The Prince

[renrich]

I see now that Prince(Harry I think) is not going to be deployed with his unit to Iraq. What think youall about that?

[lesofprimus]

Bout time some royalty served in a combat role...

[renrich]

Personally I believe that if an individual is assigned to a unit, and his unit goes to a combat area, then that individual, regardless of who he is or who his parents are, shold go with his assigned unit. It wasn't too long ago that princes and kings led their men into battle and many were killed. It is only supposition but if Bush had a son in the military, I believe he would be deployed wherever his unit was deployed.

[102first_hussars]

That must be pretty frusterating for Prince Harry

[lesofprimus]

Why, cause the litle boy gotta go to War????

Awww.....

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

Personally I believe that if an individual is assigned to a unit, and his unit goes to a combat area, then that individual, regardless of who he is or who his parents are, shold go with his assigned unit. It wasn't too long ago that princes and kings led their men into battle and many were killed. It is only supposition but if Bush had a son in the military, I believe he would be deployed wherever his unit was deployed.

Yep to the Texas ANG

[lesofprimus]

Damn skippy...

[amrit]

Firstly, Prince Andrew served as a Sea King pilot on HMS Invincible during the whole of the Falklands War, carrying out anti-submarine, anti-shipping and air defence duties, along with all the other pilots.

However, the current situation with Harry has revolved around whether his presence in Iraq would be a danger to his own troops. As a likely target for the insurgents, wouldn't he endanger his troops? The benefits of his presence would be outweighed by the attention he would receive as a likely target, and to that end, I think it was the right decision not have him in Iraq.

As to the possibility of President Bush having a son in Iraq (or even in the military) is highly unlikely. The same sort of focus for increased attacks against him would outweigh any military benefit that the armed forces would gain.

[Maestro]

Personnally, I think that even if Prince Harry went to Iraq, it wouldn't have changed anything... I mean, the high command would have kept him far away from the action. May be he would have spent the whole time in a bunker somewhere in the desert surrounded by hundreds of English troops.

Remember, he is the grand-son of the Queen. They would never let him fall to the ennemy.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Why, cause the litle boy gotta go to War????

Awww.....

He is not going. He wants to go but the military will not send him because they think he will endanger his own troops because of who he is.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Well, he must be feeling pretty low.

I agree that having Harry in Iraq would be dangerous to his own troops, but every high ranking officer or offical in Iraq is a high target in Iraq, and can get his men killed because of it.

I mean, having Harry as a low ranking officer is not as bad as making him a General because of his birthline, and perhaps inexperienced to boot. It was more common in the old British days I bet. But then, Harry could have been made desktop general, and that's not so dangerous.

Anyway, since Harry the Prince is not a visible sign of authority or morale to his troops, I suppose they thought he's better left behind.

[renrich]

I believe that there is at least one US Senator who has a son on active duty in Iraq. Having said that, I agree that Harry being present in Iraq is going to put the men in his unit under increased danger. Maybe that could work to the Coalition's benefit. Kind of a decoy. I would not deprecate George Bush's service in the TANG. I believe if one could see the records during that time frame, the mortality rate of pilots flying the F102 was pretty high. Unless I am mistaken the Guard units in F102s were supposed to intercept Soviet bombers with nuclear unguided missiles. Doesn't sound to safe to me.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

I would not deprecate George Bush's service in the TANG. I believe if one could see the records during that time frame, the mortality rate of pilots flying the F102 was pretty high. Unless I am mistaken the Guard units in F102s were supposed to intercept Soviet bombers with nuclear unguided missiles. Doesn't sound to safe to me.

Not as high as a guy in A4 or 105 in Vietnam

[renrich]

No, and not as high as in Hal Moore's battalion at LZ X-Ray. But everyone who serves in the military accepts the risk that his particular choice of service exposes him to. Sometimes one is lucky and somtimes not. Some people sneer at people who are National Guardsmen. Well, one of the highest casualty rates of of the second world war in an american division was in the 36th Texas National Guard Division, 3717 KIA and 12685 WIA. I joined the Texas National Guard, 49th Armored Div in 1959, because we had UMT in those days and that is how I chose to discharge my obligation. 6 months active duty and then 6 years of monthly drills and yearly summer camps. 1961, the Berlin wall was built and 2 Guard divisions were called to active duty. One was the 49th. We trained for a year but if war had broken out with the Warsaw Pact countries we would have gone to Europe. They had around 150 divisions, we would have been one of 15. Wonder who would have prevailed? We were lucky, I was lucky. If the Soviets had sent bombers to the US when Bush was on active duty or if the engine in that rickety, cranky old 102 had failed on takeoff, then Bush might not have been lucky. But he was lucky. McCain was unlucky. Hal Moore lost about a third of his battalion in the Ia Drang valley. Hal was lucky, he is still with us today. They all served. Even I served. I honor everyone who served, especially those who saw combat and especially those who made the supreme sacrifise.

[pbfoot]

Viet Nam was not a place rich white boys with influence found themselves unless by choice.