quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Send him.
In the old days Princes were the first to go.
I was in the Navy during Vietnam. About 40% of my Boot Camp Company went to Vietnam either directly out of boot camp or to ships that later went to Vietnam.
The rest went to "A" schools and some of them later went to Vietnam.
One of the guys in my Company was killed when the Cruiser Newport News had an explosion in the number two 8" gun turret.
I was sent to a Fleet Oiler that went to the Mediterainian instead but had gotten back from Vietnam two years earlier so it's all in "the luck of the draw." About half of the "new guys" we got aboard were guys who had 18 months left on their enlistments and were returning from Vietnam. If you were commng back from Vietnam and had less than a year left on your enlistment you could request an "early out."
I think just about all of us on that ship were "working class guys".
I don't know if many Senators or Congressmen's sons were in the military then, probably not too many.
They were probably in the National Guard.
You had to "know" someone in those days to get in the National Guard. It was very unlikely that any National Guard Troops would be sent to Vietnam in those days because they had the Draft.
If they needed 25,000 guys they just drafted them.
When I was in the U.S. Coast Guard years later I had a CPO who said he joined the Coast Guard "so I wouldn't have to go to Vietnam."
"Guess where they sent my ass?" "On a Gunboat in the M..r F...g Mekong Delta!"
Yup, the Coast Guard went too and saw some of the heaviest fighting on those Gunboats. And they had very high casualty rates because they were totally exposed to gunfire from the jungle.
You can't dig a foxhole in the water.
If you sign up for the job and you're sent, you should go, period.
It doesn't really matter what your "position" is in civ land.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

However, the Royals, in my opinion hold special status beyond that of the normal celeb.   That makes them a greater target.  The greater the target, the greater chance of injuring and killing your troops - those that you are there to lead and protect.   I am not saying he shouldn't go necessarily, but not necessarily in his current capacity.  Liaison at HQ, Morale builder, something might be a better plan.  Especially in an unconventional war.   In a conventional war, I don't see the problem as being so great.  In a conventional war, specific units are generally not targeted, area targets are more important.   Just my 2 cents

You miss the whole underlying point KenDckey.  The day the children of the dilatants, dignitaries, presidents and kings start riding shotgun in Humvee's like the rest of us peasants, is day we will stop seeing these useless, stupid-ass wars like we have in Iraq--and possibly Iran next-- that seem to benefit just a minute bloc of the population.

You are right UR, those that start the wars should fight in them or at least their kin should. The last monarch to lead troops into battle was William III (William of Orange or know by the protestant Irish as Good King Billy) at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. That was basically to secure his crown against the overthrown James II. However, it hasn't happened since because the monarch has no political power (though he only had power then through Parliament). The President of the US has political power and as the Commander in Chief of US forces it seems only right he should have some sort of military obligation like fight in the wars he starts. The British prime minister has the power to send British troops to war so it is more fitting the Prime Minister's son(s) go to war than Royalty's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Well Ranger, first off I don't think that being the son/dau of a politician/royal/celeb makes a bit of difference from our perspective.   I do believe that it does from an oposing force perspective.  If they, and I believe they do, believe that they could gain an advantage in killing or taking prisoner Harry, then I believe they would jealously persue it.  That would put specific units - like Harry's - unnecessarily at risk.   I believe this because I think it could be used to stir additional unrest with the civil in the lands formeraly protected by the UK in the mid-east.   (Don't think Andy Jackson could have that effect)