Hazardous duty

Taliban threaten to kill Price Harry/aka Capt. Wales

Capt. Harry Wales, British Army, AKA Prince Harry, is doing his bit for Queen and Country in Afghanistan and once more is clambering into the breach and the local bad guys there are not happy. In fact, they either are going to run him out of the country in fear for his life, take him captive or kill him, if they have their way.

Well, this is where the rubber meets the road, as we used to say back in my armored days. Will the good captain do what he obviously wants to do and show all those doubters that even if he is currently the third in line to the British throne, that he can serve his country as well as any other Briton in a very dangerous place? Two points, for Harry for at least talking somebody in the British hierarchy into letting him do the job he trained to do.

Yes, it makes him a high-value target to some people, but it also shows that the monarchy is willing to put its own on the line in support of its government’s policies. I just hope they have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course.

You all may not agree, but Capt. Wales life was never meant to be simple or easy. That comes from living in the fishbowl as a member of the royal house. Grant him his due in that he has tried to be what any second or third son of British gentry has done throughout its history and that is make a place for himself by serving the nation in the military.

The history buff in me remembers there is an old saying about noble families in Great Britain: To the manor goes the first born (i.e. he inherits the family wealth), to the church goes the second (not so much anymore, especially with royals), and the third son goes into the military (Army/Navy, it doesn’t matter) to make his own fortune.

Being a royal makes him a target, but that has always been the case for royals on the battlefield. It was the reason he was pulled from his first tour in Afghanistan a few years back because his highers got cold feet about exposing him. Maybe they will show a bit more of the heralded stiff upper lip, the Brits allegedly are known for, this time.

My hat (Kevlar, if I still had one) is off to the young prince and I wish him well for he definitely is going in harm’s way. May God grant him a good ship, and a good crew to take care of him and it, and may he always find a fair wind to guide him back to base.

At this point, I am not going to debate whether his presence is something that should be happening. I only hope that he and his fellow tommies, as well as all the other members of the ISAF force in Afghanistan will do their best to keep each other alive and do what they can to defeat the Taliban and its allies … or at least convince them that after more than 30 years of warfare, maybe it is time for the tribes to stand down and let the villagers live in some sort of peace.

I don’t look for that to happen, because as the Brits learned a century and more ago, the Afghans are tough fighters and they never seem to give up or surrender to anybody - regardless of what flag they carry.

As for Harry, he is going to earn his hazardous duty – aka combat – pay this go around, as well as his spurs as an airmobile cavalry trooper with his AH-64.

We band of brothers

Capt. Wales' support network
The United Kingdom’s Prince Harry probably already knows he is not a normal human being, but he needs to work on it a bit.
Still, from a trooper standpoint, Capt. Harry Wales has burnished his credentials a bit: He is a trooper in more ways than one. Not only is he a qualified armor officer, but now – like his big brother – is a qualified helicopter pilot (although one with Cavalry spurs of an AH-64 pilot). I will say this for the Wales brothers; they seem to be good leaders and good flyers.
Now, for Capt. Wales’ little dustup in Las Vegas: What was it they say about Vegas – “What plays in Vegas, stays in Vegas” – well, in this case (as in most actually) it doesn’t.
Ok, he is a single 28-year-old Army officer with lots of money to spend. You expect him to act like monk or something? However, being humanly rowdy, his fellow troopers can appreciate his hijinks and his hijinks are something of a tradition in the British army.
One of my favorite authors, John Masters, was a former British brigade commander who rose up in the Gurkha regiments during the late stages of the British Raj in India and during World War II. Read any of his books on British army life, or his autobiography, and you will find such hijinks sprinkled throughout the life in a British officers’ mess (off duty time). It seems it is part of the ritual.
Given the type of life soldiers live, such reaffirmations of being alive take on a special meaning that is difficult, if not impossible, to explain to people who haven’t “been there.” However, to those who have, then they know a solidarity that makes soldiers (of all uniforms) truly a band of brothers. Prince Harry has expanded his “band” to encompass a multitude and I have no doubt that were he to lead a charge, there would be many followers.
In a sense, that is what leadership is all about. Making contact with your followers and getting them to identify with you enough that they will follow you into Hell and back.
(Of course, I wouldn’t recommend such hijinks in today’s environment of cellphone cameras and the internet. Too many people just won’t understand when it inevitably gets out.)
Shakespeare put it best in Henry the Fifth (You know Harry is another version of Henry):
Henry V's Crispen Day Speech
“But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”

Diplomatic immunity?

British threaten to enter Ecuadoran Embassy to arrest Julian Assange
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange probably has been granted political asylum by Ecuador by the time you read this, but I doubt he has been arrested. (As my progressive friend out west posted on his Facebook site about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday (8/15/2012))
Granted, the British can, if they want to invoke one of their own laws, march in to the Ecuadoran embassy in London to arrest Mister Assange. However hardball at this juncture the Brits want to play this, I do think that they will think twice about going into the Ecuadoran embassy.
To me, the whole issue a tempest in the proverbial teapot, but apparently the Swedish authorities think they have reason to bring rather serious charges against Mister Assange (unless you want to dismiss claims of rape, which seems to be the European bent these days when people in influential positions who have allegedly consensual sex with women, that the women claim later was not so consensual).
It seems that the biggest fear Assange has is that somehow he is going to be extradited to the US and then put on trial for espionage and then executed. That would be a circus.
Unlike some people, I don’t view the US government or its plethora of intelligence and security agencies as being all that capable. Sorry, guys, but we ain’t that good and never have been.
Assuming that Assange was extradited from Sweden or even Britian to the US, I don’t think he would be “disappeared.” Sorry, he is too high profile for that to happen. So, that means he would wind up in a US court – not a military one at that – with all the fun and games that means. Nope, I don’t see him being strapped to a gurney to get his lethal dose happening.
So, what else? Well, it is going to be a trick to get him out of the Ecuadoran embassy to anywhere, and I don’t think his chances of that happening are very good. Of course, he could spend the next several years enjoying the freedom of said embassy, but I don’t think he is going to like that much.
Whatever he may think of the charges pending against him in Sweden, which led to the European arrest warrant, he also faces problems with violation of his bail in Britain. However sympathetic to the man you may be for the things that Wikileaks has done, if you are supporter of the rule of law, then his behavior makes him in the wrong.
Those people who think the World Court, or the European Court of Human Rights, is going to step in better think twice about what they wish for. Sweden, regardless of what you may think of the charges, does have a valid warrant outstanding for Assange. If you want to invalidate that warrant, then you really are striking a blow at the entire international legal system and elevating one man above the law. I am not sure even progressives like my friend out west want to do that, but I may be wrong.
No, I don’t think that the British should march in and seize Mister Assange. That action would set a very bad precedent for all nations. By the same token, I think it would be wrong for Ecuador to grant him political asylum to prevent his return to Sweden.
Embassies are not to be refuges for basically common criminals, but I know the US has protected its share of “refugees” over the years. It also has surrendered its share, including a Chinese dissident earlier this year (of course, a deal was cut and he was allowed to leave China).
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear a person calling others to the barricades for someone who has the morals of an alley cat. But then, if you don’t like the US, or its government, or respect that sometimes communications are better left under seal, then be ready for the backflash … I am sorry but the US constitution, and the European declaration of human rights, really doesn’t apply very many places and you have to get used to that fact. It is not pretty and it does not make a lot of people happy … especially those in the US who are fat, happy and sassy and take those rights as a given. They aren’t.

Looking for conflict?

Argentines ban British ships

Not real action - UK commentator

This really appears to be a tempest in a teapot, as my Pappy used to observe.

Argentina apparently has banned ships carrying the flag of the United Kingdom from paying any port calls in the province surrounding its capital, Buenos Aires.

What is the big deal? None, really, but it appears that the current government still is in a snit about the Falkland Islands remaining under British control. Back in 1982, the Argentinians got their derrieres handed them after they tried to seize the islands (inhabited by English-speaking people who mainly herd sheep and go fishing in the South Atlantic). The Argentine government goes on one of these spates every now and then, I guess, whenever it risks becoming unpopular with the people.

Still, it would seem to me, that the Falklands should be ruled by the people that the people in the Falklands want, and, at last look, they were firmly on the side of being governed from London.

The whole dispute, however, is over … drum-roll please … OIL. It seems that under the seas around the island archipelago there are possibly significant quantities of petroleum and natural gas. Since oil and gas equal money in the bank, something every nation needs, the Argentinians are rattling sabers again trying to provoke the Brits into giving the islands to Argentina.

It is not that the Argentines really have any claim to the island group, since it really hasn’t exercised any control over them. Its only claim is that the islands like less than 300 miles off the coast, while London is some 9,000 miles away.

Then again, it is quite doubtful that the current Argentine military, at least from reports, is up to the effort of trying to pull off another invasion. But then again, the Royal Navy isn’t really up to launching a counter-invasion like it did in 1982.

Actually, the whole thing is a farce. My solution is for the Falkland Islands to declare their independence, ally themselves with Britain, and then join the United Nations. What the heck, it has worked for some of the island chains in the Pacific.