remanded to a secondary, out-of-theatre billet, and he will not further be with his unit.
That means that someone else will take his place. When and if that someone else is a casualty of war, to whom will devolve the grim task of explaining to that man’s family that they must bear a terrible burden in order to protect a Prince?
To whom will devolve the spinning of the reports to explain that a member of the Royal Family, a family that exists a more embellishment than functionary, was simply too important to risk in actually defending civilization?
Who will tell the rankers that ” sorry, mates, the prince was only a-playin’ at soldier. He’s got more important things ta do, right?”
There is a quote from Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part II, wherein Feeble, a minor charcter remarks,
“By my troth, I care not; a man can die but once: we owe God a death: I’ll ne’er bear a base mind: an’t be my destiny, so; an’t be not, so: no man is too good to serve’s prince; and let it go which way it will, he that dies this year is quit for the next.”
We all owe God a death, and Harry Wales saw his duty much more clearly than most everyone else. He can never be a leader who cannot lead by example. He can never ask that of others which he is unwilling to dace himself.
England is now an even lesser light for this action, and the rift between the people and the royals has been forced a bit wider. If they are not even allowed to lead, then pray, good sir, just what use are they to account for the immense expenditure of national treasue they attach for themselves?
Let Harry take his place in the line. It is his duty, and his right.
“Deus et mon Droit!” Qui, mon Capitain?
Respects,
Pity he couldn’t get away from the media a bit more, (then) CDF (think Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) Cosgrove had his son do a rotation in the early stages of Iraq, Private at the time, 6RAR if I recall correctly…
Wasn’t leaked till he got home.
In some ways, I have great sympathy for Harry in this situation. There really isn’t any ‘right answer’ that will please everybody. Perhaps the only way for him to serve at the front was to do it as Cosgrove’s son did it — covertly, doing his service at the front of the conflict without letting the press or anyone else know about it, until after he returned home. But is that possible for Harry? The cat is already out of the bag, thanks to the press. He couldn’t serve with his men, because if two or three people know a secret, it’s no longer a secret. And he would hate to endanger the lives of the men in his command, and the highly trained SAS guys who would be there to guard him personally. Talk about a Catch-22.
Marianne Matthews
So now England has lost a battle to AQ. Sorry, but Prince Harry doesn’t mean a thing other than as a symbol – the royal family hasn’t had much to do with governing for ages. Better to die like a lion and all that… Had he deployed the only way that would have happened is the bad guys getting lucky. Now they don’t even have to get lucky – they’ll be crowing about how England is afraid to put it “leadership” out against them.
As my wife put it, quite nicely I thought, if it weren’t for the fact that the press would follow his every move, effectively putting a target reticle on his forehead for the jihadis at every moment of every day, he wouldn’t have really had any problems, since he’d look like 80% (I did see some black soldiers in the review) of the other Brit soldiers there.
I guess this is why his dad and uncle became pilots instead.
Ugh…the politics may be difficult but the ethics seem pretty straightforward; I marvel that apparently so few thought that a modern heir might actually deploy when he matriculated…the guy assigned to lead in combat won’t deploy w/ his troops into combat and the jihadists now know the United Kingdom won’t risk an heir to the monarchy in defense of the “kingdom”. Waste of an academy slot, but not the first time.
This isn’t the young prince’s fault that he didn’t do a better job picking his parents. That he is willing to serve in harm’s way is all to his credit. IMHO, he and his Regiment should be allowed to deploy. They will have good hunting.
Sir,
I have to back up AW1 Tim here. If Prince Harry’s already been “made” by Iraqi insurgents, second him to another British regiment in Afganistan while his parent unit deploys to Iraq. His troops are willing to run cover for him to learn his trade–there or elsewhere. The MoD can play the “Where’s Waldo” game with Harry impersonators in Iraq for quite a while until the press gets tired of it, or a few stupid paparazzi get themselves kidnapped for their trouble. Which would probably serve them right.
Meanwhile, a senior enlisted whose entire life’s purpose is the training of junior officers can be quietly allowed to get on with his job. Platoon leaders are like buses –there’s another one along every minute. The sergeants make sure the bus knows where to go and can carry the load of 30-40 troops. Respecting their ability [grey hairs and heirs apparent included] and trusting their judgement would be a wise course. One would hope that’s what GEN Dannatt has in mind.
Its time to stop making exceptions for people, whatever their last names. Certainly the jihadis don’t make any exceptions –they’re equal opportunity butchers.
I’m with AW1…and after reading the many comments, I’d just say it appears that the “royalness” he brings is a detriment to the British Armed Forces. So, extending that thought, it appears that the leadership of his position in the Royal Family has become one of a burden for the country. A shame, indeed, where his predecessors have headed into the fray for the very purpose of showing they could be leaders in the worst of situations.
The Royals are supposed to lead the country, now they are actively avoiding contact with the enemy.
To have gone through Sandhurst and all the crap that goes with it…to have trained as an Armored Cavalryman with a storied unit… and not deploy…Sweet Jesus the mind boggles at his disappointment… someone didn’t think this through…and ole Harry gets the shaft…no one looks good on this one…Merry ole England in the Sh**ter again….it’s getting to be habit.
SGT Jeff (USAR) Harry’s uncle Edward was a chopper pilot and served honorably in the Falklands War… his usless father, Bonnie Prince Charlie had no similar accomplishment. His major aspiration, as I recall, was to be Camilla Parker Bowle’s tampon…interesting concept don’t you think?… In my humble opninion, the antics of this beady-eyed,supremely useless pecker-head offer the best rational yet for abolishing the British Monarchy. Best
Oh come on Snake Eater, tell us how you really feel.
AW1 Tim – WHY AREN’T YOU BLOGGING YET????
Do I have to stamp my foot and demand it?
Princess Crabby
My Dearest Maggie,
I must needs pray your indulgences for bit a short time further, then all shall be as it will. Sigh.
I’ve got a name for the beast, but I find that someone is squatting on it. There’s the sme name available with a dot-org, and a dot-net suffix, but I’m trying to leverage that mundane dot-com affectation a wee bit more.
There’s also, sadly, a paucity of start-up funds at the moment, thanks in no small amount to the zealous expenditure of funds on frivolity and debauchery with various ne’er do-wells in Arlington, these dew days past. My CFO absolutely will not permit further expenditures until the 1st of the month. So there’s that.
Regardless, I promise to keep you and the other various uber-scribes abreast of my flirtations with literary mediocrity. Promise.
As BB says: “It is what it is”. Gonna be a good season coming up, eh?
Respects,
If the Spencer Girl had squeezed out more heirs, there would have been more spares. Liz2 knew she needed to breed her kid to a better genotype (It’s good to have a non-short King) and she did. It’s a shame that she got such a ditzy bimbo phenotype.
I believe it would be to the detriment of his unit if he deployed with them in the combat environment. All royal prestige to one side, the fact of the matter is that an attack on him is going to have greater consequences than the loss of one life. If the British felt that he was going to receive more fire, attention, or aggression from their enemy then by juxtaposition that means those soldiers serving with him would have been subject to that aggression as well. It isn’t fair to them to decrease their odds against this enemy by sending a celebrity in their midst. All of Harry’s dedication, hard work, and training aside there is no denying that he is a flashing neon sign that says “attack here.” Since there was apparently no plan to disguise his activities from the moment he started training, I think this is one of few logical steps their government can make. Had there been a team of people working to organize the logistics of deploying a member of the royal family to some of the most dangerous territory on Earth from the get-go, this might be more feasible, but at this point it would be suboptimal for his fellow unit members as well as himself if he were to serve in active duty in Iraq.
~Ens Tim
Um, wow, Ens Tim, there you go giving us Naval JO’s a bad name. I suggest you put down your thesaurus and think about this. This long war against jihadistan has become a propaganda, intel and movement to contact war. Cornet Wales would have served admirably on two of those counts, both to show the world that England is willing to risk her (purely symbolic) leadership in the direct combat role, (as Pogue noted) and also as a giant honeypot to attract the attention of those we wish to kill or capture. The Blues and Royals would have become the most effective unit in Iraq overnight. Whatever happened to noblesse oblige anyway?
That’s a rather inflamatory way to make a point Andrew. Could have done with less insulting and more respectful disagreement.
Concur, we do try to maintain a certain tone ’round these parts, especially among brother officers.
You never know who might be fishing you out of the water some day.
Would be interesting if this was only a psyops ploy.
As to “suboptimal” comment above…nice beltway observation.
Ens Andrew, Well said… bravo bravo bravo… Re: the Cornet Wales situation. I resisted mightly the urge to snark Ens Tim’s sublimely verbose and somewhat overwrought comment… happy to see a contempory of his jumped right in and did the job. Besides it would have been “sub-optimal” for me to snark Ens Tim (a budding Naval Aviator, I think) on my birthday… Best
Lex, I am reminded of my days as a JO when no topic was sacred and all manner of discussion, raging arguments and cheap shots (a favorite with some around here) were tolerated even encouraged to toughten us up, sharpen our minds thicken our skin… hopefully this dynamic has not changed in the Navy…suggest we let the JOs work it out. Best
“suggest we let the JOs work it out.”
Pistols cocked, ten paces, turn and fire on my mark.
Mister Andrew— keep it above the belt. your argument stands without the first two sentences.
Mister Tim—-defend your arguments and find the weak spot in A.’s (there is one) on merit; Do not walk away from a rational argument b/c you didn’t like the manner it was presented. That’s just struthionian (check your thesaurus).
Lex—- Let the JOs handle it. They both stand to learn something.
Fight’s on.
I’d like to believe that I’m not the kind of person to simply nitpick another poster’s statements to the point where I’m just thinking up contradictory stances for the sake of saving face. That being said, there is one thing that kind of stands out in Andrew’s post that I find troubling. The propoganda war is a two way street, and in the case of a military force such that the US/UK alliance presents, it is not necessarily one we need to walk down with British Royalty. I think the amount of positive publicity that could be milked from his service is greatly outweighed by the amount of negative publicity that could come about should he be killed. If the enemy forces in Iraq or Afghanistan got their hands on a member of the British royal family, it would be viewed by our opposition as a huge victory over the “imperialists” against which they wage Jihad. Given the current moral and social climate of Liberal Europe, I’m afraid that his death might have a polarizing effect on the citizenry rather than unifying them against a common foe the way our 9/11 did.
Also, is it not trivializing British culture to say that because the monarchy serves primarily as a symbolic institution that it’s okay to throw them into the brink? Granted, he did volunteer, so I’m by no means arguing that he was “offered up” for validation of the monarchy’s continued existance; however, there is something to be said for protecting those things which define a nation, whether they be monuments to our forebears or the direct descendants thereof.
As far as using him as a strip of Fly Paper for insurgents, I’m not convinced that we’re at that point yet. I understand the theory, but I’m not convinced that it fits into the warfighting strategy of either of our nations. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that this will not be a war of attrition but rather a war of conversion. By providing a favorable alternative to insurgency and Jihad, our forces will (hopefully, fingers crossed) be able to erase the stain of Islamism to a degree where Iraq will become a self-sustaining democratic nation acting in the best interest of its citizenry, rather than an infighting group of tribes struggling for supremacy. In this sense, I do not believe that using Harry as a “honeypot” to waste bad guys is going to do a whole lot more than add to the body count. Unfortunately for both of us, it seems, we will likely never know.
~Ens Tim
Off topic to this little debate but …
Happy Birthday Snake?
Mister Tim,
Good job, and you show a lot of character by continuing the argument.
Pls realize that everything that will be intellectually useful to you in this life is likely to arrive in ugly wrapping.
Also, valid argument is never nitpicking. Some day soon you might find yourself next to a catapult arguing with a irate 30-year Master Chief that #105 isn’t safe to fly because the good CM has troubleshot the wrong problem. He says you’re out to lunch. Someone’s life (maybe yours) might depend on being able to take apart his arguments without losing your cool.
Its a professionaly useful skill set.
Let me jump on Mister Andrew for a moment –
I can see three outcomes to your proposed course of action.
1) Wales survives
2) Wales is killed
3) Wales is captured
“noblesse oblige” more than adquately covers (1) and (2). But who is wearing the obligation in the event of case (3)? Monarchy or the State? Based on your answer, who should get to decide whether or not to underwrite that risk? The Monarch or the State? Who wore the risk last time a British monarch was ransomed? Has anything changed in the intervening centuries?
Shipmate,
As the other Tim here, let me say that the only Monarch I remember for certain being held for ransom was Richard I. There were, however, several killed on combat. Leadership is a risky business. Always has been, always will be.
Now, it’s true that Generals don’t lead from the front anymore. However, often Colonels and other feild grade do. Not always, but often enough to number amongst the casualties.
The Prince, Coronet Wales, is a jumior officer, and doing what a junior officer is supposed to do: Train with and lead his men into action against the enemies of his nation.
So what if he is captured? Is he then, to be considered more important than any other man in his unit? Any less expendable than any other soldier?
If he was so indispensable, then he should have never been allowed to attend Sandhurst and accept a commission.
Harry is simply following in a long line of other royalty with his name. Harry Plantagent IV & V, of course, come to mind. Both well exposed to danger upon the battlefield, both exposed to the danger of ransom if captured.
Harry Wales must be allowed to take his place in the ranks of he so chooses. He has a right to be treated equally with others of his unit, and, to be honest, even more of an obligation to stand his place in line and face what may come.
Those servants of Her Majesty who have taken him out of his place should be awarded a gilded cross of the “Order of Misplaced Loyalties”.
respects,
Rellag – I looked it up and I believe it’s spelled – struthionine, a derivative of struthious – to be ostrich-like.
AW1 & Kris
Its an honor to be able to post here among the luminaries of lex’s phrontistery. In response:
Kris – I defer to your correct spelling. You are right.
AW1 – yes. I was thinking of Richard. 16 years after his death, Richard’s brother and successor, John, signed the Magna Carta, inclusive of Clause 61.
C61, the Security Clause, provided for overriding the will of the King via a council. Said council being the predecessor of Parliament.
My point is the Blair administration acting well within its rights to override Wales if they feel Wales is taking injudicious risks.
However, my *opinion*, as opposed to my narrowly constructed debating point, differs.
I think the risks *to the administration* are materially different than the risks to the *monarchy* or to Britain, and very much depend on what time horizon one selects as being relevant.
On any durationally significant time horizon, I think Wales not deploying weakens England and the Monarchy, even as I agree with Lex’s point that Wales’ submission to the will of Parliament as expressed through the administration (ultimately communicated by the MoD) was difficult, honorable, and ultimately noble in every sense of the word.
People get the government they deserve. Harry deserved better.
I should have added _not deploying_ weakens England largely due to the correct arguments Mister Andrew brought up earlier.
I suppose the whole point of this extended class period in History and Moral Philosophy is to ask is how often do we reach the point where the elected government’s interests and the country’s interests diverge, and what’s the proper course of action for people who recognize (or in Harry’s instance-physically embody) the divergence.
Discuss.
Rellag,
I fully understand where you are ocming from in this discussion. I also understand what the British Government is attempting to do.
What I am looking at his Harry’s future, and that of his brother. One or the other (and perhaps, even, both) will at some point ascend the throne. What better marker of the nation’s resolve than to have a certified warrior in that position? To have tested his mettle in the cauldron of battle, as it were, and not been found wanting.
If he should, God forbid, die or suffer wounding, then he is assured some great place in the history books, beyond that of being his mother’s son, and certainly casting a large shadow over Charles.
Should he come home, alongside his men, having shared that bond of brotherhood, he will be like a modern Henry V, or Edward III, regardless of the small part he played, because it will be the first time in some time (Mountbatten notwithstanding) that a member of the Royal Family has done more than act as a mannequin for the uniform.
Yes, Andrew was a pilot and he did his bit as well…. but, and this is a very real sort of PR bit, he wasn’t one of Diana’s boys, and that carries weight still. Especially when compared to Charles. Especially.
Harry the Prince. All that’s needed is a Falstaff and Poins, a Bardolph and Mistress Quickly, and the stories will write themselves.
It has been said that Harry has been ordered to refrain from appearing in clubs so as not to be seen dallying around whilst his regiment deploys. The muckity-mucks seem to feel it wouldn’t look good to have young men wounded and killed from his unit whilst he stays at home and carouses.
Yet, whose fault would that be? If he is to be so shielded, what sort of life will that be for him? To be denied the work he trained so hard for. Then to be set aside, hidden from view as a sort of embarrasment?
Harry needs to go to war. His own generation needs to know the metal of the man who might one day be their king. That very experience might well set the tone for a rising of the fortunes of Brittania, rather than a settling of the Isles into a sort of Multi-cultural doormat for Europe.
Respects,
Off topic, but, uhh…
Ensigns arguing with 30 year Master Chiefs? Yeah, when pigs are flying of the waist cat…
er,
“pigs flying off the waist cat”…
Would that be a reference to the A3D?
Respects,
Well, as I adumbrated above, this problem would not be near so bad if the Spencer Girl had done her plain duty which she was hired to do, and made more heirs before she got all silly and doodah-like.
Well that’s what I get for being flip. There isn’t much to add to what everyone’s already said, except that I would pay money to see anyone except the CO argue with a Master Chief.
Ens Tim, I agree with you that adding to the “body count” doesn’t necessarily win hearts and minds in a unified, homogeneous population like in Vietnam. However, I believe that we really have two wars going here, and an extremely heterogeneous population. The war against the Iraqis that don’t like what we’re doing where the hearts and minds thing applies (Baghdad and other cities), and the war against foreign irregular troops, where killing them is the best way to solve that particular problem (Anbar, Iranian border regions, etc.) Inviting lots of people we’d like to kill out into the middle of the desert has worked well for the USMC so far. Fallujah (the second time) seemed to end well. Just my opinion.
Very educational comment thread, on many levels. Quite a place you’ve developed here, Lex…
I’m honored to be a hanger-on amidst this group.
Michelle, Many many thanks. Best.