Should Prince Harry have been brough back?

[Ian Gentles]

He has been brought back after Drudge Report reported his presence in Afghanistan. Should this have happened? or should he have been allowed to stay? He is a career soldier after all!

[Hans Deventer]

He has been brought back after Drudge Report reported his presence in Afghanistan. Should this have happened? or should he have been allowed to stay? He is a career soldier after all!

It's ok for him to be in Afghanistan. It is stupid that some still felt they needed to report this. It is wise that the army decided to bring him home.

And I really understand how he would feel more at home with the troops in Afghanistan than with the paparazzi back home.

[Ian Gentles]

The guy is army thats his great love. He is an action man, not an intellectual.
The breaking of the news disgusts me, why couldent media leave him alone!
Personally I think he should have been allowed to stay. His career is army, and he cant advance if brought home every time their is conceived danger.

[Jim Severns]

I responded yes, but not because of his safety. With the news leaked, he became a target. As such, it places his entire unit at greater risk than necessary. They need to be able to focus on their jobs. While he has great support for his service, it is best that he not be in the position to endanger those he serves with.

By the way, it wasn't Drudge that broke the story. Drudge broke the story that the story had been broken.

"Australian magazine NEW IDEA and the German daily BILD have broken world embargoes on the development. CNN has debated internally on the merits of reporting Harry at war."

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/02/28/20080228_164320_flashph.htm

[Gina Stevenson]

He has been brought back after Drudge Report reported his presence in Afghanistan. Should this have happened? or should he have been allowed to stay? He is a career soldier after all!

Have to agree with Hans that it was fine he was there, idiotic that they outed him but, since they did, he'd definitely become a high-stakes target ["Hey! We got da prince!"]. Therefore, good for his & the others' lives that they pulled him from there. It is danged sorry, tho', that---since he was wanting to be there---that the media didn't just keep their stupid mouths shut!!

[Ian Gentles]

I just cant see his career advancing if he cant serve on front line. I suppose if he was navy he would have security of a ship.

[Gina Stevenson]

I just cant see his career advancing if he cant serve on front line. I suppose if he was navy he would have security of a ship.

The price of celebrity/notoriety, in spite of his having had no choice re being born into it.

[Ian Gentles]

Those poor Princes have every reason to hate the media, and Harry's career being affected now by them just isnt right. Why dont those people go find some real news?

[Dale Cozby]

A prince is a value target to the enemy and as such he presents a problem for his unit, himself and his cause if he was killed or captured or even wounded as result of who he is.

If you are going to deploy a high value target in the field you certainly don't want the enemy knowing where it is. His military rank belies his real value to the enemy and to his own nation.

[Ian Gentles]

Would be nice, belated, if Drudge Report admitted to being absolutely senseless!

[Ryan Scott]

Hey, this whole story has brought up some questions for me that maybe you Europeans with monarchs can answer for me. If we've generally gotten rid of the "divine right of kings" theory for governance, why do these monarchies continue? Why don't these families move into private life? It sure seems like Harry would enjoy private life a lot more.

I know, from the time they were very young, they were groomed as royalty and that they had an obligation to their people, but what is the rationale for that now? Can they still be telling their children that God ordained them to rule over everyone else?

Help this clueless American out, here?

[Ian Gentles]

Hey, this whole story has brought up some questions for me that maybe you Europeans with monarchs can answer for me. If we've generally gotten rid of the "divine right of kings" theory for governance, why do these monarchies continue? Why don't these families move into private life? It sure seems like Harry would enjoy private life a lot more.

I know, from the time they were very young, they were groomed as royalty and that they had an obligation to their people, but what is the rationale for that now? Can they still be telling their children that God ordained them to rule over everyone else?

Help this clueless American out, here?

Good question. I actualy beleive we keep em for tourist industry lol

[Hans Deventer]

I know, from the time they were very young, they were groomed as royalty and that they had an obligation to their people, but what is the rationale for that now? Can they still be telling their children that God ordained them to rule over everyone else?

I think the rationale is serving the nation. Standing in a tradition of service. Unlike an elected president, they can be a unifying factor in a country, being above all political parties. If they play that role properly, it's valuable.

[BobHunt]

well, what if Pres Bush had a son and he went there and his cover was blown? That would seem really dangerous to me, so for his own safety its good he is going home.

[Jim Severns]

It wasn't Drudge!

[Bruce Carriker]

I agree with Jim and Dale and others on this one. The right answer isn't one of the poll options. The right answer is:

He should have been brought home because his presence puts his unit at increased risk, and is a potential diplomatic disaster for the UK if he were to be captured.

What if tomorrow, on the Internet, there were pictures of Arab terrorists holding a blind-folded Prince Harry...threatening to behead him for the world to see, unless the UK immediately withdraws all their forces from Afghanistan and Iraq? Or worse, what's the impact in the UK if they actually DID behead him live on the Internet?

I feel sorry for the young man. As a former officer, I know that it's not just some PR line when he says he wants to be with his unit. I'm sure he absolutely means that. But it's just not practical in this day and age for him to be in combat. If this were WWII and the worst that might happen is he gets killed on the battlefield, that's one thing. But this is an entirely different kind of war, with huge PR angle, and he's just too lucrative a target.

[Bruce Carriker]

well, what if Pres Bush had a son and he went there and his cover was blown? That would seem really dangerous to me, so for his own safety its good he is going home.

In the US those with power ensure that their children are not at risk before we go to war. It's the American way; or has been since the end of WWII, anyway.

[Hal Paul]

In the US those with power ensure that their children are not at risk before we go to war. It's the American way; or has been since the end of WWII, anyway.

Bruce, I have to disagree with you on this one. Just off the top of my head, Sen McCain has a son in the Marine Corps, Rep Skelton has two sons in the Army and Justice Scalia has a son in the Army. At the beginning of this war, Sen Tim Johnson's son was a Staff Sergeant in the 101st, the last I heard he is still in the Army.

I have met one of the people mentioned above, and know several people who've met the others. All of them have been low key regarding their parent's political status, and several people have told me how Justice Scalia's son does not correct people when they mispronounce his name. They then speculate that he does this to avoid the perception that he might be trying to take advantage of his father's position.

[Dale Cozby]

I think the rationale is serving the nation. Standing in a tradition of service. Unlike an elected president, they can be a unifying factor in a country, being above all political parties. If they play that role properly, it's valuable.
I think we have to see that the monarchs have a great deal of political influence even though they lack political control. If played right they garnish great respect.

Who could be more loyal to thier nation than a monarch? Such an investment of ones family runs deep, so right or wrong, one should be assured thier heart is in the right place even if thier head isn't.

I think that is why Obama has struck a cord with Americans. He isn't questioning motive or loyalty to the "crown" as it were. There aren't good guys and bad guys in the political fight, but rather in our love for what is right, and good and noble and praiseworthy we can disagree as to how best to achieve it and still be good patriots.

[Ryan Scott]

Bruce, I have to disagree with you on this one. Just off the top of my head, Sen McCain has a son in the Marine Corps, Rep Skelton has two sons in the Army and Justice Scalia has a son in the Army. At the beginning of this war, Sen Tim Johnson's son was a Staff Sergeant in the 101st, the last I heard he is still in the Army.

I have met one of the people mentioned above, and know several people who've met the others. All of them have been low key regarding their parent's political status, and several people have told me how Justice Scalia's son does not correct people when they mispronounce his name. They then speculate that he does this to avoid the perception that he might be trying to take advantage of his father's position.


Well I think there are exceptions to many generalities. I think Bruce is more right than wrong on that one. It's not necessarily about politicians either; they tend to instill a bit more civic duty. The powerful in this country are indeed the rich and judging by the face Mitt Romney made when asked why none of his sons was in the military, they try to keep that out of the public view.

I do wonder how many of the fortune 500 CEOs have children serving in the military. I'm more curious about it than wanting to use it to support one view or another.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

He has been brought back... Should this have happened?

Absolutely.

But then again, I think they should all be brought back. ;)

Wilson

[Hal Paul]

Your question regarding children of Fortune 500 CEOs serving in the military reminded me of a couple of people I've known in the Army who were children of senior corporate executives.

I tried to find information regarding CEOs with children who have served in the military, but was unsuccessful. I did find that about 9% of F500 CEOs have served (http://content.spencerstuart.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/2005_CEO_Study_JS.pdf), down from about 16% in in 2000. That compares reasonably well with the 2000 Census report (http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp12_veterans) that showed 12.7% of Americans were veterans and the 2006 Census Fact sheet (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts) that estimates 10.5% of Americans were veterans. I also found that 131 of the 540 members, about 25%, of the 110th Congress (http://www.c-span.org/pdf/110thcongress.pdf) have served in the military. While that is a decline from years past, members of congress are still about twice as likely to have served as the people they represent. If the findings from this 1990 report for the Navy (http://www.ijoa.org/imta96/paper29.html) are still true today (anecdotally I think they are), then children of veterans are more likely to join the military than children of nonveterans, and we could probably extend that pattern to children of CEOs and elected officials.

I have read several articles & books discussing the trend for children of elites to be less likely to serve than the general population. If true, the fact that several of our elite schools (http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/national/index.html) do not have ROTC programs on campus, and others do not welcome recruiters (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5027755) on campus may be contributing factors.

If service among children of the elite is becoming significantly less common as Charles Moskos (http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=715), Charles Rangel (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charlie_Rangel#Calls_for_a_renewed _military_draft) and Frank Schaeffer and Kathy Roth-Douquet (http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061175442/AWOL/index.aspx) say and which the Heritage Foundation disputes (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm), I guess I just happen to know of a bunch of exceptions.

As to the question regarding none of Mitt Romney's children serving, the Northeast has the lowest rate of enlistment (http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/images/table8_large.gif) into the military. Perhaps they simply are reflecting their geographic demographic and not necessarily their economic demographic.

[Ian Gentles]

I think we have to see that the monarchs have a great deal of political influence even though they lack political control. If played right they garnish great respect.

Who could be more loyal to thier nation than a monarch? Such an investment of ones family runs deep, so right or wrong, one should be assured thier heart is in the right place even if thier head isn't.

I think that is why Obama has struck a cord with Americans. He isn't questioning motive or loyalty to the "crown" as it were. There aren't good guys and bad guys in the political fight, but rather in our love for what is right, and good and noble and praiseworthy we can disagree as to how best to achieve it and still be good patriots.

Actualy Queen has political control. All in forces swear allegence to her. Prime Ministers report to her on a weekly basis.

[Donna B Moore]

As to the issue of the media breaking the story ... either they are free to report or they are not. We applaud when it finds stories we agree with or that we believe are important to our lives and then we say leave well enough alone when it bothers our senses. We cannot have it both ways unless ---- we are Rupert Murdock :-)

Harry was born into a family that does not afford him the ability to lead a life like mine. It is his history nay his destiny. He will find a way.

[Terri Knoll]

I voted that he should not be in the military for just that exact reason. it puts others at too great a risk.

[Charla Lenz]

When Harry left for Afghanistan, the media reported that he was going to stay in England and push papers in a military admin type of job...so now that the media says that he is back home instead of in Afghanistan why believe them?
He may be back to pose for pictures so the media can make their "He's home!" reports, but that does not mean that he isn't going back out.
The media is a gossip-mill, not to be trusted. What they report is too twisted and speculative to be taken too seriously.

[Ryan Scott]

The media is a gossip-mill, not to be trusted. What they report is too twisted and speculative to be taken too seriously.


That's a bit of an extreme opinion to be stated as fact, but the truth of the statement remains. I even saw an interview with Harry in which he said something to the effect of, "this worked well for a few weeks, perhaps its a good sign that I can go back or that my brother can go for a while."

[Hal Paul]

From the 7 March Washington Post Opinion section titled The Bond that a Prince Restored (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603456.html). Perhaps after serving a tour or two, the service of the children of our elites should be publicized a bit more. I believe that among the soldiers who are aware of their service, it has provided a morale boost for those who have served with them, as James Roosevelt Jr. describes the impact of his father's and uncles' service during WWII.

[Gina Stevenson]

From the 7 March Washington Post Opinion section titled The Bond that a Prince Restored (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603456.html). Perhaps after serving a tour or two, the service of the children of our elites should be publicized a bit more. I believe that among the soldiers who are aware of their service, it has provided a morale boost for those who have served with them, as James Roosevelt Jr. describes the impact of his father's and uncles' service during WWII.

Yes, I agree that it should be ... but after they're home; not while their tour is yet incomplete, so that they're called home early, no? Or was it a case of someone thinking they'd leak this b/c they'd arbitrarily determined that now was the time their troops needed a morale booster, and not later, after his tour could officially/normally end?

[Hal Paul]

Yes, I agree that it should be ... but after they're home; not while their tour is yet incomplete, so that they're called home early, no? Or was it a case of someone thinking they'd leak this b/c they'd arbitrarily determined that now was the time their troops needed a morale booster, and not later, after his tour could officially/normally end?

President Roosevelt's sons' locations were kept from the public due to similar safety concerns that resulted in Prince Harry being brought home. In all fairness, I think the British Army did it's best to keep Harry's location a secret, but someone found out and had to blab. It would have been better if Harry could have finished the entire tour with his unit.