Two US Marines died on Friday in a Taliban attack on the Camp Bastion base where Prince Harry was being stationed. Four British airmen were also described as being "seriously injured" although the extent of their injuries and whether they are life threatening has not been revealed.
There is absolutely no
doubt that the marines died because Prince Harry was in the compound. As
Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, confirmed "We attacked that base because
Prince Harry was in it and so they can know our anger."
It is hardly surprising
that his presence provoked a Taliban attack for killing the prince would be a
great coup for them. As the Daily Mail reports:
"...on Friday, 16 fighters
dug beneath a perimeter fence on the camp's eastern side and ran towards the
airfield, where they were challenged by US Marines. They fired rocket-propelled
grenades and rifles, killing the two Marines and destroying aircraft including
Harrier jets and Cobra helicopters. ". [A] gun battle continued for three hours
with the Taliban desperate to reach Harry's accommodation ". The Prince was
rushed to safety as the Taliban closed in."
The inadvisability of
having a royal in a war zone was made clear earlier this year when Rear Admiral
John 'Sandy' Woodward commented on the deployment of Prince William to the
"To have a Royal anywhere
near the front line is a bloody nuisance for the rest of the front line. You
have to take extra precautions that he doesn't get shot down, that his plane
doesn't fail. You maintain it three times as carefully. If you have a Royal on
board your ship it is the end of your career if he gets so much as a scratch.
It's never said, but it goes without saying."
So why go to all the
trouble of placing Harry there at this time endangering the military operations
and soldiers' lives?
The reason is obvious, but
the cowed British media won't say it. Instead they quote the Taliban stating
the reason in an attempt to discredit the argument. Taliban spokesman,
Zabiullah Mujahid, said: "the Prince was seen in naked pictures in
England. To cover this shame, maybe he can atone by showing that he is fighting
beside their soldiers in Afghanistan."
The narrative here is as
obvious as it is appalling. A few weeks ago Harry disgraced himself in a sex
party in Las Vegas, one of the world's capitals for gambling, prostitution and
organised crime. As well as having sex with unnamed women, he played "strip
billiards" with them. He demonstrated his contempt for normal standards of
behaviour, for women, for his country and his family.
Talk of respecting his privacy is nonsense. He is inevitably in the public eye. And, anyway, what you do in your private life shows the kind of person you really are. The idea that you can compartmentalise your life having one set of standards in you private life and another different set for your public life is ridiculous. You are what you do whether in private or in public.
If you are in a position of power the public has a right to know about you. This is universally accepted for holders of democratic political office and it must be the same for those chosen for offices on the basis of bloodline -- as long as we have such offices
So what do his advisors do? They attempt a damage limitation exercise trying to show a different side of the man. From being seen in a totally comprising situation of sleaze and self-indulgence, he takes on the role of soldier in the Afghan war, "fighting" alongside truly brave men -- men who have been in the war zone for months. These men have not had time out for erotic escapades in Sin City.
By stationing Harry in Afghanistan, military lives are put at risk. Let's be clear. There can be no possible military use for the Prince in Afghanistan. The only justification stated for putting him there is that he will somehow improve morale by his presence. But with the deaths and injuries resulting from his presence now recorded, it is practically certain that he has reduced morale. And there is the ongoing problem of defending him and making sure, as Rear Admiral Woodward put it, that he does not receive "so much as a scratch".
The Mail reports that the mood at Camp Bastion was "doubly sombre' last night in the aftermath of the attack on the base".
The manipulators of public opinion on the monarchy have sunk to new depths by sacrificing lives in attempting to project a positive image of Harry. But he is a loose cannon - loaded with ammunition. For how long will the craven British media continue to defend him?