‘Bomber’ Harry

The premature, unscheduled withdrawal of Prince Harry from Afghanistan remains inadequately explained. The official narrative was at first sight accepted - that Harry’s cover was blown on the web - and it was not realized that the disclosure and withdrawal may have been premeditated. After all, if the presence of a contingent of United Arab Republic troops in Afghanistan for five years can be kept secret for political reasons, then it is clear that secrecy for one officer is not impossible to maintain.

That this ‘pullout’ followed hard upon the ‘leak’, without further delay or discussion, is at least indicative of the fact that the leak was expected and arranged. The Afghan pullout is in marked contrast to the prevarication attending Harry’s intended deployment in Iraq. That decision took several months, much agonizing, and three changes of mind before it was aborted.

Note that the Afghan withdrawal was predicated on concern for Harry’s ‘safety’. An officer, with a Gurkha bodyguard, in a war zone? Safety from what exactly, in combat operations? Safety in what way compromised, by knowledge of his presence on the battlefield, which could have been plausibly denied, and his exact location effectively concealed?

The hysterical idea that the presence of royalty on the battlefield would lead to hordes of fanatical fuzzy-wuzzies seeking martyrdom, thereby endangering the lives of all other troops within spitting distance of Harry, derives from a heady and ill-digested mixture of Kipling, Rider Haggard, TE Lawrence and John Buchan's 'Gordon at Khartoum'; all secured by public school infantilism.

Prince Harry’s withdrawal was perhaps in belated recognition that the longer his exposure to uranium poisoning, the shorter his possible life span. Whether ten weeks exposure is enough to endanger health remains to be seen. Afghanistan is not Iraq, but in terms of radiation poisoning it is not far behind.

The only alternative explanation is that it was realized Harry’s role as air strike controller may have resulted in his inadvertently calling in bombardment on women, children, the sick or the aged - civilians, in other words. We know that such occurred soon after Harry’s departure. We will save the MoD the trouble of denial, by not suggesting that similar may have occurred during the Prince’s deployment. Such mishap, either involving Harry directly, or even by the contamination of association, would have brought censure on the Monarchy. Let it not be forgotten that the deployment of Prince Harry came, if not at the instigation, then certainly with the blessing of the Sovereign; and the implication of a Prince of the royal blood would have sharply accentuated the war criminality of the whole enterprise.

There is no such thing as a good war. There are just and necessary wars, of which history provides so few examples. So very few!

Killing Afghans and Iraqis is not one of them.