John McCain

Hurry Up for Harry

|

Drudge claims that this report hints at a reason for the UK Iraq pullout: a plot to save Prince Harry's royal, freckled ass.

Prince Harry's regiment will learn on Thursday whether it is to be sent to Iraq in the latest round of troop deployments… It follows the announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair that Britain's commitment in Iraq is to be reduced from 7,100 to 5,500 within the next few months as security responsibilities are handed over to homegrown forces.

Unconfirmed reports earlier this month suggested that the Prince's unit, 'A' Squadron of the Blues and Royals, had been warned unofficially to expect a six-month tour of duty in southern Iraq starting in April.

This doesn't actually suggest that Harry will get a reprieve; it sounds like he'll be part of the last wave, turning out the lights in Saddam's dream palaces as he goes. But if this happens, it'd be a huge win for the "chickenhawk" argument. A corallary of the argument is that if leaders had some "skin in the game," they'd be bringing the troops home sooner. In reality, this cuts both ways—both uber-hawk John McCain and dove-of-doves Jim Webb have sons in or headed to Iraq.

NEXT: Flaming Mimicks Orbitofrontal Cortex Damage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For a moment there, I thought you were talking about Harry Potter, not some imaginary Prince.

  2. It’s great to see the UK Iraq pullout, what ever the impetus. But WHAT IN THE HELL TOOK EM SO LONG??

  3. What are they freaking out about? It’s not like they don’t have another son.

  4. Thank God. If something were to happen to Harry, there’d be no backup to take over the role of Embarassingly Anachronistic Pointless Figurehead if something happened to William. Well, if something happened to Elizabeth, and then something happened to Charles, and then something happened to William. Harry would be our last hope.

  5. No, if something, gods forbid, were to happen to Prince Harry, there are still Fergie’s kids waiting in the wings:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne

  6. A cheap shot. The British have never done such a thing before and the political fallout of letting such a consideration enter a serious foreign policy debate would be far worse than the fallout of getting him killed. Worst case scenario has him staying behind or given a safe liason job in Kuwait.

    Prince Andrew, as I recall, went along on the Falklands campaign as a helicopter pilot on the Invincible. The government reportedly wanted him to stay behind, but the palace insisted he go. I cannot imagine Queen Elizabeth has changed her mind very much about that. Give the devils their due: they’re not cowards.

  7. It’s of course interesting that a member of the royal family is going to Iraq, but wouldn’t it be more politically significant if the child of somebody with actual power was going?

  8. Yes, thoreau, like Bush’s twins. Here we are in a “worldwide war on terror” and these perfectly capable young women are galivanting around nightclubs, etc. If, for instance, a warmongering T. Roosevelt’s son could serve in the military (and die in Normandy in 1944) the
    surely the Bush kids can serve in some capacity.

  9. “surely the Bush kids can serve in some capacity”

    I’d settle for a nip slip pic on Superficial.com, but a “Britney” would be preferable. Either Jenna or not-Jenna.

  10. Sounds like bullshit. There are, I’d think, at least a couple of really good and obvious reasons for the UK to pull out of Iraq having nothing to do with royalty.

  11. Besides isn’t it kind of a British tradition for the younger sons to go off to fight in the crown’s wars to win glory for themselves?

  12. Since when does the Queen determine international policy? If this were Blair’s kid there might be an argument, but he’s not going to move thousands of soldiers around on the Prince’s behalf.

  13. it would be a nightmarish liability to have the little prince kicking around Iraq

    because if some Iraqi (Iranian!?) with a ditch bomb or sniper rifle managed to get lucky and snuff the little prince?

    a political massacre for the Brit political scene that thought backing Bush’s play in Iraq was a good move

  14. I think you’ll find that the “chickenhawks” have had their eye on handsome Harry for quite some time. Now, of course, it’s that wizardly horse-blinder “Harry” who’s got some skin in the game.

  15. News report on NPR this AM said the Aussies are keeping their 1500 +/- troops in and around Iraq.

    Around Iraq, eh? I wonder, what, exactly is around Iraq?

    Have they got something like Breaker Morant’s old oufit up to some things the superiors don’t want to know about again?

  16. “surely the Bush kids can serve in some capacity”

    Deploy both of them to the War on Terror in My Pants.

  17. creech,

    “war-mongering” T. Roosevelt’s son who died in Normandy 1944 was Brigadier General Ted Roosevelt jr. who led the 4th Infantry Division at Utah Beach and was the only General on D-Day to land with the first wave, even though he had serious heart problems. He died a month later of a heart attack.

    However, in my opinion he is a rather unlikely role model for the Bush twins.

  18. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/22/harry.iraq/index.html

    I guess it was not a ploy to keep the Prince out of harms way.

  19. The Royal Family would not have to have a ploy. They could just say he doesn’t have to go. But they know that that would be a bad example.

    The monarchy might be an odious anachronism but the Royals have rarely shrunk from their duties to their subjects.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.