Sign up to get Today’s Best Articles in your inbox
Join 350,000+ subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of
The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
The British military just handed the enemy “another propaganda gift,” said Michael Evans in The Times. The army has announced that Prince Harry, known to his regiment as Cornet Wales (his rank and his family’s name), will not accompany his men to Iraq. Evidently “it is too risky to send a qualified, well–trained, and properly motivated officer to serve his country in Iraq,” just because he’s a royal. It’s not that a royal’s life is worth more than a commoner’s. The army says the decision is about the safety of the men in Harry’s unit. Al Qaida has openly vowed to go all–out to kidnap Harry, and the prince’s presence would put his men in enormous danger. That’s plausible—even obvious. So why didn’t anyone think of that before allowing the prince to enroll in Sandhurst military academy in the first place?
“Gone are the days when kings and princes led their men into battle,” said Lorraine Kelly in The Sun. The risk that terrorists could capture Harry and torture or even behead him on video is simply intolerable. The army must have assumed that the war in Iraq would be over by the time Harry graduated from Sandhurst. In peacetime, the prince would be called upon to “do little more than dress in the uniform and strut around in front of his granny.” But we are now faced with “the ludicrous situation of terrorists setting the agenda.” They are surely “gloating.”
Harry, meanwhile, is simply whining, said Richard Ingrams in The Independent. The prince has publicly complained that he is “disappointed” in the army’s decision. This is unseemly on multiple levels. A serving officer should never voice an opinion “about the orders issued to him.” If compelled to speak up, he could have said instead that he “had no wish to endanger the lives of those serving with him.” As far as we know, his fellow soldiers have not complained about being deprived of the opportunity to risk their lives on his behalf. “What we have here is a spoilt young man who is very annoyed at not being allowed to do what he wants.”
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
