bugger!

[winterbadger]

from the BBC

Prince Harry is to be withdrawn from Afghanistan after news of his secret deployment leaked out.

[sarcasm] Thank you, Drudge Report! [/sarcasm]

Comments

[wolfette]

are we surprised?

[winterbadger]

No, and it's probably the right call, but it seems a shame all the same...

[peaceful-fox.livejournal.com]

As you said, it's the right call, but it's a shame that it had to happen. I loathe Drudge, from the time the Drudge Report posted films and photos of beheaded captives, so I don't even go there...

[pisica.livejournal.com]

<devil's advocate> But what reason did Drudge have to sit on the story? It's news, he reports it. Some Aussie paper noticed it last month and the only reason they're not being hammered is because no one else picked it up.

What I'm really annoyed about was ITV being all sniffy along the lines of, 'if British troops die because of this it's DRUDGE'S FAULT'. Not the fault of a) the people killing British troops and b) the British government for sending them over? Not even a little?

I think Harry ought to be over there if he wants to be, and all power to him for wanting to do something more with his life than fall out of nightclubs, but I don't expect the rest of the world to honor a British news media blackout.</devil's advocate>

[winterbadger]

I'm inclined to see this through a "loose lips sink ships" lens. Yes, if there weern't British troops there, they couldn't be killed. Yes, if troops are killed by the Taleban, it's the Taleban's fault for killing them. But neither of those are things affected by whether or not Drudge publishes that report. The British government has decided that it is in the national interest to have troops there. The Taleban are going to try to kill NATO troops in Afghanistan no matter what.

But by identifying a High Value Target in their area of operations, Drudge is giving the Taleban information they didn't have about ways in which they can do damage to the UK that they didn't know they had.

Is there a strong compelling reason for Drudge (or the Australian paper--equally culpable, just incompetent) to publish this information? No, just the prurient pleasure of the public. If they were exposing misconduct, or something criminal, there would be a case; not here.

So to me, if the Taleban were to take action *based on* the information obtained by Drudge (and the Australians), then Drudge (and the Ozzies) are liable, at least in part, for what happens.

[pisica.livejournal.com]

Fair points. I see the logic behind most of them. *thinks* But I'm still not sure. And that is because there is no militarily necessary reason for 'Harry Wales' to be out there.

Yeah, okay, kid's been trained to kill and he wants to sink his teeth in; sure, it upholds the noble tradition of royals doing their bit for the war (even Grandma wore a uniform); and hey, if you're going to send British people overseas to get shot at, there's no reason why the ruling classes shouldn't send their posh kids as well. But it isn't as though his presence out there is going to make any difference to the war, or as if what he does couldn't be done by any other competent second lieutenant.

The MoD's decision to ship him over means they are deliberately and voluntarily putting a HVT in the Taleban's way without gaining any advantage by doing so. If, say, his presence over there was to negotiate secretly with Taleban officials who wanted to visit Buckingham Palace in exchange for stopping the War Against Terror, then that's one very legitimate reason to get the prince into the hot zone. And in that type of situation I'd be as annoyed with Drudge as you are. But while loose lips sink ships, this particular ship arguably has no specific reason to be out there (as the only things he does are a) things anyone trained could do and b) putting himself and his crew at risk); and, for that reason, I still think the MoD has more liability than Matt Drudge.

[winterbadger]

Mmmm, I disagree. There are a number of reasons for someone in line to the throne who has been trained as a combat officer to get experience in the line of fire. It gives him a better understanding of the responsibility he may someday inherit and it gives him a clearer view of the life of his or his brother's subjects. It gives British soldiers an assurance that the Royal Family *does* participate in the life of the nation, that it's not all about banqueting and socks (with a nod to Hugh Laurie's Prince Regent). And, it does recompense the nation a bit for training him in all those combat skills to have him actually use them. All of those things are important goods to be sought (unless one is a republican); none of them need people to know he is there WHEN he is there, but they do need people to know that he WAS there.

So, someone still needs to explain to me why it was important for Drudge et al. to report on his being there WHILE he was there. What unassailable public good was served by reporting on it NOW, instead of after it had happened?

[gr-c17.livejournal.com]

I must strongly second your opinion that "It gives British soldiers an assurance that the Royal Family *does* participate in the life of the nation" In particular because of the oath that each soldier takes;

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me."