Of course, the most sensible thing would have been to not send him to Afghanistan. Then there would have been no risk of him being killed or captured by the Taliban. He is a total liability and I don't think it was wise allowing him in the military.

I disagree. There is a long tradition of Royals in the military and if the Crown is to serve any useful social and political function, this is exactly the sort of thing that justifies their existence. The army fights for Queen and Country, not Prime Minister and Party, so there is considerable value to seeing one of the Queen's own kin up the sharp end.

I agree Perry.
Um what Regiments are Tony Blairs two eldest in again?

I think it's a pity the MOD feels he can only be deployed secretly. It seems to me there's a big difference between the enemy knowing he's in-country and the enemy having any idea where exactly he is. One assumes his fellow soldiers wouldn't be too scared to serve with him even if the enemy knew he was there.

The benefits of him serving in Afghanistan are great, and the chances of his being killed or wounded are remote. He seems happy to accept the risk, and I assume his fellow soldiers are too. It's a shame the MOD seems to feel differently.

The whole situation does serve to illustrate the special problems faced by popular people who choose to serve.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

Sorry J but I think you are a fool on this one. The moment the Taliban know he is there, they offer a bounty on his head. Moreover word gets out and people start looking at soldier's faces to see if they can see him. All the news accounts indicate he is in a forward area, not some rear logistic base.

Moreover all they need to know is his unit and figuring out where to go looking becomes trivially easy on the basic principle that the Taliban almost certainly know who there are facing where. The information he in in-country was absolutely an 'active operational detail', which is exactly the sort of thing any army does not like an enemy to know.

Well, this is going to be the case wherever he serves. Even if there never is a leak, there is a chance he could be killed or captured, and whatever foe it is will treat it as a huge propaganda victory.

If Royals really must join the services, tell them to join the navy, not the bloody frontline infantry.

Obama sez the British must be very proud, he's sort of used Prince Harry's deployment as an way of poking at the less involved NATO members.

What would the death of Prince Harry do to the general populations of the U.K. resolve I wonder?

Well, this is going to be the case wherever he serves. Even if there never is a leak, there is a chance he could be killed or captured, and whatever foe it is will treat it as a huge propaganda victory.

Yes, and it is PRECISELY by taking that risk rather than some safer option (such as a warship of the Armilla patrol for example, not there is anything wrong with RN service) that Prince Harry does great credit to himself and the Crown generally. The political and social value is gained not just by putting on the uniform but by actually going in harms way, which he has done to the best of his ability. What makes Drudge a shit is he actively sought to increase that risk above and beyond that of a normal infantryman.

I tend to agree with the maxim that those who rule the country should be prepared to fight for the country. Harry Windsor is a credit to his familly and the country. Pity we can't send the cabinet there. Preferably with the same lack of equipment that has got so many of our soldiers killed.

Strenghten it Walter, I believe.
But I would never suggest it.
Here is a young man who has been born to almost the greatest privileges on earth.
Who need never work a day in his life, and yet there he is eyeball to eyeball with the Taliban because he feels it his duty.
If I was from a darker skinned minority than I already am, I would say Respec' Mon!
Some good may come of this. A lot of people are never going to watch C4 News and that utter arse Jon Snow, ever again!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=522823&in_page_id=1770
Also he may be a target when he gets home.
So stay away from Annabels.

If I was in charge (and I'm sure many people are glad I'm not) I would have sent Harry to the front, told everyone I was doing it and said to anyone with an interest in shooting at/capturing him "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough."

Harry is a soldier, it is his job to go and fight where he's told to fight. He seems quite willing to accept that, and those serving with him seem quite willing to accept it too. That there is such a fuss over Harry doing his job when the thousands of 'normal' squaddies who are sent barely get a mention unless they come home in a wheelchair or bodybag is disgusting. I'm wondering how long after he arrived it was before the taliban figured out that he was there.

Jon Snow is a fool, I watched the channel 4 news last night and thought his arguments and manner disgusting. I think he may be sore at being left out of the loop.

The likelyhood is that the taliban knew he was there not long after he arrived, if they didn't then why is it taking so long for us to kick their goat-shagging behinds so hard they're chewing on their lower intestines?

He went, he served and he should be given the chance to continue serving, if the politicians had any idea of what being in the army is about then they would know that in the heat of the moment you are not fighting for lofty ideals, you are fighting for your life and the lives of those around you. Harry would be looked after, by the soldiers serving with him. His presence would (theoretically, at least) boost the morale of those around him and possibly drive them to feats of even greater courage and determination to win than if he wasn't.

He has gone and he should stay until his tour is up, just like every other squaddie.

But if he was to be killed or captured, that would only increase the risks to the rest of the troops by massively improving enemy morale and destroying troop morale on the British side. That is why is he a liability. Far more so than any other soldier. I don't really give a damn about whether it is good PR for the Royal family to have Harry in Afghanistan. I don't see why he couldn't get a job in the private sector. Or is that too vulgar and bourgeois for his station?

The whole "Queen and Country" bit doesn't register, eh Cynic? It's what the army thinks, not what you think.

Or is that too vulgar and bourgeois for his station?

Try not to be a complete cunt.

What's amusing is that the mighty Drudge was out-scooped by some Australian women's magazine by 6 weeks. If anything he should be embarrassed that he was so far out of the loop.

One reason the British Army is there is to act as bait for any Islamist wannabe. Lure them in and kill them with our superior firepower. The Prince’s presence would surely make that easier, as Islamists would take silly risks for the coup of bagging him.

I'm sort of curious how this has been handled in the past. Surely Harry isn't the first prince to serve in a forward unit?

Am I right in thinking everyone knew about Prince Andrew's RN involvement in the Falklands crisis?

Am I also correct in thinking his job was to fly a helicopter in the way of incoming missiles?

It was a while ago and I was only a child, but if memory does not deceive - and that's a significant 'if' - there was a lot less old flannel about royalty actively serving in the military twenty-odd years ago.

"Um what Regiments are Tony Blairs two eldest in again?"

The 1st Islington Reserves. Have any of NuLabor got sons or daughters in the military?

Isn't everybody overlooking the point that if some gossip rag could find out, so could have the Taliban or anybody else?

"Cry God, For Harry..."

When the DoQ finnaly shuffles off this mortal coil and our EU masters push through their marginalization regionalization program then Scotland can have King Andy, Wales can have King Eddie and England can have King Harry.

Wait, I'm forgetting one. Oh yes. South Georgia can have 'king Charles. He can take his friend Archdruid Swampy with him. They'll be able to play Wicker Man together.

Meanwhile in an office in Whitehall...

"What's that Your Majesty....The Argies are coming. Well I'm afraid there's not a lot we can do about that....

"The Navy? Sorry Sir, both the ships are protecting the IoW ferry from terrorist attack....

"No Sir. I'm afraid the Air Force used up this year's supply of carbon credits at the Farnborough Air Show...

"Well most of the troops are on ceremonial duty. We've been chosen to do the changing of the guard at Le Palace de Bruxelles this year...Yes Sir, we're very proud....

"Well I'm afraid our Merchant Navy is mostly owned by the Indians and we're not exactly in their good books at the moment. That awful Kashmir business... Well what were we supposed to do?

"If your father were still alive we might have persuaded that Greek chappie to lend us one of his cruise ships to fit the army in. We could even have sold the spare seats. Some kind of Green Antarctic adventure cruise or something...

"Well, let us know how you get on and I'll try and get a supply boat out to you as soon as possible..

"What's that? A year's supply of tampons... I'll do my best Sir... Bye."

Isn't everybody overlooking the point that if some gossip rag could find out, so could have the Taliban or anybody else?

I take it you didn't read the article.

"The MoD kept quiet when New Idea first broke the story, suggesting they rather sensibly assumed an Australian woman's magazine was probably not high on the reading list of many Muslim fundamentalists and indeed it took over a month for it to get picked up elsewhere."

Drudge took a minor leak and made it a torrent.

Sorry Perry, but censorship is censorship and Matt Drudge - despite what one might think of his 'journalism' - has consistently done a great job in getting all sorts of stories out while other news organisations are unable to do so (either through a lack of will or ability). The Drudge Report is to be commended for both its will and ability, and its breaking of the story at hand indeed represents a fine hour for the site.

One man's relative safety emphatically does not justify media censorship in any form. If the MoD feels that it is better to keep the story suppressed, then perhaps they should review the need for having the story in the first place. That is, don't make news that might endanger an entire operation by involving high-profile targets. Moreover, the very fact that a risk-assessment was made (rightly or wrongly) by the MoD not to send a Royal into a war zone, only for it to be overturned after an apparent threat by the individual in question, simply reeks of a form of privilege that has no place in a military organisation.

Perhaps the "de" in your name betrays a soft spot for the aristocracy. But for my money a military organisation must not operate on the principle of special favours for "special" people. Likewise, the benefits of discouraging all forms of censorship (voluntary or otherwise) far outweigh the benefit of protecting unnecessary risks taken by a single person.

Jasper, you rather missed my point, I think.

Sorry Perry, but censorship is censorship

Please quote back to me where I said the fucktard should be censored. You do know what censored means, right? An editorial position not to publish that would not be 'censorship'.

The UK press was not 'censored', it was induced to act reasonably and it did. No one would have gone to jail if they had not. Drudge is an honourless shit for putting people's lives at risk and for what?

Perhaps the "de" in your name betrays a soft spot for the aristocracy.

Fuck off. Insulting jackass.

Chris,

There are all sorts of high value targets routinely wheeled around war zones. Generals, secret weapons, supply trains, code books, high value prisoners, aircraft carriers, etc. Many times you need them there to prosecute the war, and you routinely protect them not only with force of arms, but also secrecy, deception, and subterfuge.

The prince is a useful (and expensive) military asset, that we need on the front line. He's there because we need him there, like every other soldier there. And so long as he's as anonymous as any other soldier, the operational risks are much the same as for any other soldier. Under those conditions, there's no operational reason why he shouldn't go, other than privilege.

The military do a deal with the press - journalists get told (some of) what's going on, and in return they don't put operations at risk. The military told them where Harry was, and that they'd get all the pictures and cooperation they wanted if they would wait a while. The public interest did not require immediate disclosure, quite the contrary, and the end result would be that the public would get a better, more complete and accurate story. The alternative is that journalists are treated as effectively being enemy spies and kept out of sensitive areas altogether. As in the old days, the public would get nothing but carefully-worded press releases and propaganda. That's a possibility that's a whole lot more likely now, thanks to this.

Press freedom is a necessary power that is allowed for the sake of safeguarding freedom, and like all forms of power, needs to be exercised responsibly. We grant the power to governments to make laws and sign treaties and declare war without having to explain their reasoning to us in detail, but we expect them not to do such things for trivial or personal reasons. Likewise, we grant the right to the fourth estate to publish news that the powerful would rather was kept quiet, without having to ask permission of anyone, but we expect them to freely choose not to do so if there is good reason for the secrecy - to avoid doing harm, for example - and no great need for its publication.

Press freedom serves the public interest, not the private interests of journalists. Some journalists seem to forget that.

I hear that the unlovely Galloway complained about news organisations being part of the war effort.

If you know a significant operational detail and you reveal it, you are helping one side's war effort. If you conceal, you are helping the other.

I feel Galloway just wanted more help for the side he prefers.

BTW, someone can now open a book on which human rights lawyer will lead the war crimes case against the prince in about 3 years' time. Think about it. He called in air strikes. People died. How hard can it be for the Taliban to persuade someone to give evidence that his brother (a farmer or an aid worker) was the victim of a royal murder.

We grant the power to governments to make laws and sign treaties and declare war without having to explain their reasoning to us in detail, but we expect them not to do such things for trivial or personal reasons.

We truly are morons for granting such power to the politicos. Dodgy dossiers and Lisbon treaty come to mind......

Wait, let me get this straight. Here in the US we criticize the POTUS for serving in the National Guard as a fighter pilot during Vietnam and not shipping his daughters off to Iraq, but in England we criticize the royals for sending a Prince to serve in Afghanistan???

OK, anti-war-loonies, make up your dammed minds!!!!

- OK, anti-war-loonies, make up your dammed minds!!!!

Quite.

The one thing on which their minds are made up is that Western powers and their friends only fight unjust wars. The rest is mere detail, which can always be spun in support of the cause.

Cynic,

the people who vote for them possibly are.

Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all those others that have been tried.

The alternatives proposed all somehow seem to be variations on the theme of "People like us should be in charge", for some strange reason. :-)

TO: Perry
RE: So....

....where are the princleings of old? Where is the Black Knight of today?

Is it that all of England will die if they lose one princeling? Does the Prince of Wales have no other scion?

Has the courage of Great Britain fallen so low?

If I were Harry, I'd stay and say, "Have at you, varlets!"
Enquiring minds want to know?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Oh, be real. Don't you think the Taliban knew he was in Afghanistan? They're not complete fools, after all. The extra guards on his bunkroom would have been a dead giveaway.

Chuck: I believe that it was not so much about protecting the prince, but the people who served with him.

Oh, and what RAB said.

Unsurprisingly that is something far beyond the ken of a dim bulb like that self-important idiotarian ass Jon Snow.

Some years ago I was a volunteer in the Kentish Town branch of a particular chain of charity shops when Snow came in to the back with a bundle of clothes to donate, a not unreasonable thing to do, perhaps.

But essaying jocularity, he pointed to one of his shirts and said, "This first saw the light of day on Channel 4," the message of course being that he was Jon Snow, the famous newsreader! Perhaps the thought that we didn't know who he was hadn't occurred to him.

The thought did occur to me, however, so I couldn't resist asking him, in all earnestness, whether he worked for their costume department.

TO:
RE: Yeah...Right....

"Chuck: I believe that it was not so much about protecting the prince, but the people who served with him." -- Alisa

...that's why they joined the Royal Army in the first place.

Sorry, dearie. Been there. Done that. You're wrong.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and Airborne-Ranger qualified. And so am I.]

Eisenhower informed King that Churchhill wanted to go in on DDay. The King told Churchhill that if he went in the King would go also.

Eisenhower informed King that Churchhill wanted to go in on DDay. The King told Churchhill that if he went in the King would go also.

P.S. Stop molly-coddlying the man who would be king.

Let him earn his spurs!

TO: All
RE: Deeper Thoughts

I begin to suspect that this 'government' is very much afraid that the future King of England would be killed in honorable defense of his country.

Why?

Because it would likely, once again, arouse the fighting spirit that every part of Great Britain has been famous for for centuries.

And that just would not do for Mr. Brown and his camp.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If I were commander in Afghanistan, I'd use this 'leak' to great advantage.

Oh. Look! The Prince shall be HERE on such and such a day.......then lay out the counter-ambush.....

I think a few respondents here are confusing Harry with William - it's Prince William who's in line to be King, not Harry.

TO: Miv Tucker
RE: Thanks....

"I think a few respondents here are confusing Harry with William - it's Prince William who's in line to be King, not Harry." -- Miv Tucker

....for disabusing me.

However, I'll point out that this is even MORE reason for Harry to stay and play with our friends.

I'll accept the blame for my ignorance and suggest that this 'years' General Election cycle has been more of a distraction than I care for.

On the other hand, how much 'insurance' does the House of Stuart need, anyway?

Should William be married by now? I'm not familiar with the British etiquette for such matters. But if Harry is the younger and he's leading soldiers of the Royal Army in combat, it seems that William should be providing England with future commanders.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I'm disappointed to hear that William is not doing the duty that Harry is.

Chuck, there's no such thing as the "Royal Army" so somehow I doubt you've "Been there. Done that". Maybe some other army. Or not. Who knows.

And Prince Harry isn't going to be King, William is, so forgive me if I conclude you do not know what the hell you're talking about. This former squaddie on the other hand who really has been there and done that in the BRITISH Army...

No one is mollycoddling Harry, they're just not acting like macho pricks.

Harry is by all accounts I've heard (second hand as I was a Green Jacket before they became The Rifles) is a perfectly passable bloke who even has the added advantage of not being excessively concerned with what he says.

I must admit that I viewed Harry as an immature person with poor judgement. Yet, he wouldn't have been the only young person to stumble during the often painful process of growing up. How messy the process, what matters is the final product.

His recent behavior is evidence that he grown into a man of charecter; an asset for Britain.

On the other hand, how much 'insurance' does the House of Stuart need, anyway?

Oh my Gawd almighty! You SO need to find a different thread to comment on!! Stow the entrenching tool and stop digging, man!

As a student of history, I'm very happy to see our elites participate in our national pastime. Standing shoulder to shoulder with their countrymen in exteme danger is a very good way of grafting various strands of Englishmen together. Always has been. Hopefully always will be.

At last Drudges true colors become evident. Some may even think over things he did in the past and wonder if some of the praise they offered was misplaced.

umm, the house of Stuart? Even Americans know that is a blooper.

God is alive....and Airborne-Ranger qualified. And so am I.]

Oh good!
That means your life expectancy is about 20 minutes...

As I have said before: Bravo, Harry. Hope you "got some."

TO: Albion
RE: Some Place Else

"Chuck, there's no such thing as the "Royal Army" so somehow I doubt you've "Been there. Done that". Maybe some other army. Or not. Who knows." -- Albion

I know. But you apparently don't understand American very well. Certainly not US Army. Otherwise, tell me, how many Airborne-Rangers do they have in the Royal Army or British Royal Army or whateveryouwishtocallit Army?

We don't have any SAS or Royal Marines over here. Albeit we admire them as comrades-in-arms.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Don't you just 'love' the English language? So many opportunities to be misunderstood.....]

P.S. Are you the infamous "perfidious Albion" Napoleon's propagandists warned US about?

'Dearie' - hmm. Chuck, maybe it's bed time, and we could talk after your morning drink?

Perry's quite right. I suppose its possible the situation's entire parameters were not apparent to Drudge, and if he had it all to do over again, he would have spiked this story. The potential fallout from the story was not apparent, after all, to me and probably many readers.

I want to give Drudge the benefit of the doubt here. At this point in his career, I don't see him wanting any one story badly enough to make it worth deliberately endangering lives.

And at the same time, it's worth noting that what the Prince is doing is dangerous to begin with, and there is merit in having it made known that the Royal Family puts its collective money where its mouth is, so to speak. So there is another viable POV here. Nevertheless, Perry's right and good for him.

[Don't you just 'love' the English language? So many opportunities to be misunderstood.....]

Yes.

But on this site, being an obscurantist is seen as taking the piss (Unless it's me, and I usually am, but for a good cause)
So what is your excuse my lovely chucklehound?

However reporting a wartime operation detail likely to increase the chance particular group of serving soldiers will attacked by the enemy..

Pardon me, but isn't that why there is a 'Guard', a sworn body of men to form the military organization be it formal or informal to serve alongside the personage of importance? Hasn't it been a particular European tradition to seek the honor to be at the side of such a person? Have you allowed the bureaucrats to diminish the the very reason of existence of such bodies into nothing more than than a trivial stamp to be placed upon a piece of paper?

I live in western Canada. My next-door neighbour is serving in a Canadian combat unit in Afghanistan. I just want to salute Prince Harry. What an example, what a credit to his country and his family.

Hey, Brits - three cheers for the Prince. He went in harm's way and he didn't have to. As for calling him home, I suspect it is better that the Army erred on the side of caution. What would the criticism have been if he had been killed or maimed. And what about his comrades-in-arms - they had no choice as to whether they served with him or not, and what would have been the uproar if casualties resulted from an attack on the Prince.

I am impressed with the use of language, however on this site. "Honourless shit" (can one be an honorable shit?) "complete cunt" (as distinguished from an incomplete cunt), and "insulting jackass" (an oxymoron?). And we yanks are called vulgar.
Right on, Perry - your use of the King's (Queen's?) English is quite royal..

Drudge seems quite pleased with the reaction to his coup. Different values, I guess. Or the lack thereof....

Drudge seems quite pleased with the reaction to his coup. Different values, I guess. Or the lack thereof....

Don,
Prince Harry doesn't get guards, he is part of the guards. Specifically his regiment, the Blues and Royals, is the Guards' Armored Cavalry Reconnaissance regiment (as we might put it in the US).

Good for Lt. Windsor, doing his duty in time of war. The Royal family generally has "the heir and the spare" in it (although Harry's Grandmother produced several spares). Harry is the "spare." As for the RN being safer, Harry's Greatgrandfather served at Jutland, where he might have been blown to pieces by a German shell, burned to death, or drowned in a sinking battleship. His uncle Andrew might have been blown up by an Argie missile or lost at sea in the South Atlantic from an operational accident to his helicopter.

And Chuck, the House of Windsor (originally Saxe-Coberg) is the name of the Royal Family. The last ruling Stuart died in 1714.

On Drudge, I agree with Perry.

Richard Blaine
Of course , Drudge is pleased , he is far away and safe in his own home . Why does he have to worry about OPSEC and the lives of an English prince and his men when his main concern is getting more feathers in his cap so the old media would finally embrace him as one of their own .

Chuck

You are forgetting two things , the Black Prince during the Hundred Year war if captured was expected to be treated in accordance to the rules of chivalry which was a comfortable royal imprisonment and release after a honorable ransom was paid and second ,the Black Prince can easily disguise himself as an ordinary English soldier or a French serf if needed to be and can roam the French countryside at will without fear of being recognized by the French masses or even the French nobles . There was no internet , no DNA testing , no videos or TV to help with the identification of Prince Edward and no such thing as a press to do the reporting .

Wil.
Cruel but true.

Chuck Pelto:

Should William be married by now? I'm not familiar with the British etiquette for such matters. But if Harry is the younger and he's leading soldiers of the Royal Army in combat, it seems that William should be providing England with future commanders. ...
P.S. I'm disappointed to hear that William is not doing the duty that Harry is.

There's no particular reason to think that William ought to be married by now. William is 25; his father Prince Charles married at 32, his uncle Prince Andrew married at 26, and his uncle Prince Edward married at 35.

Also, William is currently doing military service, although he hasn't been sent to a combat zone.

Perry de Havilland:

Please quote back to me where I said the fucktard should be censored.

"However reporting a wartime operation detail likely to increase the chance particular group of serving soldiers will attacked by the enemy (namely revealing the presence of a political 'high value target' in the war zone) fall way outside acceptable behaviour. "

You do know what censored means, right?

Yes.

An editorial position not to publish that would not be 'censorship'.

No. It is censorship. In this case, the editor is acting as the censor. Under a degree of government influence no less. This certainly isn't government censorship full stop - It is mischievous, however, in that it's an example of government influence over a free press. Frankly, the editors involved ought to be ashamed of the disservice they have done to their profession.

Any agreement to suppress information of this Royal is censorship precisely because it is the suppression of material considered sensitive, as determined by a censor. The Wikipedia definition suits us just fine here.

Now, I don't believe all censorship is wrong. I self-censor (ie. keep secrets) all the time. Indeed, I'm required by law and honour to do so on a regular basis. The point is, however, that censoring a free press is harmful. It doesn't matter if it is voluntary censorship by editors, or mandatory censorship by government censors, or some degree in between. The suppression of information in such cases encourages sloppy, paternalistic governance. That is the mischief to be avoided here.

The UK press was not 'censored', it was induced to act reasonably and it did.

Clearly it is the reasonableness of the situation that we disagree on here. I believe that you take the view that censorship of or by the press is reasonable in situations of expediency for the armed services. I believe that censorship of or by the press is not reasonable under any circumstances. If the armed services need to keep a secret for their own expeiency, then they damn well ought to keep the secret. If the secret is too hard to keep (eg. letting a celebrity play army in a warzone full of reporters), then pressuring the free press is not the solution. Avoiding the need to keep the secret (eg. letting the celebrity run around the Surrey countryside with blanks in his magazine) is the better answer.

Drudge is an honourless shit for putting people's lives at risk and for what?

The celebrity in question is an honourless shit for putting the lives of his comrades at risk and for what? (Answer: for a chance to play out a boyhood fantasy of running around with guns and live ammunition).

He had a chance to avoid putting his comrades in danger by staying at home. He chose to push the matter, pull strings, and make the trip. He's going to have to suffer the consequences when the increase in attacks on British forces in Afghanistan leads to a real increase in real casualties there. Just to be clear, as far as the operation goes, he's a dime-a-dozen second lieutenant who is not specifically needed there. What arrogance suggests that he is so useful that special efforts should be taken to compensate for the baggage of his celebrity?

Which is essentially my point. What is wrong with the picture when a privileged member of (the thankfully limited remnants of) the aristocracy uses his privilege to overturn a previously-made (and sensible) decision to keep him from needlessly endangering the lives of his colleagues for no better reason than to play army in a warzone all the while deluding himself with the idea that he's a "regular bloke"? With influence put on to the free press to go along with the whole thing, to boot. Come on.

What's even more wacky about this whole thing is that Monsieur de Havilland's endorsement of the scheme seems to imply that all this is somehow libertarian. Wake up people. It's not. It's authoritarianism.

I'll make my own fucking decisions about the news that I think is reasonable to consume. And I'll be damned if I'm ever forced to serve alongside some needless celebrity bullet-magnet who thinks hanging out with me on the front line is hunkey-dorey.

Perhaps the "de" in your name betrays a soft spot for the aristocracy.

Fuck off. Insulting jackass.

Good one. Authoritarian apologist.

Pa Annoyed:

There are all sorts of high value targets routinely wheeled around war zones. Generals, secret weapons, supply trains, code books, high value prisoners, aircraft carriers, etc.

Yes. If you're going to have them, keep them secret. If it's too hard to keep something secret, don't bring it in there (and find another strategy). Don't involve the free press.

Many times you need them there to prosecute the war, and you routinely protect them not only with force of arms, but also secrecy, deception, and subterfuge.

Maybe. No doubt prosecuting a war is easier when the civilian populace (both inside and outside the theatre of war) are subdued to such an extent that secrecy, deception and subterfuge are useful tools of the trade. But I think liberty is more important than that, and it's not worth it to me if the price to be paid for the armed forces's benefit costs me my liberty. Are you really advocating that the state ought to be able to hoodwink its own citizens?

Here's an analogy: It's easier to police in an authoritarian state because the state is able to employ tools such as ID cards, constant surveillance, random search and seizure, and so on. But the price paid in terms of liberty to achieve such an authoritarian state is unthinkable (at least I would have thought so here of all places). But we don't let our police maintain a DNA database, nor do we place the onus on an accused to prove his own innocence, precisely because we value liberty over authority and we've decided we're willing to pay the price for the former. Maybe it takes longer to solve crimes. Maybe we don't always catch killers. But we're free.

Likewise, it's probably easier to prosecute a war in an authoritarian state because there is no opposition to censoring things like, say, a celebrity high-value target in a warzone. But the price paid in terms of liberty is also unthinkable. Let the armed forces keep their secrets in times of war. But not through informal agreements with the free press. And if keeping the secret that some celebrity thrill-seeker is present in a theatre of war is too difficult - then don't let celebrity thrill-seekers over there. Quite simple, really.

Just so that we don't forget here, we need to do, as libertarians, demand that the war is prosecuted in such a way that doesn't undermine our liberty. Otherwise, what's the point?

The prince is a useful (and expensive) military asset, that we need on the front line. He's there because we need him there, like every other soldier there. And so long as he's as anonymous as any other soldier, the operational risks are much the same as for any other soldier.

No. There is another second lieutenant fit to do the job. There is no reason to waste precious operational resources worrying about the celebrity in question, and the additional resources required to cajole editors into keeping quiet about the whole thing? Those resources are better spent elsewhere.

Holy god!
Tell me one more time Chris
What colour is the sky?

The MoD is foolish to have announced his withdrawl. Instead, they should fed Matt Drudge a bunch of horsecrap that included GPS coordinates of where the prince takes a leak each morning at 8:05am.

And then blow the living crap out of anything that shows up there at 8:05am.

Repeat.

What I don't understand is this. When I looked at the Daily Mail online today, there was a plethora of articles, pictures and video of warrior Prince Harry. What's with all the media regarding his deployment the day after his cover is blown?

Unless perhaps it was purposely blown for some reason. Maybe Buckingham Palace wanted him home after a short stint as soldier.

Who knows? But it sure seems strange that something so hush hush was so well covered.

What I don't understand is this. When I looked at the Daily Mail online today, there was a plethora of articles, pictures and video of warrior Prince Harry.

Simple. MOD promised the media a shed load of Harry-in-action shots if they just stayed quiet while he was actually out there and it was working, more or less... so this was part of the deal (i.e. their reward for playing along). The idea was to wait until after he finished but such is life, eh? As the UK lived up to their end, they wanted their reward. Fair 'nuff.

If Prince Harry wants to serve, let him, but also let him share in all the responsibilities of service. This doesn't mean whisking him home at the first sign of "real" danger. This is a war, after all. Aren't the soldiers in harm's way already? Isn't that the point? And what does this do to the morale of his fellow soldiers who will be left behind?
Taking him out only emphasizes the privileged position he was hoping to counter. He gets a ticket home and everyone else is left only with the renewed knowledge that they won't.

I am pretty sure that the Taliban have a price on the head of any soldier/marine/airman/sailor (US Navy provides corpsmen to the Marines) in Afghanistan.

Chris Knight

You have no idea what you are talking about , do you ? Let me tell you something , a free press becomes tyranny when they think they are above common decency , common sense and the law as well as forgetting that they have responsibilities attached to their right as being the Free Press . If the press have no obligation to help the military in keeping their troop movements , supply train , personnel movements and such secret , the military will then have several options to keep the free press out of everything . Why would the military cater to the free press who can get them killed when it's easier to a) ban them from the battlefield b) imprison them or c) kill them along with their colleagues at the home front as spies and traitors .

In regard to secrets , it is very hard to keep a military secret for one simple reason , the military is composed of people who have various flaws , same as the general population at large and unless they are Special ops , conventional forces tend to move in formations that are very hard to miss . As for why generals have to be in the front , they need to see the battlefield with own eyes because seeing the battlefield tells more about your enemy and their intentions than sitting in a god-damn bunker listening to officers who in the stress of the moment might not be too forth coming with their assessment of the enemy , why do military supplies need to be in front , why do code books need to be in front , why do the location of military reserves and their numbers need to be in secret . Simple , they are damn useless when they are far away from the battlefield . Same thing with the fleet movement , it's a well known fact the ships can avoid satellite detection during maneuvers , but one word from the press about where they are going and all their fancy dancing on the ocean means squat if the enemy is either waiting for them in ambush or had moved to another location .

Let me see now , how tight was the censorship in the British Isles from 1943 till D-Day . It was tight enough that the British towns where the invasion forces were based where subjected to censorship that would make your head spin . Hell, knowing where the airborne divisions stationed and what they were training for would be enough for Hitler and the Germans to guess where the invasion would probably be . Letters were read and if I guess correctly , all the calls were being listened to by MI-5. Much more , on the final days before the invasion especially on coastal towns , large parts of said towns became off limits to civilians and residents in those no-go zones were temporarily shipped put to temporary areas until the troops were all in the transports and long gone . And the press were forced to keep quiet and play along or else . Not quite libertarian of the Greatest Generation, is it??

As for Harry , guess what , if the prince wants to be a soldier , good for him . And if he gets shot during his tour in which he volunteered for , well tough luck , he knew the risks because he is there as 2nd Lt Windsor and not Prince Harry , third line for the throne of UK and all soldiers take their chances in a war zone . What he did was no different on what movie stars like Clark Gable , Jimmy Stewart ,David Niven and others had done during WWII .Did somebody asked Clark Gable what it felt like having a bounty on his head that was placed by Adolf Hitler and he had to share the damn thing with nine other men in a B-17 bomber flying over Germany six times during his tour of duty . Hell , I will bet you that if the Germans knew what plane Gable was on , they would have no problems making sure that Gable would end up as a trophy case for Hitler .

As for finding a second Lieutenant that will do the same tasks as Harry , guess what . If I have a Royal 2nd LT who is willing to go to harms way for a four month tour and is already trained to do his duty , why would I reject him for another 2nd LT FAC when the pool of available FACs are small to begin with .

Greta

The LT is at the tip of the spearhead in an isolated outpost where the enemy is 500 yards away and for all intents and purposes , out number you 3 to 1 . And consider the enemy , they are looking for a propaganda coup due to their losses from the Americans and NATO forces , the men and materiel lost in the doing would pale in comparison if they capture LT Windsor dead or alive for propaganda purposes . LT Windsor would not care one way or the other , but his duty to his comrades and country must come first . If his leaving would prevent suicide attacks on his out post as well as potential humiliation of his country for losing him to the enemy , then so be it . If I am a betting man , I won't be surprised to see him back again in the front lines , this time working with combine American and British forces . Honestly , the Taliban would pay very ,very dearly to capture the prince if they dared . A quick reaction force made up of Spec-ops and conventional troops are just a holler away and the MOD made sure of that and the Gurkhas , who are also mountain people would make the Taliban wished they were somewhere else .

Prince Harry - Huzza for your service from a 'center of North America' citizen and I am sorry an American 'Journalist' "had" to shorten said service.

I surprised by this critique. If it was so widespread the knowledge this even might have saved the live of the Prince.

Cheers to Harry for his service. I'm American myself, but it's good seeing Harry step up and put his ass on the line like he did. Given the chance, I think the Taliban would have put it all on the line to capture him and it's a brave man that can go into a fight knowing that. He deserves much respect for that.

And I agree with Mr. de Havilland. Jeers to Drudge. He can keep his trap shut about the President visiting Baghdad one Thanksgiving, but he can't keep it shut to let Harry perform the duties he's been begging to perform? Come on, Matt, 1776 was a long time ago. The British Monarchy isn't so bad these days. Breaking this story, he risked putting a decent young man and his buddies in unnecessary danger and led to his recall away from his comrades. Just...fucking...low.

Chris,
On the one hand you indicate that you are for the integrity of press, with no holds barred (even if it means that to do so would aid enemy position.)

And on the other you seem to question Harry's integrity to do the front-line service, required by his fellow comrade servicemen...

Which is it? You cannot be against extra privilege in one area; and be for extra privilege in another. And to make it clear… Adverting front line position would have required the use of extra privilege

(Something the "de" you insulted, has already said.)

If the press is exonerated from protecting the troops, then why is the Prince not exonerated by what you claim to be his, "chance to avoid putting his comrades in danger by staying at home created a increase more potential for attack."

And: "the increase in attacks on British forces in Afghanistan leads to a real increase in real casualties there"... is (at best) highly one-sided...
I’ll take that back... Highly "wrong-sided."

Chris Knight:
"But for my money a military organisation must not operate on the principle of special favours for "special" people. Likewise, the benefits of discouraging all forms of censorship (voluntary or otherwise) far outweigh the benefit of protecting unnecessary risks taken by a single person.

Dear God, I hope you're never in charge of any sensitive information. Except maybe the enemy's, so we can get it. You're even against "voluntary censorship"? Really, have you ever been in charge of sensitive info? Or have you lived your life from an armchair, reading theory and thinking yourself an "expert"?

I mean, do you *really* consider England "authoritatian" because of "informal agreements with the press"? Are you at all familiar with history? Do you know what authoritarian really means? Fidel was authoritarian. Putin is increasingly authoritarian. Calling England 'authoritarian' weakens the concept almost to meaninglessness.

The simple truth is that the bitches from The New Idea should have known what would be the implication of an early release of P.Harry's details. Couldn't they, in doubt, just ring the MoD and aske them? Equally couldn't MD do the same? I fully agree with Perry that those journalistic rats smell shit.

"Yes. If you're going to have them, keep them secret. If it's too hard to keep something secret, don't bring it in there (and find another strategy). Don't involve the free press."

From a military point of view, it's very easy to keep a secret - you just shoot every member of the free press you see on sight. Or alternatively, simply don't have a free press.

It's a compromise from both sides. The military would like to have closed off areas where the press can't go, but that has the risk that they will use that to do stuff they shouldn't, war crimes and so forth. Likewise with government - they'd really like to get rid of all this transparency stuff, so they could use the claim of protecting national security to hide their corruption. They would like to keep everything secret.

This, in the modern world, is considered to be bad. We want our journalists to be able to expose stuff that we need to know. However, most people also accept that some stuff, which is part of the normal business of governments and militaries, does need to be kept secret from us. How can we make sure we find out about it when they're screwing us without screwing ourselves when they're not? You can't just ask the military to tell us if they're hiding something like that from us.

There is lots of stuff the press know, but don't publish. Most famously, the names of their anonymous sources. But also the addresses of battered wives and other victims of violent criminal threats, evidence in cases still sub judice, who the police are looking for, where they're looking, and what they know in criminal cases, damaging accusations for which they have no proof, private information about people in which there is no public interest, information that could aid crimes to be committed, or to help criminals get away with it, the web addresses of child porn sites and the means to access them without being traced, the addresses of rich people who might pay ransoms and where their adorable little children go to school, recipes for home-made explosives and poisons, and so on.

'Freedom' doesn't imply the freedom to commit murder, it requires a degree of responsible self-restraint. I won't ban the sale of kitchen knives on the basis that you could use one to kill somebody. But if you do kill someone anyway, I don't accept as a defence your claim that freedom of action is absolute, and if we wanted to avoid people being stabbed we shouldn't have let you have the knife. A freedom in which you can do anything you like because you are guarded from anything that might do harm is no freedom. And a press freedom in which they can publish anything they get their hands on because we keep everything that could do anyone harm a secret is not freedom of information. It is a padded cell, with only blunted crayons to write with.

Matt Drudge isn't "honorless", but has his own code of honor. He doesn't sit on stories or believe that news should be sequestered from the public. He's being perfectly consistent with what happened when he had advanced knowledge of the Lewinski affair, but saw every MSM outlet spiking the story.

The principle to be applied here is "Better Burglars make Better Locks". Prince Harry was in mortal danger over in Afghanistan, as was any soldier around him. Drudge couldn't have made that more or less true by reporting or not reporting information. The royal family should be glad that Drudge decided to blare it on his website so they can get Harry outta there, rather than having Al Qaeda operatives find out about the story in a Australian Woman's magazine and hunt Harry down from there unbeknownst to anyone in the MoD.

The real problem here is that the Royal Family are basically people held captive in a guilded cage by the celebrity-obsessed soul-sucking British public. A cage that there ancestors build for them centuries ago. That's what happens to people who try to be loved and be superior to everyone. They end up being hated and harassed by everyone.

Every man engages in a cold war against humanity at large. Celebrities are the misfortunate people who tried to be diplomatic and end that cold war, a tactic that only emboldens the enemy.

So Chris Knight thinks calling for decency and reasonable behaviour is "censorship". The term moonbat was invented by the author of this article and you know what? It fits you perfectly.

I agree with Perry

Hell! If i were drudge, i would have ignored this story like the plague! Precisely because of the type of scumbags Prince Harry was fighting against, are highly specialized in this area of warfare - DUH! It really doesn't really require a rocket scientist to easily manipulate the media to spin their style of propaganda! I'd highly prefer the Prince to come back home to his country alive, after doing his duty proudly; Rather then end up like four of my countrymen, those same four American contractors, who were strung up on a Fallujah bridge like cattle waiting too be slaughtered! Do some of my countrymen even get it... what could have taken place?

If i were Prince Harry, i would be extremely pissed off at a particular American!

If i were a Taliban/Al Qadea member, i would start reading Australian women's magazines from now on! On those days when the information happens to come slowly, then atleast there would be some kinky idea's that could be tried out with abdul in one of those less travelled caves! Who knows... maybe osama would want too join in on a threesome with them? My god... i feel like i am going to throw up now!

Wil Cruz:

You have no idea what you are talking about , do you ?

In fact, I have no doubt whatsoever about what I'm talking about. My position is clear: In a free society, it is not up to the state to restrain information from its citizens. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the free press to convey such information to the citizenry. It's up to individual citizens to make use or not make use of the information, as each individual citizen decides.

It is much easier for a state agency to go about its business if it can suppress certain types of information. If it can suppress information by way of cajoling a free press, or by way of denying a free press altogether, its job will be made easier under some circumstances. This holds true for the Inland Revenue as much as it holds true for the Ministry of Defence.

We've decided as free citizens, however, that the burden we instruct our state to bear so that we may maintain our freedom is its an inability to (a) suppress a free press, and (b) keep secrets from us indefinitely. It's up to us as individual, free citizens to make judgments about what information is important or useful. With respect to (b), secrets may be kept by the state, but only for a limited duration. And with respect to (a), the state may not interfere with the operation of a free press. In a practical sense, a state agency need not volunteer information if it is relying on (b), but it cannot interfere with the press if the information emerges independently through (a).

Anything less is simply to encourage a state in which it is too easy for state agencies to garner a degree of unjustified authority. Now don't mistake this position for an opinion that it is easier for a state's armed forces to prosecute a war. It isn't. It is much more difficult to fight in an open society than in a closed society. But it is just.

Now I think the opposing argument that is being advanced is that because keeping military secrets is so hard, the state is justified in finding ways to suppress the dissemination of military information not only by keeping its own secrets, but also by influencing the free press. This is a slope that is otherwise too slippery - it's the kind of thinking that justifies bans on the reporting of convicted criminals living in neighbourhoods, or interference in the reporting of embarrassing data losses by state agencies, or the use of secret courts and lawyers to convict individuals the state deems sensitive. I have a better idea - constrain the state from exercising any such powers.

MB:

On the one hand you indicate that you are for the integrity of press, with no holds barred (even if it means that to do so would aid enemy position.) And on the other you seem to question Harry's integrity to do the front-line service, required by his fellow comrade servicemen... Which is it? You cannot be against extra privilege in one area; and be for extra privilege in another. And to make it clear… Adverting front line position would have required the use of extra privilege

The privilege of one man, and the privilege of a profession are different things. I'm not opposed to the privilege of groups within society so long as that privilege is strictly designed to enhance the freedom of all individuals within society. An independent judiciary is an example. So is a free press. You are making a category-mistake comparing a privileged group with a privileged individual.

Jack:

Dear God, I hope you're never in charge of any sensitive information. Except maybe the enemy's, so we can get it. You're even against "voluntary censorship"? Really, have you ever been in charge of sensitive info? Or have you lived your life from an armchair, reading theory and thinking yourself an "expert"?

Please go back and read what I've written. I think you'll find that I'm in favour of "voluntary censorship" by individuals (and even state agencies to a certain extent), but not of the free press.

I have not simply lived my life from an armchair - I live my life according to the principles that I believe are just, and I practice them on a daily basis. I note, too, that I seem to be one of the few participants in this debate willing to back up my views with my real reputation. Why hide behind anonymity, Jack?

Do you know what authoritarian really means? Fidel was authoritarian. Putin is increasingly authoritarian. Calling England 'authoritarian' weakens the concept almost to meaninglessness.

I do know what authoritarian really means. England was once much more authoritarian than it is now. But it was also much less authoritarian at one time, too. Calling England less authoritarian now than it was in 1930 also weakens the concept.

Pa Annoyed:

'Freedom' doesn't imply the freedom to commit murder, it requires a degree of responsible self-restraint.

Yes, I think you're starting to understand the libertarian position. Responsible self-restraint of the individual free citizen is absolutely required. Not the coercion of the state, its agencies, or those falling under its influence. Individuals like you and I decide what news should or shouldn't make its way to us. Not Whitehall, and not Fleet Street acting under the influence of Whitehall.

Finally, MB:

(Something the "de" you insulted, has already said.)

I think "de" can stand up for himself, and his "Fuck off. Insulting jackass." was a good attempt. Nobody respects lap-dogs.

Maria S. Johnson:

The term moonbat was invented by the author of this article and you know what? It fits you perfectly.

Perry invented "moonbat"? Cool. I identify more with "wingnut", however.

In fact, I have no doubt whatsoever about what I'm talking about. My position is clear:

Quite so, very clear. My objection is that your views have a poor relationship to objective reality, not that you are incoherent. As another commenter mentioned, I invented the epithet 'moonbat' as a quite politically ecumenical term to describe people whose opinions forsake sanity for the sake of consistency and your notions do seem to fit into that category quite well. Although the term is generally in use on the 'right' to describe elements of the 'left', I actually had a certain ilk of fellow libertarians in mind primarily.

In a free society, it is not up to the state to restrain information from its citizens. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the free press to convey such information to the citizenry. It's up to individual citizens to make use or not make use of the information, as each individual citizen decides.

No doubt when an air raid warden came knocking on your door in 1942 and asked you to draw your curtains so that you do not break blackout, you would indignantly demand your right as a free 'citizen' (whatever that means) to convey whatever information you please to whoever you please. And I am sure your sense of victimhood will just be enhanced when your angry neighbours kick in your door, smash your lights and probably kick your head in for endangering them and their families, all whilst inexplicably ignoring your attempt to lecture them about the non-aggression principle whilst another group of Luftwaffe bombers fly overhead on their way to London.

As many people have already said, the chances of this British prince being killed were remote. Part of that has to do with the operational tempo of the Brits. A couple of guys I talked to in the 87th mentioned that they were in "force-protection mode". The brass even had to impel them to take patrols outside the base horizon (nevermind near population centers and main arteries) and even then they'de take weeks to "plan" it. They basically lack initiative and most of the guys ask the Brits the same thing they ask themselves:

"Why are they here?"

So, no, their Prince wasn't really in any danger; it's not the type of tour our guys would write home about. But to hear the British media talk about it, it sounds like he stormed Mosul and Fallujah in Iraq, then made raids up and down the Pakistani border. Not quite, and looking back, I can see why some of the British in 2002 were so resentful. It can be tough to be labeled a "hero" by the British public, then not be allowed to live up to the title because you're afraid of getting hurt.

That said, there's a little dissapointment running through the ranks from my side. Plenty of guys were generally dismissive of the idea of the Prince in Afghanistan (as you can expect, most US soldiers, sailors and airmen don't give a rat's ass).

Basically, there are three camps in the US military:

Camp 1) The "we're too busy" camp which includes the vast majority of us. They range from "Prince who?" to "Hey, she's hot!" to "Can you see me working here?!"

Basically, we don't care about Royal REMFs; the self-worship of the British aristocracy is not the center of our lives.

Camp 2) The "He tucked tail" camp. Harry in OEF was a good thing because it might have forced the Brits to be more assertive in protecting their prince. He could have invited the Taliban's henchmen to expose themselves. Basically, "fly-paper" operation. More than a few of our groundpounders would be grateful if the Taliban would come out and fight. That base of their's is so remote with no cover that any approach within x miles is suicidal if the Brits are on their game.

As it was, the Prince and his handlers couldn't even handle THAT miniscule level of risk...if my unit/ship withdrew from our AOR like this, we'd be branded a disgrace.

Camp 3) The British did the right thing in withdrawing him "because, if it were me, I wouldn't want to be a burden to my unit".

------------------------------------------------------------

I understand the sentiment and I'm sure it's out there. But this goes to the heart of the question of the British contribution in OEF:

"Are you here to fight the enemy?"

"Or are you here to lay low and take pictures so you can go home a 'hero?'"

Starting? Starting?!

This is exactly the position we have held all along. Fleet street editors are also "individuals like you and I", and likewise responsible for deciding when something really shouldn't get out.

Unless you're proposing that they release everything so that we can decide what to stuff back in the box?

Is it simply because it was the government asking? That irrespective of how sensible it might seem or how logical the argument might be, if the government asks you to keep something quiet, it is your duty to immediately blab it to the whole world?

Nobody here, and I mean nobody is arguing that what Drudge did was wrong because it was against orders from the MOD. They're arguing that it was wrong because it hurt our side and our interests, helped the Taliban, and achieved absolutely no useful purpose. This was not a scandal the military were trying to cover up. It was not an abuse of our trust. It was not a significant moral issue we needed to know about and decide upon. It was not even a significant piece of history we would never otherwise get to find out about. It's merely a childish "they want to keep it secret, so let's spoil it for them" sort of game. A "look at all those suckers waiting in line, while I push my way to the head of the queue and barge through the door" arrogant greed for an ephemeral scoop.

"Individuals like you and I decide what news should or shouldn't make its way to us." Exactly right. And individuals up and down the country have decided that this was news that shouldn't have made its way to us. So now that we've all decided that, how do you propose we go about undoing its release?

So, no, their Prince wasn't really in any danger

Sheesh, what a dickhead. So he was within direct fire range of the Taliban but there wasn't really much danger. Bullets. They go both ways, mate.

Basically, there are three camps in the US military:

Who gives a fuck? You don't know jack shit about the "tempo" in Helmand.

Leaving aside the question of the immediate issue of whether a royal could or should serve in active military roles (I think he should), the breaking of a secret by the media, on an issue which has potential life or death consequences for many people, should be seen as a treasonable act. I'd like to check what the penalty is for that these days.

A typically asinine contribution from "Cynic", as usual.

I think a few unwarranted assumptions are being made here:

1. The information Matt Drudge distributed is helping the enemy and hurting any friends. Would the troops in Afghanistan rather not take on suicidal nutjobs coming to them, rather than have to go out and seek them? (Rykehaven's point)
2. The information was kept secret out of operational necessity. I find it quite a bit more likely that the military wanted to keep a "secret" just so when it's inevitably blown, they can withdraw the Prince to safety, and not have to deal with the political baggage that comes with such a package. "Hey, we gave him a chance, photos are taken, cover's blown, back to clubbing in London."

Until it's clear that Drudge caused any harm, I am with him on this. Yes, yes, freedom of speech, but "Fire!" in a crowded theater... But... Perry, where is the fire?

Rykehaven,

You could think of it, if you like, as a counterpoint to all those old jokes about the Americans acting like irresponsible trigger-happy cowboys. When the Taliban shoot, the British duck; when the British shoot, the Taliban duck; when the Americans shoot, everybody ducks! No offence, right?

Faction 1 have got it right, apart from thinking there's any self-worship going on. It shouldn't matter who he is. Faction 2 ought to know that you don't lay your own real live soft parts in the bear trap as bait unless you have no other choice. A bit of constructive lying can be a useful option, though. Faction 3 isn't so bad, but it's not about whether he thinks he's a burden to his unit or not, it's about what his commanders think is needed to get the job done. Or did you think it was his decision to pull out?

Are we here to fight the enemy? No. We're here to get the Afghans in good shape to fight the enemy. Fighting the enemy is only a means to that end.

The pictures are only to get the press off their backs - the Royals spend most of their lives hiding from cameras, they don't need it. Why won't anyone believe that he might just be a young man who didn't choose to be who he is trying to live a normal life and to do a useful job?

I'll make my own fucking decisions about the news that I think is reasonable to consume. And I'll be damned if I'm ever forced to serve alongside some needless celebrity bullet-magnet who thinks hanging out with me on the front line is hunkey-dorey.

Getting quite angry, aren't we, Mr Knight. Aha, so once we strip away all the crud about "censorship", we get a chip-on-the-shoulder rant about how Prince Harry, who by all accounts has had to endure the same risks as his fellow soldiers, is a "nee