A stand-up prince

Inspiring story on B3 of the AJC today: "Prince Harry may serve in Iraq." Seems the prince has been training with a front line unit and hopes to lead an armored recon group. Says he: "There's no way I'm going to put myself through (training) and then sit back home while my boys are out fighting for their country."

I do not support the Bush-Blair war in Iraq because I do not believe trying to re-engineer the Middle East will work, at least not the way we intend.

That said, I stand in admiration of the prince -- and his father -- for having the courage of conviction. Contrast that to our leaders. How many cabinet members have kids or young relatives in the battle they started? Where are the military-age Bush twins -- not in the military, that's for sure. (To be fair, one's a teacher, the other works on an AIDs project, so it's not like they are total slackers.) Yes, it would be impractical for them to be on the front lines, but surely they could work at the Pentagon or Walter Reed. Their Dad says this is the most important fight of our time, yet he can't talk his daughters into joining. My guess is he hasn't tried.

For that matter, every day I see under-45 men driving gas guzzling road hogs with American flags and "support our troops" ribbons. Most are not even in the reserves or Guard. Why not? How about Sean Hannity? He looks fit enough for a Long Island Guard unit.

The Prince may never go in harm's way. But just by being willing to walk his country's talk, he has set an example that puts America to shame.

bowser's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Is military service required to speak?
ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Thu, 01/26/2006 - 9:07am.

I served for almost 20 years, I always wanted to serve, I loved it an would do it again in a heartbeat. That being said, My boys 10 and 14 will have to make their own decision. If they do not serve will you make the same remarks about them.

Fact 1: Not everyone can serve, the Armed Forces just isn't big enough.

Fact 2: The enlistment age for the Army for years was 35 and is now 40, Hannity is a little old for that and in my opinion is doing more for his country by exposing liberal media bias and providing an alternate source of information from the Bush hating MSM.

Fact 3: Clinton got us into Hati, Kosovo and several other conflicts. Where is Chelsea? Is she doing anything close to the public service of the Bush twins? By your words she must be a total slacker.

Now a question, did you serve?

I love how tolerant and polite the name calling, hate spewing opponents to the war can be. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

You have a First Ammendment right to post your opinion here, as much as my right to respond. Where has this gotten us? I will not change your mind, you will not change mine, but when I read nasty hate filled attacks on the President's family for not joining the Armed Forces, you got the shock that you were looking for.

We should all, me included remember the old Judge not lest ye be judged lesson.

There you are, flame away.


login to post comments
whoa...
Submitted by bowser on Thu, 01/26/2006 - 11:15pm.

Calm down, Major Payne. I really do not think my post constitutes "hate spewing." Nor did I call anyone a mean name. All I did was state my observation that because of Prince Harry the Royal Family has now done what seems notably lacking among US political leadership, i.e., a willingness to put its own flesh and blood on the line in the war they got us into.

If Clinton had gotten us into this kind of entanglement I'd say the same about Chelsea as I do about the W twins. But comparing Haiti or Kosovo to Iraq is absurd.

I did not join the military when I was of age in the late 70s/80s. Sometimes I regret it. Like Dick Cheney during Vietnam, I had "other priorities." Unlike Dick Cheney, my decision did not mean some less privileged kid was forced to fill my draft spot. And unlike Cheney I do not now favor sending other folks' kids off to "fix" the Middle East.

login to post comments
Judging?
Submitted by Sailon on Thu, 01/26/2006 - 12:33pm.

You seem to be doing a lot of judging to not believe in it?
How you, as a retiree, can fight for that bunch of draft dodgers in Washington is beyond me. Maybe you saw no combat,I don't know, but everyone can serve their country in uniform, there is room. One to two years training, then either combat or performing civilian duties, then several years in the reserves----men and women----everyone.

login to post comments
How big is our Armed forces?
ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Thu, 01/26/2006 - 3:07pm.

I did serve in combat and proudly wear my Combat Infantryman's Tie tack and my Big Red One Combat Patch tie tack from Desert Storm, nice try.

Current DOD end strength is 1,423,510 (That's Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force)

Census population for 20-24 year olds is almost 19,000,000 and 25-30 year olds is almost 19,000,000. that is 38 million into 1.4 million, it just does not go! It's like trying to shove 10 pounds of stuff in a 1 pound bag!

Even if we expanded the Armed forces back to it's Reagan levels mandatory service would not work. Great Idea, I like it, but impractical. It would break the bank.

As far as draft dodgers, Clinton dodged but Bush served. Many US Presidents did not serve, if it was a requirement, it would be in the Constitution. Weasley Clark served and he didn't get the nomination.

So yeah, I'm glad that the US has Al-Queda on the run and fighting us in Iraq. Saddam gassed his own people and I have no doubt that he would have helped any terrorists kill as many infidels as possible.


login to post comments
All serve
Submitted by Sailon on Thu, 01/26/2006 - 3:39pm.

Thank you for your service. I too, am a veteran.
As does the Pentagon, you think in the past. We need about 3-4 million service men to fight wars, protect our borders, etc., and few should serve over 2 years, most one active. Remember many, many now serve up to thirty years, and twenty as you did. Also, for those not fit for combat, they could do the old CCC or WPA thing, but as soldiers. There is also plenty of work for females and handicapped people. Get rid of welfare overnight, nearly. We don't need high ranking soldiers by the tens of thousands making a career out of the service, just a few to lead. I'v seen generals doing clerical work.
As the current generation says, think a little out of the box. Also, nothing wrong with military career people working to 65. Some are retiring at 37!!!

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.