Friday, February 22, 2019

Prince Harry, Too Good to Die in Iraq, Tony Blair Resigns

by Charles Harmison (writer), Kauai, Hawaii, May 18, 2007


Major changes are taking place over at America's parent's house and it would appear that for Tony Blair, Bush's only remaining ally in the Iraq war who still exposed himself to his critics, Merry Ole' England has become little less merry.

Perhaps they sent Queen Mum over here to distract our President with all the pageantry. For while Bush was busy figuring out how to keep BBQ sauce off his new white tie, and as he stumbled over speeches that called the Queen hundreds of years old, some monumental decisions took place across the puddle, revealing that the steely resolved Brits ain't so resolved to lose their children anymore.

Prince Harry, who was set to leave for Iraq with his unit early this summer, has become, for many, the country's national symbol for their commitment in the Iraq war. Succumbing to pressure against his deployment, British officials announced yesterday that the third in line for the crown would not in fact go to the battle lines. This decision made in the face of numerous reports that he and his Blues and Royals Cavalry unit had become the number-one target for Iraqi militants before they even arrived.

Prior to these direct threats to his life, the decision to send the Prince in the first place has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. Now, with this back and forth over the issue the beef has boiled over.

Although nobody seemed surprised that the decision was made, given the obvious danger, families of soldiers set to leave have naturally begun to rally over the obvious special treatment. One woman asked reporters at the BBC, “Who do I need to speak to in order to stop my husband being sent there later in the year?”

In addition, those members of the families who lost soldiers have taken the hesitation to send the Prince as a slap in their lost loved one's faces. They claim that the sacrifice of their family members is made to look less important than a sacrifice of someone of the Prince’s stature by the decision to keep him out of harm's way.

In the face of all this division and turmoil Britain's embattled and beleaguered Prime Minister has announced his decision to step down. After 10 years, Tony Blair's teeter-totter administration will end early next month. Replacing Blair, apparently uncontested, is the next in line in the party, Gordon Brown. Leave it to the British to show us Yankees, how a leader graciously accepts that his country doesn’t want him anymore.

Whether or not this change in command of the "Labour" Party will actually bring all remaining British forces out, seemed the topic of discussion for a tear-felt press conference today with apparently best bed buddies, Tony Blair and President Bush. Amidst the incessant string of platitudes ranging from everything but the actual reach around, Blair promised that his resignation would not affect the British commitment to what appeared to be, Bush himself.

The truth of Blair's claim has yet to be determined. However, something certainly has been said about the British people by this latest decision regarding the Monarchy. This an institution widely upheld by these people as the true definition of their national identity separated from their politicians.

About the Writer

Charles Harmison is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

6 comments on Prince Harry, Too Good to Die in Iraq, Tony Blair Resigns

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Charles Harmison on May 18, 2007 at 12:27 pm
To whomever rote me the review, I meant to draw the reader into thinking that one was responsible for the other. Its called using the title to fool the reader into thinking they are directly related by the comma which also separates two separate thoughts in a headline. Just tying to be happens all the time, it's a kind of Journalism trick to grab the reader's attention Thanks for the watchdogging though you'll notice within the body of the article, i never make that claim. thanks for the good votes regardless
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 3
By Venditto on May 18, 2007 at 02:12 pm
In defense of the people who decided not to send Harry to war: I believe the decision was made to protect the members of his unit rather than the wee Prince himself. I would like to believe that given the choice, Harry would gladly choose to fight for his country. The question then becomes is it fair to the other men, who would be obvious targets, to put them MORE in harms way than need be? Then again, it just might be Harry's a big ol' pansy and asked Daddy to get him off the hook. Either way- nice article. Good use of commas ( I would've liked to see some colons though.)
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Charles Harmison on May 18, 2007 at 03:01 pm
ya i know i get stuck on those commas and i just cant stop. quick note i looked and looked but i think the rest of his unit is still going. in his defense Harry wants to go.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By crisdel on May 18, 2007 at 04:28 pm
This is a nicely written and well thought-out piece. Thanks Charles.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Charles Harmison on May 19, 2007 at 12:11 pm
crisdel- Thank YOU Garryc- i think its interesting that Harry created this situation in the first place. It sure put the British military in an awkward position. Did anyone else notice how much Harry looks like a puppet without his strings in the picture? It makes me laugh every time i see it.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By Jen on May 22, 2007 at 04:29 pm
"Leave it to the British to show us Yankees, how a leader graciously accepts that his country doesn’t want him anymore." Love that. we really want VP Cheney at the helm? Nice article.
 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us