Well, no one saw this coming! The British government has announced that Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq. They explained that, since he would be such a high-priority target, it would be an unacceptable risk to him (and his platoon). This sounds logical on its surface because (yes, indeedy) the mustachioed enemy would be chomping at the bit to display the Prince's skull on a stake, an effective technique used by the Prince's own great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather when his marriages inevitably became a tad "rocky."
But upon further review (and a rudimentary grasp of basic mathematics), it is logical to conclude that an increased risk to Harry's group would, by definition, lessen the overall threat elsewhere. Given there are a fixed number of "enemy combatants" (i.e. bad guys who streamed into Iraq only after the country was occupied) it stands to reason that Harry, the red-headed scamp, would not pose an increased security concern to the fighting force as a whole. And that, math aficionados, completely negates the British government's entire silly premise.
Wouldn't the TRUTH be refreshing every once in a while? A politician revealing an unpopular TRUTH?! I'd be happier than a poo-flinging monkey if the stuffy British spokesman strode to the microphone, cleared his throat and instead explained:
Prince Harry will be going nowhere near the middle east because he comes from a very powerful family of unelected origin. We would no sooner send this freckled imp into a war zone than we would send our OWN sons and daughters. While we are perfectly comfortable sending other families' children into an un-winnable war of dubious origin, when it comes to personal risk of any sort, well....we really don't do that...because we don't have to. In conclusion, it is typically those with few other options who are forced to fight and die. But if the war becomes truly hopeless we are more than eager to let the debacle continue rather than admit any failure. Good day and God bless.
These political bastards might be a little more careful about sending youngsters to war if there was even a 5% chance that their own fighting-age sons and daughters would be forced to serve. How many U.S. Senators (listening, Hillary?) would have voted for the Iraq invasion four years ago if their comfortable children might have been yanked from Dartmouth or Princeton and been asked to serve in Iraq for even a month? It is a sad reality that the very people who decide whether to attack a country are those who have nothing to lose (other than political points). Yes, a few Senators (like Jim Webb, VA) have sons or daughters in Iraq but they all seem to want a quick withdrawal. What a surprise! Personal risk certainly compels folks to think things through.
Prince Harry pretends to be deeply disappointed by his government's decision. But of course he is still free to fight in Iraq. Roughly 40,000 of the combined British and American fighting force is made up of "soldiers of fortune," hired guns not directly affiliated with the military. Harry can simply explain, "This war is critical and I must fight. I am dismissing the long-irrelevant monarchy as well as this prejudicial decision by my government and heading to Iraq in June." This would certainly prove his commitment to fighting. But don't hold your breath.
Our fearless Commander in Chimp constantly reminds Americans that the terrorists will "follow us home" the moment we leave Iraq. Sagely, he explains that we cannot leave until the job is done. He insists that this is a war that must be won. Yet he's never suggested that one of his own daughters might hop off her bar stool and devote a month (not 15 months, like the others!) of her time to fighting the Iraqi insurgency. Bush has never suggested that any influential people sacrifice in order to help win this critical war. Until the "elite" are forced to share a tiny percentage of the "ultimate risk," they will continue to vote on the side of money and power. But...
"The wealthy take up arms only when the impoverished rebel against them." -G. Ehringer
The occupation of Iraq was nothing more than an attempt to make certain Americans more rich and powerful at a time when slack-jawed Americans were eager to support an attack on any country full of light-brown-skinned people. And if we had prevailed (we never will), virtually no one in this country would have the balls to declare, "WE STILL HAD NO RIGHT TO SEND OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN A COUNTRY THAT NEVER THREATENED US!" Cuz' everyone likes a winner.
Those Americans who are against the war (about 200,000,000 of us, all of whom financially support this war) and do absolutely nothing to help end it, are accessories to murder.
In conclusion, I urge each and every one of you to stay well hydrated.