Random thoughts on Prince Harry and Afghanistan

[purplecat]

I watched the start of Any Questions last night while completing some odds and ends where Prince Harry was the major topic of discussion, and I listened to a similar, though less vitriolic discussion on the Today program this morning.

Now my feelings about the Royal Family and the Military lifestyle are fairly equivocal (the former more so than the latter). I don't have as much problem with the invasion of Afghanistan as I do with the invasion of Iraq and I do believe that now we've gone into these countries and removed what stability they had we have a responsibility to do all in our power to help restore stability to at least its previous level*.

All that said, I believe that if Prince Harry is a member of our armed forces then it is his duty to serve wherever he is sent as much as possible as if he were any other soldier. What really struck me was that the word duty which I thought was key to the issue was never mentioned - instead Any Questions focused on how much he wanted to serve on the front line and the Today program focused on what an extremely competent soldier he was. No one seemed prepared to discuss how problematic it is if a member of the Royal Family is exempt from dangerous duty while serving as a member of the armed forces. So I have no problem with the British press concealing the fact he was there since it allowed him to do his duty without endangering his fellows (much).

However, like George Galloway (with whom I would otherwise appear to disagree on nearly all the above points), I am less keen on the fact that a BBC documentary crew went with him. I don't see how this documentary can do much more ultimately than cast the Royal Family, the Armed Forces and the occupation (its not an occupation, officially, any more is it? are we peace-keeping? I've lost track of the terminology) of Afghanistan in a good light. I'm sure it will be more subtle and balanced than the propaganda films of the second world war but even so, as a project, it does feel uncomfortably propagandist.


* although I accept that "all in our power" may amount to "going away and leaving the people who actually live there to get on with things".

Comments

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the duty thing. There's not much point in having a royal soldier if he's going to be all royal and no soldier. And why the sudden fuss now in 2008 about sending the third-in-line to the throne to war? Prince Andrew was third-in-line (or even second - how old is William?) during the Falklands War and engaged in considerably more dangerous operations as a naval helicopter pilot than the admittedly scary stuff that Harry is doing.

Seems to me that being a spare heir is a pretty difficult position to be in. From all accounts, he seems to be a pretty good army officer, so let him make a career out of it. He'll hopefully never be needed as a king anyway.

Don't get me started on George Galloway. I think he's beneath contempt and wholly undeserving of the saintly status that some people bestow on him. At the last election, you might have expected a Scottish MP making an anti-war protest to either stand in his local constituency or perhaps against the Prime Minister or the Defence Secretary etc. But Galloway chose to stand in a London constituency that just happened to have a combination of a large number of muslim constituents and a mixed-race, jewish, female MP. I'm not sure which 'ism' that ticks. Opportunism? Sexism? Or Anti-semitism?

For him to make any comment on 'propaganda' when he has been a mouthpiece for the likes of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, the Soviet Union and Hezbollah is a bit rich to say the least.

[purplecat]

Officially, at least, they are not so concerned with Prince Harry's safety as with the safety of those he serves with if he becomes a specific target which I guess was not so likely in the Falklands.

Come to think of it, another odd thing is that people consider it their right to know the detailed movements of Prince Harry since third-in-line to the throne is not actually that important in the modern world. Using words such as censorship and cover up in this context would seem to attach more significance to him that is really warranted and would seem to stem more from our expectations of celebrity culture than any concept that this is an important political event of which members of an open society should be made aware.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

It does seem odd that
a) he is a specific target in his own right*.
b) there is such demand to know his exact whereabouts.

*I don't know enough about middle eastern cultures to be sure, but is it that they are more focussed on the concept of a personalised and powerful monarchy/leader family?

[purplecat]

I've been assuming that he's a specific target because a terrorist measures success on the media impact of an attack rather than on its military effectiveness. Irrespective of your opinion of the Taliban, there are clearly terrorists involved in the Afghanistan campaign and killing Prince Harry would almost certainly have more media impact in the UK than killing any other individual serving out there - which leads us right back to the celebrity culture thing.

[(Anonymous)]

I never had a high opinion of Price Hurry, "the Binge Drinking episodes, and the wearing of the nazi uniform.


I am in a strange position, being pro Monarchy, yet not greatly impressed with the Royal family whom I regard as " historical accidants,however this underlines the strangh of a constitutional Monarchy.did Tony Blair's son ever consider a millitrey cerrer?, I think not, " I don t blame him ether) Royalty are obliged to share the nations burdens while politicians are not.