KING GEORGE II was the last English king to lead troops into battle -- in 1743. Kings and princes no longer prove themselves worthy leaders through great military successes. While Eisenhower proved himself as a leader by his prowess on the battlefield, he was not a public figure beforehand. But now, Prince Harry has graduated from military school and wants to fight on the front lines of Iraq.
The problem with His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales, the third heir to the English throne, entering an active war zone is the incredible danger his presence on the battlefield creates for the troops around him. Although he will most likely never sit on the throne, he would make a high-priority target for terrorist groups due to his fame. While in the United States, the sons of senators, representatives, and other national policy-makers should not be immune to military participation because such immunity would allow them to declare war knowing that their own children would not have to fight, the situation in England is much different. The crown now holds no political power in comparison to Congress, so banning heirs to throne from military service is not a conflict of interest as it is in the United States.
In fact, it is in the best interest of Harry, the troops in Iraq, and the people of England that Harry be prevented from fighting in Iraq. While devoid of legal power, the crown still holds incredible symbolic power, making Harry a target for bullets and hostage-takers. He should be exempt from military service not because he is third in line to the throne, but because terrorists know that capturing or killing the person third in line to the throne will have a catastrophic impact on the war. In addition to hostage-taking attempts, his regiment will face an incredibly high risk of enemy fire, as the terrorists are well aware of the effects of killing such prominent figure as Prince Harry. It would be like Saddam Hussein sending his sons onto the front lines to command the Iraqi troops. The military would have to take extra precautions to protect Harry, and this extra manpower to protect the prince will remove troops from fighting in other places that need troops.
Imagine the implications of the Prince of Wales on camera; caught by terrorists with a gun to his head, demanding English (and perhaps even American) troops withdraw from Iraq. While the crown may have no legal power to pull troops from Iraq, the symbolic and historical power of the royal crown is very real, and would place incredible indirect influence on parliament to act. Also, since no official declaration of war has been made, Queen Elizabeth cannot use her power to declare the war over.
Dangerous rescue missions, no doubt, would take place in order to save Harry, placing countless additional lives at stake and redirecting troops from where they are needed. If the demands of the terrorists included U.S. withdrawal, this would also place tension between the two nation's governments who have previously acted as allies. As the United States would certainly refuse to meet such demands after already investing so much in the Iraq War, England could blame President Bush and Congress if they refused to withdraw troops and as a result, the terrorists followed through with threats to his life.
While it is honorable that Harry wishes to serve his country in battle, he will better serve it at home, perhaps assisting with the strategy of the war.Harry's short six month tour the potential for much more harm than good. Going into battle places too much risk on the lives of all of those under his command and could potentially endanger many more soldiers in the event of his capture. It behooves Parliament to prevent his departure for Iraq or any other war zone where his presence places those already stationed there at greater risk.
Greg Crapanzano's columns appear Wednesday's in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at gcrapanzano@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 4 hours agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 6 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
