Posted on 02/19/2007 11:45:56 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
LONDON, Feb. 19 -- Britain's official policy on Iraq is that its troops will leave as soon as they can hand over to Iraqis. But there is one particular soldier who, according to a crescendo of British newspaper reports, does not seem quite so replaceable.
Prince Harry, third in line to British throne and second son of Prince Charles, is army officer, reportedly with a hankering to be treated as just another soldier in line for rotation in southern Iraq.
The Ministry of Defense has dismissed idea as speculation, but newspapers have already started speculating on a different tack not so much about whether he will be deployed in Iraq as about his security in a war zone if he does go. He would, one report said, be a "bullet magnet" in an area where British troops confront that the authorities here call Iranian-backed Shiite insurgents.
The prince, 22, graduated from the Sandhust Military Academy last year as second lieutenant in the upper crust Blues and Royals regiment of the Household Cavalry. His elder brother, William, has joined the same regiment, but, as second in line to the throne, is considered too much of a risk for Iraq.
The right-of-center Daily Mail reported on Monday that Prince Harry, a partying denizen of London's more exclusive night-spots, has told the military brass that he will quit the army if he is left behind when his unit begins a six-month tour in southern Iraq in April. He would be the first royal family member to serve in a combat zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew helicopters in the Falklands War 25 years ago, the Daily Mail said.
In Britain, Prince Harry is usually escorted by police officers, and newspapers have pondered whether his bodyguards would go to war with him.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Who would....?
Never mind...
;-)
That's good to know.
L
Funny, I never hear Kerry calling British soldiers stupid, uneducated and therefore in Iraq.
Oh wait--what am I saying? He probably still thinks we're there unilaterally.
I fully support sending Prince Charles to Iraq.
Wouldn't he make a lovely hostage.
Sending a high profile target into a war zone is just asking for trouble. It appears that the Prince is too stupid to understand the basics of warfare.
"...when his unit begins a six-month tour in southern Iraq in April."
I'm sure NYTraitors will give the terrorists better coordinates to the Prince's exact whereabouts once he's in Iraq.
Simply by insisting on going into the front line the Prince has done more for the British forces in Iraq, and for the good name of Britain, than an extra Tank Brigade.
He won't be taken alive.
And if he wasn't willing to go to Iraq, I strongly doubt he would be a high-value asset. He'ld be John Kerry.
Ditto, think of the political capital that will be made of a prince of England fighting Islam. Hope he goes and does them all proud.
Or, it could be that he understands the real meaning of leadership and manhood in an era when there are too many "armchair generals" who think they know the basics of warfare.
Let me tell you one of those "basics", "General"! If you want to kill your enemy, you draw them out in the open, into the kill box.
Let me tell you another military maxim that I learned in OCS at Ft. Sill in the summer of 1967, "General"..."Lead by example!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.