Prince Harry isn’t going to Iraq after all. Surprise, surprise. Reported threats from militants to kidnap or kill him led Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt to believe the prince’s deployment would pose an “unacceptable” threat to Harry and the men who served alongside him, the BBC reported.
Though some Brits don’t appreciate how the military seems to be placing more value on the prince’s life than on the other soldiers deployed in Iraq, his presence would no doubt put the rest of the regiment at an unnecessary risk.
Posted by Andie Clum
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
34 Comments
Welcome Andie Clum,
New Editor? Old Editor? Intern? Guest Editor?
On the matter – General Danatt is correct in his assessment that the Prince should remain home. Deployment to Iraq although noble for the young Prince is not in keeping with the reality of the situation.
Prince Harry is quite a young man. Fully ready to serve his country, but fear having him there would only further endanger his company as the terrorists already made noises about killing him.
Welcome Andie.
To send him to Iraq would have been stupid and dumb. If he got killed or maimed, the Brits would have had a fit and brought down the government for sending him there.
So, if you are attached in any way to money or power, you shouldn’t have to serve in dangerous places.
Good show, brits. You seem to be following in the footsteps of our vainglorious president. I do applaud you for doing so openly, though.
Who cares? The Tony Blair government that got the Brits into Iraq to look for the WMD is gone. Blair is out of power. Hey, I’ve got it…let Blair go in Andy’s place. Tony doesn’t have anything else to do now.
If Britain were trying to marshall her people around a war she believed in, do you think she would hesitate send a young prince into battle? Not for a second.
Britain has never shrunk from a battle it thought worth the fighting, and for centuries royal subjects have led the way. Keeping Harry home signals the disengagement of Britain, sans Blair’s influence, in American wars of choice. Now and, very likely, in the future.
From Britain’s point of view, I think this decision marks the end of any further British sanction of an American neoconservative foreign policy. Future British support for any American pre-emptive wars will likely survive only very high standards of evidence and a level of openness about them that neoconservatives seem congenitally unable to meet.
Great news indeed.
Having the Prince in Iraq would create more problems for his unit – not worth the risk.
But if you’re going to say this:
“If Britain were trying to marshall her people around a war she believed in, do you think she would hesitate send a young prince into battle? Not for a second.”
You need to apply it to the “Princes and Princesses” of America too …….
I’ve said it before —- the biggest mistake this administration has made in the execution of the “War on Terror” is not actively engaging ALL of America in fighting for the war. What sacrifices have we made to support the war effort? NONE !!!
How many of us have voluntarily tried to reduce their energy consumption to get us off foreign oil? Very few !!!
Let us understand Prince Harry’s situation.
Today’s English noblemen are noblemen because their forefathers were battlefield-hardened warriors. Prince Harry is named after King Henry I, son of William the Conqueror, and a successful warrior in his own right.
War is how lands and treasures were captured that generated wealth and today’s family dynasties. The most successful warrior leaders inspired loyalty by dividing conquered lands among their officers, and by giving the foot soldiers carte blanche to scavenge and keep moveable material goods they found as their reward. Soldiers were also typically permitted to rape captured towns’ women, a desirable reward in its own right for men who were on long campaigns away from home.
The failure of today’s noblemen to fight gravely upsets the natural order upon which their forefathers’ ascension to power and wealth was based.
Prince Harry understands that honor and legitimacy for the warrior-leader caste, his own, demands participation when wars are fought.
Harry’s conundrum is that Brits have decided that the war in Iraq is a lost cause, a fool’s venture. They do not want to see a member of the royal family lose life or limb in futility. Brits feel that their country’s participation in Iraq is Tony Blair’s foolish blunder, which is why they have forced his resignation.
If a good war pops up while Harry is young enough, his countrymen will strongly support–even expect– his participation.
As far as the prince’s being targeted, all soldiers are trained to shoot enemy officers, if possible, as a means of especially disrupting and dispiriting the enemy. But in the world of camo uniforms and grey-green helmets, it would be very hard for the enemy to identify the prince per se.
In the matter of princes and kings engaged in battles, their capture is preferred to killing them. This is because they can be held for large ransoms, and sometimes major concessions, such as war-ending truces.
I personally find it sensible that Prince Harry will not be going.
In contrast, Mitt Romney’s five strapping young sons’ failure to enlist in our own armed services cannot be countenanced by any reasonable person. Their declination makes their father look like a so-called “chicken hawk”.
This is actually an inaccurate label, when applied to George Bush, Dick Cheny, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other men who declined to serve in Vietnam, and whose children aren’t in Iraq.
They would have gone to war in the ’60’s had they believed America’s survival was at stake. But they and their fathers didn’t believe it, and they were right. Four years ago, they would have encouraged their children to enlist if they believed that the war in Iraq was essential to America’s survival. But they knew and know it is not. Money is to be made, and has been made through this misadventure. But that is a distinctly different matter from America’s survival.
The problem here, on our shores, is leaders’ lying, manipulating the public to send OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN TO WAR through calculated disinformation, and patent HYPOCRISY.
Nathan was in Iraq. My oldest son will be going in 5 months. But we’re just little people.
Republican candidate Duncan Hunter’s son has served two terms of duty there. But Hunter isn’t going to become president.
Patriotic Republicans, of all classes, must mount a campaign to insist that Romney demonstrate his belief in this war, if he wants to be president, to wit: he must not just talk the talk, but walk the walk, and send his sons into harm’s way.
If he chooses to decide to oppose the war, all to the good. If he does this, he may merit the mantle of leadership, as the world’s most powerful executive.
But Romney cannot be a trustworthy president as one who finds that this war must fought– only by other people’s children, not his own. This position brands him as a manipulative exploiter and abuser of America’s sons and daughters.
Another brilliant post Mark. But I disagree on a couple of things.
“They would have gone to war in the ’60’s had they believed America’s survival was at stake.”
Uh no. They would have only gone to war if there was NO ONE ELSE to go and their ECONOMIC advantage was being threatened. The common good is just for the little people, as you mentioned.
“But Romney cannot be a trustworthy president as one who finds that this war must fought– only by other people’s children, not his own.”
That certaintly applies to dear leader and his worthless spawn. They could serve in SOME capacity. But then, the BFEE would have to actually believe their own war rhetoric and, well, you know THAT isnt going to happen.
And let’s not forget democrat Jim Webb, and the military service and sacrifice of his son. You know, the one preznit bush TAUNTED Webb about?
I think that about says it all for the chicken hawk brigade. Yellow elephants were in style for a while, but seem to be floudering right now.
Go figure.
Two words Mark. Volunteer Army.
That is why we should honor those who enlist. Those who go in with eyes wide open, knowing the risks and willing to accept them.
Obviously you can’t force anyone to join. Your whole premise is silly.
But I am gratified to see from the attention Mitt Romney is getting, that the left is concerned. They should be.
“In contrast, Mitt Romney’s five strapping young sons’ failure to enlist in our own armed services cannot be countenanced by any reasonable person. Their declination makes their father look like a so-called “chicken hawk”.”——————-
What a distorted idea.
The sons should not be allowed to make the same decisions that every other American can make – because their father holds a specific belief?
In what strange, perverted world does that make sense?
Are you a closet Bolshevik? Leninism turn you on?
Your slip is showing.
The Goose and the Gander?
Or is it the Prince and the Pauper?
As always, I learn more about writer/speaker than the subject of their rants.
Someone’s a chicken-hawk because they didn’t force their grown sons into the military? That’s like saying “You are not pro-choice if you daughter hasn’t had an abortion.”
So Prince Harry can’t be sent to Iraq because the enemy might kill him? Our fearless leaders have finally found an excuse for sending other people’s sons to war but keeping their own out of harm’s way. Our sons are just not as valuable as their sons.
Just think of what a fabulous martyr Harry of Wales would have made. Every loyal subject of the British Commonwealth would have been screaming for revenge against Iraq.
I bet Bush & Cheney are sick with disappointment.
You guys are showing your true colors.
Harry wanted to go – the royal military said he would be too big of a risk, not only to his unit, but because he would be a target for capture – and a ransom that could include military concessions.
You guys – as much as you pretend to want peace – wanted to see the young prince dead.
That’s just sick.
I would not want to wish death in Iraq on anyone, but it does seem a bit disingenuous that Price Harry is not suitable for cannon fodder and our men and women will work just fine.
As for Mitt and his non-participating sons – I have to believe that Romney is just too well packaged and promoted to be a suitable President. The chances of his son’s of privilege ever serving in combat are about the same as Barbie and Jennie picking up the sword to fight for their father’s War of Choice.
GSheridan,
I don’t want to see ANY of our troops dead. I want them to come HOME.
NOW.
Everyone knows if your aren’t royalty, the ‘enemy’ doesn’t want to kidnap or kill you just for being there, right?
Sorry, Steve, but kidnapping an ordinary ‘Joe’ doesn’t win the terrorists as many brownie points as kidnapping a prince. And most of the ‘Joe’s’ don’t have folks that could raise the kind of ransom Harry’s family – and country could – and would.
Harry wanted to do – the young man is a bright spot, but it would be like painting a big red “X” on his unit. Now, it’s just back to little red x’s on every troop over there.
Tom – I want to believe you – but the comment about GWB and the VP being sick that Harry couldn’t be martyred – was a little strong.
GSheridan,
No stronger than many of the comments you post. My post was meant as very black humor, with an extra heavy dose of bitter irony. If you read it otherwise, I apologize.
The war in Iraq is either something that must be won to keep the Islamo-terrorist enemy from coming to our shores and destroying our nation, or it isn’t.
If it is, then every able-bodied young person should be signing up voluntarily, or if they don’t do this, they should be drafted.
For middle-aged leaders or leader wannabes with fighting-age able-bodied children who believe that the war is vital to our nation’s survival, they should demonstrate their sincerity by giving their sons and daughters to the effort.
It’s a matter of leading by example, in order to convince doubters of the war’s essential importance to our nation’s survival.
You cannot be a leader if you insist that somebody’s ass absolutely must be put on the line, but that somebody isn’t going to be your flesh and blood. Sorry, GS and other ignorati, but Western Civilization-preserving war can’t be won that way.
If, you truly believe deep in your heart that the matter is vital, but decide to keep yourself and your loved ones out of harm’s way, you are a coward.
If on the other hand you don’t think the matter is vital, but you’re nevertheless spewing statements attempting to convince other people that it is, you are an anti-American conniver.
Suppose that taking over Iraq, this putative clash of civilizations, was vital to the future of our nation, but could be conducted as a small-enough scale intervention to not require World War II’s wholesale reengineering of our manufacturing economy, rationing of consumer goods, coercing people who stayed home–by shaming them–to buy war bonds to fund our troops and materiel manufacture, and massively enlarging our peacetime services.
In other words, suppose this was a catalytic situation where a small war effort could generate very large desirable end-effects.
Even in such a limited, but necessary war scenario, honorable leaders would still set a personal example to the public by signing up for military service, if young enough, or pushing their fighting-age and able-bodied offspring to do so–not necessarily all their children, but one per family if the family had two or more children.
In essence, if sacrifice is required, those who want to lead must sacrifice. If they don’t do this, they aren’t leaders, they are just power-and-money-lusting exploiters of the little people.
Courage isn’t relegated exclusively to conflict. I once rescued a man in the ocean who was crying for help as waves were pounding him in 8-10 foot deep water.
He was panicked. He was a Midwestern swimming pool and lake swimmer, not a pounding Pacific surf swimmer, and was learning the difference the hard way.
Shit! What should I do? I knew how to take care of MYSELF in surf, and for me, 3-5 foot waves were a piece of cake to swim in. But I also remembered dimly, from junior lifeguard training, that an error in rescue could cause the drowner to take down the rescuer, and this guy was bigger than I was, and thrashing wildly, the most risky rescue condition for the would-be rescuer. But I got behind him so he couldn’t push me down to keep himself up. Having surf fins on, I buoyed him up and told him to just relax, he’d be okay. And he stopped thrashing.
I told him, “Here comes a wave. Relax. The wave will take us in closer to shore. I did this two or three more times. I towed him into 4 feet of water, where we could stand, and then walked to shore.
In that situation, I could not sit by and do nothing. This Midwestern guy did something foolhardy. His life wasn’t my responsibility. Except, it was, given the fact that I had the skills to have a good chance–not a guarantee but a probable shot– of getting him out of there without his drowning me.
I’d learned that from somebody else. As a just-certified diver several years earlier, I went out with experienced divers to a kelp bed to learn how to collect abalone for dinner. When our tanks were low, my buddy and I began ascending. Being experienced, he headed for a “hole” in the kelp canopy. Being a novice, I just went straight up, and my tank regulator got entangled a mere five feet from the surface in the canopy. I couldn’t rise any further. I later learned procedures for self-rescue in that situation–but never needed them, as I learned to not make the same mistake twice–but at that point, I was stuck, with only about 3 minutes of air left to think up a solution on my own.
By the grace of God, I had a rescuer, my dive buddy, who saw my plight, submerged, swam over to me, gave me an “okay” sign to calm me, cut the kelp with his knife, and led me to the hole. I trusted his underwater-navigational leadership.
His own tank was low, so rescuing me entailed risk for him. That experience gave me faith to “volunteer” to take a risk for the man in the surf.
I don’t have a problem with honest leaders who judge, “Folks, we are an aging nation, like the rest of the First World. They’re declining to wage war, even though their once-young ancestors did (Scandinavians and many Scots are descendants of Vikings, for goodness sake), because they don’t have the young manpower anymore to invade countries that do have it. Neither do we.”
I am less inclined to want a pro-war president, a priori, but if he puts his own children’s safety where his mouth is, and sends them to the battlefield, I must say that this merits respect, and a listening to what he has to say.Furthermore, this would give me the confidence that this person would maximally provide for the safety of his own and other people’s children, such as equipping them with body and vehicle armor, in advance, not belatedly after preventable casualties mounted.
Mostly I’m just not interested in the propaganda-mantra of “Do as I say, not as our family does,” types.
The “chickenhawks won’t sent their own kids argument” is just an attempt by political activists to discredit a candidate/politician. At the base of the argument is the concept of holding a person accountable for the actions of someone else. It’s intellectually vacant and speaks more to the propagandist than the subject.
P-man,Holding a person accountable for the actions of someone else? If you support a war as righteous, why then should you insist that others must put their asses on the line while you and yours remain behind the lines, safely protected by other people’s children?
The war in Iraq is either something that must be won to keep the Islamo-terrorist enemy from coming to our shores and destroying our nation, or it isn’t.
If it is, then every able-bodied young person should be signing up voluntarily, or if they don’t do this, they should be drafted. …Posted by: Mark | May 17, 2007 at 04:27 PM
THAT is exactly correct.
Explains almost everything, too.
You want to know why Democrats and Independents don’t support the war in Iraq? It’s because using one of his two faces Bush tells us the war is a life-and-death struggle for all that’s good and decent, while the other face tells us “nah, really no biggie – live it up folks.”
That ain’t how we won WWII, but it’s exactly how Bush is losing Iraq II. How can you take a guy like that seriously?!?
“For middle-aged leaders or leader wannabes with fighting-age able-bodied children who believe that the war is vital to our nation’s survival, they should demonstrate their sincerity by giving their sons and daughters to the effort.”——————–
We’re not Aztecs, Mark. We don’t ‘offer up’ our children as a sacrifice.
We support their decision if they choose to go – and we support them if they choose not to.
You act as if these teens don’t even have minds. They do.
I’ve mentioned before that my daughter has expressed interest in the Marines from time to time. If she makes the decision to join up – she will have my full support. If she doesn’t – she’ll have my full support.
Jed,
Try this one:
If you support a law as righteous, why then should you insist that others must put their asses on the line to enforce it while you and yours remain behind the lines, safely protected by other people’s children?
So you are a police officer right? You have forced your children into law enforcement right? Cause if you haven’t . . .
Strange comparison, enforcing the law is the same as enforcing Bush’s decisions? Fail to see any connection. One is morally correct, the other immoral.
GS,
“We’re not Aztecs?”
I don’t take pleasure in showing up others’ assininity.
But here is what you didn’t learn, whether or nor your horsie-school teachers presented it to you:
George Washington witnessed his commander, General Braddock’s death in the French and Indian War. He later led revolutionary forces in several battles. If you say that he wasn’t willing to sacrifice himself, you’re an uneducated blatherer.
I’m not for war in the Middle East. I believe that we have the necessary energy resources to end our oil dependency. But, nevertheless, I have a son going to Iraq.
You say you have a fence-sitting daughter. If she chooses not to enlist and tells people that the war in Iraq is wrong, that’s fine. But if she chooses not to enlist, while taking a pro-war-in-Iraq stance, like her mother, then she is a con artist.
GS, I’m not accusing you of being a con artist. I’m willing to cut you some slack and find you to be a knowledge-challenged woman.
But in either case, you have no credibility.
You say, “We’re not Aztecs”. How about not being being silly-headed. How about being accurate and saying “My family members are not Euro-American warriors, as some of you bloggers’ forefathers were who were willing to sacrifice themselves in war.”
You may have been adopted, not knowing who your birth parents were. You had your own birth daughters, and treasure them. You have to decide whether you believe this war is necessary, and encourage one of them to enter the fray, or else be a con artist on this blog. Or else, admit the war is wrong, and discourage your daughter(s) from enlisting.
Otherwise, if you want to be credible, you have to find, “I don’t know that the war is necessary. I’m not enlisting. Nobody in my family is enlisting. I’m not sure if the war is right or wrong, but our position is, we don’t want to be involved in combat. So, I guess that means we don’t really support the war.”
Because you can’t support the war using OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN to be put in harm’s way . When one or both of your daughters enlist in the Marines or Army then you will have credibility in WEBLog as an honest American, like Hank is.
My dad went to Germany in WWI. How about your birth father? Tell us about his war experience.
P-man,Actually, I don’t support all laws as righteous, and spent many years opposing Jim Crow and other discriminatory laws. A police officer is obligated to enforce all laws. I would be highly disappointed in a child of mine who enforced discriminatory legislation.Wars, on the other hand, tend to come one at a time, giving me the opportunity to decide on the righteousness of any particular one.
Jed/Steve,
I’m highly disappointed that neither of you are out there enforcing your version of righteousness by being a police officer. Maybe Mark can find you a child to adopt so you can fulfill your moral obligations.
Poor Mark. Obviously, you did not get the gist of my comment that we are not Aztecs, although I tried to expand upon it – for just that purpose.
My point, of course, and one I think just about everyone but YOU understood, was NOT akin to the European fighting history but had everything to do with parents sacrificing their children. I understand reading comprehension may not be your strong suit – so I’ll try to use smaller words when addressing you.
Obviously, you’re one of the old ‘cut and runners,’ but you somehow feel changing nics will give you new credibility. It doesn’t. You’re still as bereft of integrity as you were before.
You say that my daughter is a con artist if she supports the war but doesn’t enlist. Earlier, you say parents who support the war should make their kids enlist. Then you come back and say that YOUR son is going – even though you don’t support the war.
Based upon your OWN logic that only means ONE thing. You a pitiful father because you cannot force your child to adhere to your agenda.
My dad was a Sergeant in WWII. He was in the heavy artillery part and he drove a tank. His unit went up through North Africa and into Europe. He enlisted and then re-enlisted just months before the war was over. At the end, his company was stationed directly outside Berlin – and they went in on recon at nights, even though they were not officially allowed in. My dad was among the first of the Americans to reach the Reichstags and he assisted the next couple of months, along with the Russians, in cleaning it up.
I don’t know why you call him my birth father – he is my ONLY father. I was never adopted. I don’t know why you call my school – a ‘horsie’ school. What is that supposed to mean?
You’re confusing me with someone else, but I’m not surprised – you exude confusion on all fronts.
GS,
My son is in the Army MC. He has been trained to bind his compatriots’ wounds and save lives. He wants to go to PA school, either in the military or after he gets out, and spend the rest of his life in the healing profession.
I’m not for this war but my son is doing a noble thing–helping other people– and I support him. Many, many parents of servicemen and service women aren’t for this war, but appreciate their children’s noble sacrifice serving our country.
You need to think about why we are in Iraq. We went to Afghanistan to dismantle al Quaeda in order to prevent more 9/11’s. That made sense.
In contrast, the war in Iraq has never been explained by the Bush administration, except for WMDs that didn’t exist.
We are not in Iraq to bring Western democracy there. Imposing democracy by force is an oxymoron. This isn’t how the Middle East.
In the Middle East, strongmen don’t serve 4-year or 8-year terms in office and then play golf or participate in global humanitarian missions. They rule until they die of natural causes, become too senile to rule, get assassinated, or overthrown.
How do we know that we aren’t in Iraq to bring it democracy? Because our strongest Middle Eastern ally, after Israel, is Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud runs “its’” (owned) country as a non-democratic entity. Women there have no rights. A number of years ago, an American woman married a Saudi man here. They had two girls, then got divorced. She got sole custody, the father got visitation rights. The father, on pretext said he wanted to take the girls to the zoo. He kidnapped the girls, and using passports for them provided by the Saudi government, loaded them on a plane and took them back to his country. He committed a felony here.
The girls, two American-born citizens, could not come home. One of them was married off through an arrangement made by her father, in which she had no say. That’s slavery. (google Roush kidnapping Saudi girls)
Due to America’s foreign-oil dependence and trade deficit, Saudi royals have exchanged dollars for shareholder stakes in American industries and banking. They own more American assets than the “bottom” 40% of Americans. These Americans just live here. Foreigners own their country.
Is there any possibility that these foreign owners have at some points exerted pressure to transfer American corporations’ manufacturing to China, so that their investment money can be multiplied, relative to employing Americans in these corporations? If you don’t believe in democracy, but do crave money and power, what would you do?
In 1973 in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, in which Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria, the House of Saud was very unhappy. The Israelis were using American-provided weapons and intelsat data to defeat the Muslims.
So the House of Saud spearheaded an OPEC-cartel oil embargo. Our nation’s economy was totally disrupted. We went into a debilitating period of stagflation due to fuel price tripling that impacted every sector of our economy, which took 8 years to overcome.
Was this an act of war by the House of Saud? Should we have sent 500,000 troops to that country, taken over the oil and sent a message to the rest of OPEC to keep the taps flowing? Maybe that would have been a justifiable action. But we couldn’t, because we were bogged down in Vietnam, and we couldn’t have sent men and materiel to Saudi Arabia that we didn’t have to send.
In any case, we’re not in Iraq to democratize the Middle East.
I thought went there to capture Iraqi oil, but this may be an error. The war destabilized the world oil market. It generated billions of dollars of windfall profits for American oil companies, billions of dollars of contracts for Halliburton, and close to a quarter-TRILLION dollars in windfall revenue for Saudi princes. Much of which is going to be used to buy more of America.
Why do we have this sudden “illegal immigration” crisis, focusing on poor, hardworking peasants who just want to achieve the American Middle Class Dream? Because Americans need to be distracted from the issue of the sell-off of their country by our nation’s wealthy elite to other countries’ wealthy elites.
GS, to finish, I’m going to tell you one more thing. Saddam was a dictator. Sometimes he was cruel. But he was a political prisoner for 4 years. He knew his territory and people. Under his leadership women were enabled to attend co-ed universities and become doctors, school teachers (of both boys and girls), professors, administrators and managers. They didn’t have to cover their faces. They drove cars.
You won’t find these advancements in Saudi Arabia, under the leadership of “our friends”.
Well another case of the golden rule,he who has the gold rules. It is just amazing that we have a president who would not even fufill his light ANG duties,war is all right as long it does not affect the son or family of any high ranking official.
Kind of sounds like the old song during Vietnam with lyrics…”I ain’t no senator’s son…” Does the Brit crown think the insurgents would pass on kidnapping or killing any GI?
Time for the little prince to go home now after dressing up LIKE a soldier and making his gun go bang bang.