In a previous post, in February, I wrote that it "now looks like that Prince Harry will be accompanying his cavalry Regiment to Basra. If Prince Harry does accompany "A" Squadron, with the Blues and Royals, then he'll be closely following in his Uncle's footsteps who served in the Falklands."
Today, the overall British army commander, Sir Richard Dannatt, issued a statement stating that Prince Harry will not be deployed to Iraq. This was due to concern about the number of "specific threats" made against his life.
So, Abu Mujtaba and his Mahdi army unit appear to dictate British army policy. It also shows that whilst threats are made against all allied serviceman; only Prince Harry is inexpendable. This is in stark contrast to the recent case of the planned kidnap of a Muslim soldier who had served in Afghanistan. The group responsible had intended an "Iraqi-style" conspiracy, whereby they planned to film the beheading of the soldier, and post it on the internet as a warning to Muslims not to help the Armed Forces. So, with this same logic, would it not prove right that the 300+ Muslim servicemen should also not be expected to serve in the Middle East?
This is a bad decision taken by the British Army and the Ministry of Defence. As such, it will just add to accusations that the modern Royal family has nothing to do with public service, but is all about the cult of celebrity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mark
I can imagine George II's remarks if the frogs threatened him as he prepared to leave for the continent. Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben,
Dettingen wouldn't have been quite the same without George II.
Those where the days when the Monarchy still knew how to tell the politicians what they could do with their ideas.
Best wishes,
Mark
PS. My next post will include several pictures of some artillery pieces, that I took on my last visit to China. With your interest in big guns, I hope you might be able to provide some information on them.
Post a Comment