Wild About Harry
- From: zubenelgenubi <zubenelgenubi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Apr 2007 01:31:01 -0700
WSJ COMMENTARY
By QUENTIN LETTS
April 30, 2007; Page A14
To his comrades in the British Army he is known as Cornet Wales,
camouflage-clad, gun-slung commander of four Scimitar light tanks. To
the British media, however, as to the world's celebrity magazines and
tabloid TV, he is hard-drinking Prince Harry, 22-year-old nightclub
cavorter and handsome second son of the late Diana.
Therein lies a problem for the British and U.S. governments. For
Cornet Wales, or Prince Harry, is about to be posted to Iraq to take
part in the British Army's dangerous mission in Basra. The plan at
present is for him to be subjected to the same risks as other young
soldiers. He may be a grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, but he will
still go into battle with his regiment, the Blues and Royals.
The imminent arrival in the Iraqi war zone of this much-photographed
member of the British royal family has generated immense public
interest. The matter is being followed not only by London's infamously
frisky newspapers and their generally royalist readers. It has also,
we are told, been noted with excitement in the inner, shadowy recesses
of the Basra souk.
Bearded men with a less genial view of the House of Windsor have been
feasting their eyes on those photographs of Harry emerging from
Mayfair discotheques, familiarizing themselves with Harry's chiselled
features. Iraqi insurgents are almost certainly preparing themselves
for a delicious prospect. Just imagine: to take this British prince
hostage and parade him in front of the cameras!
What a propaganda bonus for the likes of al Qaeda that could be. A
thousand vestal virgins be thine, Osama, to have spawned this scurvy
plot and delivered the "crusader prince" into the maw of the Prophet's
defenders!
Although it is surprising that the British media have indulged in
prolonged speculation about Prince Harry's movements -- the discussion
of military deployment plans and individuals' postings is not normal,
even in countries with traditions of free speech -- it is too late to
bolt that stable door. The story is out and running at the top of the
bulletins. As a result there now seem to be only two courses of
action. The first is to let Prince Harry proceed to Basra with his
regiment and face the bullets and bombs. The second is to prevent him
fighting.
Both these choices would damage the British electorate's already
wobbly commitment to the Iraq adventure. If Harry is told to stay at
home, or is given a desk job in some sandbagged part of Basra ("flying
a mahogany bomber" as the sardonic RAF expression used to go), there
will be cries of protest about special treatment and official
timidity. People would argue, "well, if it's too dangerous for Harry,
why should any of our other brave boys have to fight in that
godforsaken land?"
The prince himself cannot be accused of cowardice. He is understood to
be bursting with impatience, determined to fight with the men he has
commanded during months of training. "Friends of Harry" (which may be
a euphemism for Harry himself) have asserted that if he is prevented
from fulfilling his military role he will quit the Army. "Harry: I'm
Not Afraid To Die" cried the front page of Friday's Daily Mail. The
Murdoch-owned Sun had this: "I Fight . . . Or I Quit. Frontline
Ultimatum by Harry."
Wrapped up in all this is the image both of Harry and the British
royal family. The prince has not always been given an easy time by the
media. He has been portrayed as a playboy and a fool, not least when
he was photographed at a fancy-dress party wearing a Nazi swastika.
The fighting he is so far best known for has been with greasy
paparazzi who have snapped him late at night, worse for drink. He
would be only human if he yearned to show his critics a different side
of his character.
As for the "royal firm," the Windsors have a long, symbolic link with
Britain's armed forces. The British military swear their allegiance to
the Crown, not to the state. By sending its own young men to fight in
those forces the royal family strengthens the bond and demonstrates
commitment. It happened last when the Queen's middle son, Prince
Andrew, flew a naval helicopter during the Falklands War. It must be a
comfort to the family of a young British soldier sent on a perilous
posting to know that their monarch is in the same position, nursing
the same worries about whether or not her youngster will return in one
piece.
But if Harry does go and is seized by the enemy? One need only
consider the recent hostage-taking of Royal Navy sailors by Iran to
see what a political crisis it would become. Britain today is a
society prey to touchy-feely sentimentality. The stoicism of old has
gone, destroyed not least by Harry's "emotionally literate" (you could
say gushy) mother Diana. It is most unlikely we would see a repeat
today of what happened in World War I when the Prince of Wales went
off to fight and his aide was given the chilling instructions that the
prince "was not to be taken prisoner, no matter what this entailed."
It may be no exaggeration to say that were Prince Harry taken hostage
it could topple Britain's Labor government and do irreparable damage
to the U.K.-U.S. alliance. As with Shakespeare's Prince Hal at
Agincourt, we must hope he enters the breach and survives the battle
unscathed.
Mr. Letts is parliamentary sketch-writer for the Daily Mail of London.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Essential Rights in Islam
- Next by Date: Re: The Bell Curve globally viewed
- Previous by thread: Re: Left Wing "Science" Fails Again
- Next by thread: One Righteous Gringo
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
