Let's talks about Prince Harry and Camp Bastion.

[meltoine]

IIRC, he wanted to deploy with his unit years agow hen he first commissioned, but they wouldn't let him because they were afraid that he would be a huge target and endanger everyone else. Why they let him go this time I have no idea because clearly they were right the first time.

I respect that the man signed up to serve in the military and wants to do that, but I think if your presence puts your men in danger, then it's a selfish choice and you should stick to desk duty. The whole point of serving is to do it selflessly because your country needs you. His concept of service is misguided.

This may be flameful. But I'm ok with that.

[amaristella]

Assuming that the above is all true, then I would agree that his concept of service is misguided because it's based on what he wants for himself and not what's best for everyone as a group. To me it's not that different than someone who signs up, is told that they will deploy and then changes their mind and does everything that they can to get out of the deployment, to the detriment of others.

Now, I really haven't read up on any of this so if some of the details are actually different then I would change my mind. If it turned out that he was told to go this time rather than him badgering anyone else to let him go then I couldn't possibly fault him for wanting to do his job.

[Deleted]

This is like his fourth time to Afghanistan. One other time his location was leaked to the media and he was brought back home (this was after several months of serving there). I blame whoever leaks the information and the media for exploiting it. THEY are the ones endangering everyone else, not Prince Harry. Oh yeah, don't forget the enemy who planned and carried out the attack -- ultimately they are the ones responsible.

[softspot]

Sept 16, 2012 13:51:00 GMT -5 @villainv said:

This is like his fourth time to Afghanistan. One other time his location was leaked to the media and he was brought back home (this was after several months of serving there). I blame whoever leaks the information and the media for exploiting it. THEY are the ones endangering everyone else, not Prince Harry. Oh yeah, don't forget the enemy who planned and carried out the attack -- ultimately they are the ones responsible.

Is there room for me on this bench? The assholes leaking the info are the misguided ones, not PH.

[Jam]

Sept 16, 2012 15:53:08 GMT -5 softspot said:

Sept 16, 2012 13:51:00 GMT -5 @villainv said:

This is like his fourth time to Afghanistan. One other time his location was leaked to the media and he was brought back home (this was after several months of serving there). I blame whoever leaks the information and the media for exploiting it. THEY are the ones endangering everyone else, not Prince Harry. Oh yeah, don't forget the enemy who planned and carried out the attack -- ultimately they are the ones responsible.

Is there room for me on this bench? The assholes leaking the info are the misguided ones, not PH.

Slide over, ladies, or I'm sitting on your laps.

I still can't get over how much information about his location was released by the media.

[softspot]

I mean, if we're going with the thinking of the OP does that mean that there shouldn't be USO concerts by famous people, that the POTUS should stop making visits, etc?

[meltoine]

The first time he was going to deploy, Clarendon House released the info on his deployment before he left as an update on his career. They started receiving threats and talk began about not letting him go. He said basically, "I didn't work my arse off at Sandhurst to stay back here and sit on my hands. If they make me stay I'm leaving the military." The Queen made the final decision that he would not go along on that deployment and talked him out of leaving the military.

He deployed once successfully for 3 months without incident. This is his second deployment that he actually went on. I'm unclear on whether Clarendon House released the information about his location of if the media leaked it. I've read reports that state both.

I think it's totally different than Presidential or USO visits. Those are short term with extraordinarily heightened security, not a months-long tour where the person is essentially a sitting duck, stationary on the base. Also, his comment about working so hard at Sandhurst and being all pissed about not being able to do his job is what makes me feel like it's a selfish decision. He's there because he wants to do what he wants to do, not because he was ordered to be there or because of some deep desire to serve.

[meltoine]

He is a target. Him being there makes his men a target. I get that he trained hard and wants to work, but that's his desire, not necessarily what's best for his men, given that his presence puts them in danger.

[G22]

Sept 16, 2012 22:12:23 GMT -5 killercupcake said:

Or maybe he has a desire to serve, worked his ass off to do it and didn't want to be sitting around doing nothing when he could be working?

This was my thought also.

[meltoine]

KC- was it not made public that he was the target of the attack? I'm pretty sure that means that it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't there.

[beans]

Clearly, you're not going to see that it could be possible that Prince Harry is not being selfish and has an altruistic or other reasons to deploy besides "wanting to do what he wants to do". So why try to convince you?

Why specifically do you think he "wants" to be in harms way? Like, what does he get out of it? Notoriety? (not like he doesn't have that) death wish? picking up chicks with his war stories? (like he has a hard time getting women?) wishing his comrades to get hurt? I guess other than fulfilling duty and doing the job he was trained for, I don't see a personal benefit from being at war. Is personal fulfillment of serving in a war selfish? I would say any person who trained really hard with their unit (or whatever) and then got told they wouldn't be deploying to do a job they trained and wanted to do (even looked forward to doing) would be upset. Seems like human nature to me. Especially if people were acting like he was a spoiled prince who never had to do anything- I would be defensive, too.

At that, the innate reason humans do *anything* at the root of it is selfish. I volunteer to give back because it makes me feel better. Helping people makes me feel fulfilled and like I am making a difference. I guess that could be selfish too. Granted, I am (generally speaking) not "putting anyone at harm" but you get my point. If he has successfully deployed without risking anything, I think he shouldn't be punished because of what could possibly happen. They obviously have a system for working things out, so let them do that.

[meltoine]

Never mind. Re-read. Apparently initial reports were that he was the targets, but the Taliban has since released a statement saying the attack was in response to the video. I hadn't seen the update since the taliban's statement.

[bigmamma]

You are all missing the most important point. He cannot deploy because he doesn't have any pants. He left them in Vegas.

[meltoine]

My original point - now somewhat, though not entirely moot given my updated understanding - was this:

Yes, he worked and trained very hard to do a very important job. That's awesome. But not everyone who works hard and trains hard gets to deploy with their unit, for various reasons. My thinking is just that there are other people who can do his job, who don't put their men's life in danger by simply being there. Therefore, I think it's a somewhat selfish choice because his deploying makes him feel good, but puts his men in danger. Win for him, lose for everyone else.