Prince Harry, who will not be going to Iraq due to fears for his “personal safety” could become an unlikely standard bearer for those agitating for an early withdrawl of troops from the troubled region.
One has to wonder how many young soldiers have been refused permission to serve for the same reason. Anyone fancy getting that PQ tabled?
editor[at]recessmonkey.com
Loading ...
Surely this is all about making his troop face increased danger. Not to mention all British troops. The squadies and families I’ve seen are mostly for the decision. But not because they think that’ll get them off the hook. Just like having Jonah on your ship, or Jeremiah advising on strategy.
Chris Paul said this on May 21st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
More importantly, it wasn’t Harry who made the decision not to go. It’s also a very painful thing for a soldier who isn’t able to join his men on the front.
JavaScript monkey said this on May 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 am
Serving in Iraq is dangerous enough but most soldiers don’t have highly motivated death squads after them as individuals. Harry’s situation cannot be equated to that of other troops serving on the ground. He will undoubtedly deeply regret not going with his men, but the fact is that they will be at a lesser risk because of his absence. There are no political points to be scored here.
Steve Horgan said this on May 28th, 2007 at 6:11 pm