London - 'Go on, Sir,' the voice urging Prince Harry to fire his machine-gun at Taliban trenches is heard saying. But for Harry, his dream of combat on the frontline came to an abrupt end Friday when he was recalled after 10 weeks of battlefield work in Helmand.
Picture released 28 February 2008 shows Britain's Prince Harry patrols through the deserted town of Garmisir, Afghanistan, close to Forward Operating Base Delhi, 02 January 2008. EPA/JOHN STILLWELL / POOL
His mother, the late Princess Diana, would have been proud of him, said the 23-year-old prince, known in his Household Cavalry regiment as Second Lieutenant Harry Wales, and carrying the codename 'budgie.'
'She would be looking down having a giggle,' he said. It was indeed Diana who, back at a Rhine Army base in Germany in 1993, permitted eight-year-old Harry to dress up in a miniature combat suit and helmet for a ride in a battle tank.
But times have changed. As Harry, just 12 when his mother died, went through life progressing from a 'party animal' to a 'soldier prince,' the internet made sure that the era of gentlemen's agreements with the media on news blackouts is well and truly past.
With Harry, and his elder brother, William, having gained 'celebrity status' in the world's media, the young soldier's desire to be 'normal' and to 'muck in with the others' could not be kept a secret for long.
However, apart from the fulfilment of romantic boy soldier dreams, and the questionability of news blackout deals, the 24-hour drama over the exposure and abrupt termination of Harry's Helmand role has thrown a spotlight on the tough nature of the fighting in Afghanistan, and put paid to the prince's naive dream that he could be 'like any other soldier.'
While the tabloid media hailed him as the 'hero prince,' and listeners' e-mails to the BBC enthused that Harry had proved himself 'fit to be king,' some commentators reflected on the more serious issues raised by the furore about Harry.
Describing the media blackout as 'censorship,' and criticizing the return 'deal' of unlimited access to the prince for filming and interviews, prominent TV anchorman Jon Snow said the 'fuss' about Harry was in no proportion to reporting on 'what else is going on Afghanistan.'
Anti-war member of parliament George Galloway went as far as accusing the BBC of 'colluding in the war effort.'
For many, however, coverage of Harry's stint on the frontline will have provided a rare insight into the brutal nature of the war being fought in Afghanistan.
In his role as a Forward Air Controller, Harry was responsible for co-ordinating fighter plane cover for frontline forces, giving final clearance for airstrikes on Taliban targets after pinpointing hideouts on surveillance footage.
Crouching on sandbags, Harry was seen pumping bullets from a powerful machine-gun across 500 metres of barren land with just distant puffs of smoke as a target.
'It's just no man's land. They poke their heads up and that's it,' said Harry. 'Terry Taliban and his mates, as soon as they hear aircraft they go to ground,' he added.
The young prince known that his life is now in danger from 'terrorists in Britain' who 'will be trying to slot me.'
The decision to withdraw him, analysts said, had as much to do with fears for his life, and that of fellow-soldiers, as with the wider concern that the Taliban would increase their attacks on the 7,800-strong contingent in Afghanistan, where 89 British soldiers and civilian personnel have died since 2001.
For Britain's royal family, and the country as a whole, the century-old debate of whether senior royals should fight on the frontline has again be thrown into the open.
It is, uncomfortably, linked to the implication that royal blood is more precious than others.
The last royal to fight in a prominent and hazardous role was Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, who served as a helicopter pilot for the Royal Navy in the Falklands conflict of 1982.
Andrew, who then also was third in line to the throne, said the experience had 'changed his life,' - and his outlook on war.
During Word War I, the urgent pleas of the Prince of Wales, who later became King Edward VIII, to serve as a grenadier guard in the trenches of Belgium and France were ignored - and he was given a desk job as a staff liaison officer instead.
Zyskandar A JaimotFeb 29th, 2008 - 17:52:57
Several months ago RUSH LIMBAUGH on his well listened-to radio show opined that 'THE ROYALS' would never allow HARRY to fight in IRAQ!!! Well you were correct about that 'EL - RUSHBO' - PRINCE HARRY was allowed to serve in AFGHANISTAN!!! AS MUCH AS YOU RARELY 'WRONG' YOU CAME UP A CROPPER ON THIS!!! The monarchy in GREAT BRITAIN was created by king's/rulers/queen's who were warriors...The present crop of 'ROYALS' is not averse to serving what was/is left of the BRITSIH EMPIRE and its interests.
Report this comment