Prince Harry - bullet magnet?

[Uli]

In British news.

Should the press have blown his cover? Please discuss amoungst yourselves:

Prince Harry to be recalled from AfghanistanHaroon Siddique guardian.co.uk, Friday February 29 2008 Article history · Contact us Contact usClose Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@guardian.co.uk Letters for publication should be sent to: letters@guardian.co.uk If you need help using the site: userhelp@guardian.co.uk Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 7278 2332
Advertising guide License/buy our content About this articleClose This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Friday February 29 2008. It was last updated at 12:54 on February 29 2008.
Prince Harry tries to push start an abandoned motorcycle in the desert, with the help of 'Max' his Fijian tank driver, in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Photograph: John Stillwell/AFP/Getty Images

Prince Harry is to be pulled out "immediately" from Afghanistan after a news blackout on his deployment broke down, the Ministry of Defence confirmed today.

The 23-year-old is 10 weeks into a 14-week tour but army chiefs have decided the risk is too great, amid fears the Taliban will step up attacks on British bases.

"This decision has been taken primarily on the basis that the worldwide media coverage of Prince Harry in Afghanistan could impact on the security of those who are deployed there, as well as the risks to him as an individual soldier," said the MoD.

US political blog, the Drudge report blew the lid on Harry's posting yesterday, ending a voluntary agreement by the British media to keep it secret until he returned.

The MoD described the decision to report the prince's presence in Afghanistan without consulting it as "regrettable" and said his situation had "clearly changed" as a result.

It said the decision to withdraw Harry had been taken by Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of defence staff, in consultation with General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, "following a detailed assessment of the risks".

The role of the prince has been to direct aircraft to enemy positions in Garmser, south of Helmand province, close to the Pakistan border. But last night, defence forces said he was no longer there.

His recall from the frontline will come as a bitter blow to the prince who was last year refused permission to fight in Iraq with the soldiers he had led throughout his army career.

Initially the MoD had said the prince would serve with his unit just like any other soldier.

But Dannatt later announced Harry would not be going after intelligence reports of a series of specific threats to the prince and his fellow soldiers.

Harry had threatened to resign his commission following the decision and a special role for the prince to take up in Afghanistan was carved out in an attempt to placate him.

In a pre-prepared interview that was meant to be broadcast after his return, the prince said: "I think there's a lot of guys where who hopefully won't be targeted, but as I say now that this film has been made and now… people will know I'm out here no doubt I'll be a top target."

He flew out to Afghanistan on December 14 and had been due to complete a four-month tour without the standard two-week rest and recreation break other soldiers enjoy.

The MoD thanked the UK media for its "responsible attitude" in maintaining the news blackout and asked that it "refrain from speculating on his [Harry's] current location, timelines and routes" until his return.

[Gary Sisco]

Some humans are more precious than others.

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by tippy

No. But he’s got a bigger target on his back for having been born a prince of England. Why do some U.S. politicians have detailed security?

Because they don't trust their own people and most of them are wusses?



It's because some people are more precious than others.

In Nicaragua in the 80s I many times saw the nine leaders of the FSLN in huge crowds, almost everyone armed. No barriers, no plexiglass, nada. Sometimes it was in large demonstrations, sometimes large celebrations where the same armed crowds would be good and rum drunk. Didn't matter either way. They had nothing to fear from the people. I was close enough to them several times, well within grenade or even handgun distance. No one ever checked my papers, even, never mind the pack I had on my shoulder. No metal detectors, nada. Once I was not more than ten feet from both Ortega and Fidel, at a huge party, where, again, people were drinking and nearly everyone was armed. They were just there hanging out. No separation at all from the crowd.

And this was during an actual war, not one on tv somewhere else. 75,000 odd people had been killed by then.

My point is that anyone wishing to do them any harm had all of the possible opportunity to do so. No one wanted to.

[patricia]

I thought it was interesting that the other guys in his unit didn't know he was him.

Imagine if Jenna and/or Barbara Bush were serving in Iraq. It would be nothing but photo-ops and their fellow soldiers would indeed be in danger.

Harry wanting to be anonymous says a lot about him, I think.

[Gary Sisco]

What is it that makes the other Brits not bullet magnets?

Elitist crap. I'd bet he wasn't happy about getting pulled out of his unit like that.

By the way, to be clear, when I said large crowds above, I was talking a couple hundred thousand people, most of them armed. Anyone could have been there with bad intent as no one was being searched or even ID'd.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

What is it that makes the other Brits not bullet magnets?

Elitist crap.

You mean here that you don't think his prominent socio-political position actually has an impact on the decisions of the enemies of his army? I don't know the answer to that, but just wanted to be clear about your argument, which is separate from the question of society or the military treating him "special".

[Gary Sisco]

It's hardly the first time a man in a prominent sociopolitical position went to war. In fact, it's common throughout history until the advent of the boomers. If we're going to talk royals and aristocrats, they were *expected* to war themselves.

I fail to see why his safety is anymore important that anyone else's. That's what militaries are for, hey. Fighting. If he's not to fight, take off the uniform and go back to playing golf and counting other people's money. No one drafted him. I also read an interview with him from before his deployment, where he was adamant that he wanted to go with his unit, wherever it went, which is itself entirely common for people in the service. Some who get out, reenlist when they learn their outfit's being deployed again. I've known two three-war fathers who insisted that they go with their units. One, a Seabee, tried for four in the Gulf War but the Navy refused to send him to war again, and not long after forced him to retire. He had more than 30 years in. Hashmarks on his sleeve that very nearly reached his Chief's stripes.

All men are created equal. If a society doesn't want its prominent citizens in harm's way, it shouldn't put the others there, either.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I fail to see why his safety is anymore important that anyone else's.

Fine, but that is a wholly separate issue from the 'bullet magnet' argument, which is about whether his presence will attract "undue" enemy attraction. That may or may not be militarily desirable, but if it were, then it would also raise the issue of using specific soldiers as bait. Anyway, it makes no sense to conflate the two issues.

[Gary Sisco]

I'm with Pat. What kind of monarchy is that, where people don't recognize a prince?

I'm not sure I even believe it, at least as far as his own unit is concerned. People get pretty close, and they necessarily talk about their lives and hopes and so on.

Vince -- I just don't accept it as anything but elitist because it's simply not the first time nor will it be the last. If a war isn't worth spilling the blood of the "prominent," it's not worth spilling blood. Everyone's blood is red. Everyone's life matters as much to himself and the people who love him. This neither more nor less the case with the "prominent." Like I've said, countless times, if you're not willing to spill your own blood, or see your children spill theirs, in a war, you have no reason to be supporting it.

There aren't two issues, as far as I'm concerned, so I'll continue to disagree. It's elitist and classist.

What does it say about the other Brits who've already spilled their blood or those who will be? What it says is that the prince's life is more important than theirs.

Sorry. I don't buy that and won't.

Everyone is bullet bait in a war. No one thinks about anything in a firefight except living and killing, and that, only about the people in your own specific subgroup (squad). A prince in a firefight is another guy with a rifle. That's all.

[Gary Sisco]

Incidentally, Al Gore, whose time in Vietnam was spent behind a typewriter, found even that too much and had his father get him pulled out of the country. He is very likely the only guy who served in Vietnam that got to leave after six months without having been very seriously wounded or maimed. Everyone else did twelve-month tours, or thirteen if Marines.

That was bullshit, too.


"I ain't no senator's son..."

[Nim Chimpsky]

It's the only time in his life he's going to work for a living - leave him out there, although with that complexion he'll be fried in under 20 minutes. The UK needs to declare war on Norway so he can be of more use.

[Gary Sisco]

I agree but I'd also bet that he wanted to stay. That's how guys are with their units, once they're doing shit for real.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Everyone is bullet bait in a war. No one thinks about anything in a firefight except living and killing, and that, only about the people in your own specific subgroup (squad). A prince in a firefight is another guy with a rifle. That's all.

Ok, so you reject the argument that his presence affects military strategy (though you haven't explained why). But it's simple to see how it's a separate issue. It's a gaming question. Elitism needn't enter into it.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by patricia

Harry wanting to be anonymous says a lot about him, I think.

What are you talking about? The Government were the ones trying to keep his whereabouts under wraps, not him.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

What are you talking about? The Government were the ones trying to keep his whereabouts under wraps, not him.

OK. Prince Harry was looking forward to everyone knowing that the third in line to the British throne was in Afghanistan with the rest of his unit, their safety be damned. But the Government seemed to have refused his attempt at a photo-op.
Luckily, Matt Drudge and his ilk were there, or Prince Harry would still be there.

What do you want from me?

[Scott Dolan]

Accuracy?

[patricia]

[Scott Dolan]

My thought exactly.


The British government asks for there to be no media leaks that Harry is in Afghanistan = Harry wanted anonymity.

I suppose in Goodspeakian Theory that could be proved, but until then...

[Nim Chimpsky]

I wonder which genius in the military thought that Harry's presence abroad could be kept a secret. If he isn't watching the England Rugby team during the Six Nations by day and falling out of some exclusive London drinking establishment by night, journalists will start investigating his whereabouts.

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, the whole thing seems pretty bizarre to me.


Let's take our most high profile royal prince and send him to Afghanistan. If we just tell the world wide media to "shush", everything will be just fine.


Great plan!

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by tippy

That is ignoring the fact that it was secret insofar as world media for 10 weeks though until someone made a choice to do a cover story.

Which is quite amazing all by itself.

But, it still doesn't take anything away from my point. Or Nim's.

Who really thought this would truly work?

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

What are you talking about? The Government were the ones trying to keep his whereabouts under wraps, not him.

Exactly.

Furthermore, as I understand it, it was Harry's concern for his comrades, not his own safety, which became the critical issue for him.

Finally, it was reported yesterday that the high-brain known as Matt Drudge was the one who blew Harry's cover.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by tippy

in that it's not inevitable that information gets peddled wholesale to the public.

In this day and age?

I wouldn't put too much money on that bet.

Your "old days" analogy simply doesn't stand up in the in these hyperactive voyeuristic times. Again, the only truly amazing aspect is that it was sat on as long as it was.

[Monte Smith]

Matt Drudge posted the story, but where did he get all these high quality snaps of HRH in action? Drudge is not a reporter, he doesn't have a staff. It's not every soldier who gets the Vanity Fair treatment. Obviously, there was a press entourage preparing for the day when the story was disembargoed, and someone in that press entourage or elsewhere sent the material off to Drudge. Who should have held it in order to protect the British forces, but who unlike the UK media was under no legal compunction to do so.

Kudos to Lt Wales for serving; kudos to all the British forces in Afghanistan for serving. And Canadian, NATO, etc.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by tippy

Well, it's not a physical law that one has to be hyperactive and voyeuristic whatever the age, but I can see your point that you and Nim arguing that it was likely as a sign of the times. However, my response was to the question "should the press have blown his cover?" For 10 weeks, the press didn't. I personally would have continued that further and decided not to cover Prince Harry in active duty.

It did show a higher integrity than we're used to seeing from the media, I'll give you that. And of course you wouldn't have covered it, neither would I. But, that's probably why we aren't journalists.

My main point is that I would have never attempted the risk.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Matt Drudge posted the story, but where did he get all these high quality snaps of HRH in action? Drudge is not a reporter, he doesn't have a staff. It's not every soldier who gets the Vanity Fair treatment. Obviously, there was a press entourage preparing for the day when the story was disembargoed, and someone in that press entourage or elsewhere sent the material off to Drudge. Who should have held it in order to protect the British forces, but who unlike the UK media was under no legal compunction to do so.

Kudos to Lt Wales for serving; kudos to all the British forces in Afghanistan for serving. And Canadian, NATO, etc.

That's part of what has made me look at this with much more interest than I normally would have.

"Press entourage"? Brother, they were practically making a fucking feature film. Catch any of those clips on any of the "news" outlets last night?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by tippy

>>My main point is that I would have never attempted the risk.>>

You mean Harry shouldn't have served?

No, that isn't what I mean at all. Hey, my hat is off to the cat for doing what he has done.

I was talking about the government/military itself. To rest such high stakes on the silence of the media is simply suicide, IMO.

[Scott Dolan]

Probably.

[Scott Dolan]

He's a good looking cat, I'll give him that. But that skin, ugh...

Makes my skin look model perfect.

[Scott Dolan]

You don't have a grandson.


Nah, he's got some really wild red shit all over his face. Probably Rosacea.