The old imperatives are now replaced by newer and slicker ones, of PR and press management and "heightened security," and it just wouldn't make a story if the young man insisted on staying in the same trenches as his fellows.

Clearly a man who would go to such lengths to serve would not run from threats to his own safety. But such a man would do what was necessary to secure his men from unnecessary danger.

I usually find Hitchens quite amusing. However, in this case I think his efforts to be witty and fashionably cynical have distorted his view.

Ditto on what Maggie said.

Ry, Blackfive and Wolf say things are not as they seem, or as is being reported (check the comments, too).

jim b sips his Scoresby and announces

This just in ... via email

House Hearing HB 2811 Report

Well, the hearing was an enlightening day. Jordan and I were able to spend a couple hours with a gentleman from Greensburg before the hearing and I was shocked by what we were told.

As far as Greensburg, here is the shocking truth. I will simply state the facts. First of all, understand that it is not lawful to carry out a mandatory evacuation unless martial law has been declared. Martial law was NOT declared and folks in the town were told they had to leave and some were forced to leave at gun point because they didn’t want to leave.

The tornado happened at 9:46pm and they were forced to leave within a couple hours of it, being given no time to collect themselves or assess the damages or even try to pick up anything such as guns and valuables to take with them.

Ed Klummp, Police Chiefs Association, (Ed needs to be looking for a job) testified against the bill and said the evacuations were so they could search for bodies and shut off gas and power.

This town was locked down tight for 4 days and no one was allowed in or out. The only people in that town those 4 days were Sheriffs Officers, Kansas Highway Patrol Officers, ATF, FEMA, National Guard, Police Officers from surrounding areas and some volunteers from Ft. Riley.

They claim no one else was there or could have gotten in and out. Many guns and other valuables such as jewelry have gone permanently missing and have never been recovered.

There were some houses that were not destroyed and were in tact at one end of town. Those folks did not want to leave but were forced to leave. When they returned they found their front doors kicked in and all of their guns and jewelry missing. Guns and ammo that were collected were taken to a trailer (18 wheeler size) and an ATF agent manned the trailer.

The main source of this information was a ….. (information about the gentleman deleted by me to protect him) …..he said the ATF agent basically told him to take anything he wanted. There was no collection list and guns were NOT cataloged for location of discovery or anything like that.

Ladies, I've actually read Hitch's piece differently than you two: his line there isn't an indictment of Harry or his mates serving in Helmand, but a condemnation of the PR and "security" nannying that pulled Harry off the front lines.

From everything I've read, and from all I know of those who serve in uniform, I believe Harry and the Gurkhas he was serving with would have glad kept on with what they were doing regardless of the press or any perceived increase in danger because of who he is.

But the brass in Britain certainly weren't prepared for that, since in their minds, the idea that they're protecting Harry's life is more important than the idea that Harry and his mates might be willing to sacrifice that life for something he believes is truly important.

I'm pretty sure Hitchens was blasting the risk-averse brass and public, rather than Harry and those serving with him.

You know what the Brits are scared about? Either

a) he gets captured and they are forced to make a horrendous decision about whether they pull their forces or not to save him (and the public outcry might be to do just that and the Taliban would demand that), or...

b) he gets killed and the public goes vengeful crazy demanding air strikes in Pakistan and other hard core, short war attitude, or...

c) he gets killed and the public demands England leaves because the war is just not right and no one else is paying, etc, etc, etc

In srhot, they are protecting their operational ability at the far end with protection of their operation ability at the close end because all military has essentially entered the "risk free zone". I'm not sure if that's the public's fault or the military's.

Wow, Jim, that's right scary! Reminds me of New Orleans.

Makes one contemplate the possibility of maybe deciding to sell one's life dearly, in some situations very like some I've been through. (Wilma went right through my area.)

I'm sorta cat-like. If I'm feeling poorly, I'll just go hide out over here until I feel better, or die, whichever happens first. Don't you dare try to help me without my expressed desire and permission; I might have one bite left in me.
.

Admiral Fallon's departure gives a green deck for more hardier response to the Iran Question.

Iran should stand by now and be afraid. Be very afraid.

interesting aside: Gen George B McClellan was forced to resign on the same day, March 11 in 1862.

You're probably dead-on Kat, but that's what's sad to Hitchens, and why he says "But perhaps I should now write that everybody used to get this point." Because the old Britain wouldn't have pulled out of a conflict because one soldier was hurt or killed, even if that soldier sat reasonably near to the throne. The old Britain wouldn't have put the brass in a position where doing the right thing would have risked the whole damned war. The old Britain wouldn't have pushed the Army to back down when they should have been standing up.