Public Officials, the Media, and War!


Feb 24, 2008
Reaction score
So the media blew Prince Harry's cover in Afghanistan and he is now being sent back to the United Kingdom...

It caused a public outcry when it was announced that he would be sent to Iraq, so the mission was cancelled upon further research. Apparantly, he instead was sent to Afghanistan where he has been for quite some time. He has wanted to serve with his regimen for quite some time. Is it right for the media to agree to a deal and then break it? Should royals or any other high ranking public officials be sent into a war zone? What do you think?
I think it's honorable that Prince Harry served his country. The media has no right to unveil that Harry is fighting in Afghanistan, especially if they sign an agreement. The kid was doing a service to his country; he wasn't looking for press or any sort of special attention. So it's really the media's fault for blowing his cover and forcing him to be taken away from the battle field.

An aside: At least Harry and the royal family have a sense of what it's like to defend one's country. Look at the United States, where only two sitting Senators have children fighting in the Middle East (John McCain and Joe Biden, I believe). Christ, Mitt Romney said his kids didn't need to fight in Iraq because they were doing a better service by working for his campaign. Yet politicos feel the need to lambaste Harry because he's royal, since he was getting special attention by the media for quite some time because he didn't want to endanger the welfare of his regimen?? What nonsense.

Users who are viewing this thread

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"