previous post next post  

Speaking of Prince Harry and Matt Drudge...

By The Armorer on March 4, 2008 | | Comments (8)

I got chastised in the comments of my "Dear Matt Drudge" post, by a long time reader and emailer who pretty much thought I was gonzo stupid for writing the post. Rather harshly spanked, really. I admit I was surprised at the heat and the source.

Really disappointed with this post & comments. As I told the Vodka Pundit:

"Bored/Upset with Matt?
http://www.thenewsrightnow.com/index.php?view=sources

However, Matt takes what should be public knowledge, see Lewinsky, and really makes it public.
After all, where would drug addled/sex addicted icon JFK be were Drudge around during his Presidency? Not to mention attempted Castro assasination brother RFK?

As far as Prince Harry is concerned, I’m certain the Taliban, on reading Drudge, immediately attacked all British forces in Afghanistan in order to kill the Prince!

I’m really disappointed when blogs I’ve read and supported for lo these many years, seem to lose all semblence(sp?)of rationallity and common sense."

I left my response in the comments, you can tootle down there to read them.

Hey - we welcome the alternative views! The reason I reprise this is because of this comment within the comment:

As far as Prince Harry is concerned, I’m certain the Taliban, on reading Drudge, immediately attacked all British forces in Afghanistan in order to kill the Prince!

Funny you should mention that, Mike.

From The Australian:

Chilling reminders March 03, 2008 Prince Harry is a hero among thousands

No sooner had news broken of Prince Harry's 10-week service in Afghanistan, than an al-Qa'ida website was calling on jihadists to behead the third in line to the throne and send the video to his grandmother, the Queen. This is yet another sobering reminder of the evil mentality of Islamic extremists and of why the war on terror cannot be relaxed.

Emphasis mine.

The Defense rests.

H/t, JimC, the harsher of my mellow.


Update: Prince Harry's thoughts on the matter?

PRINCE Harry vented his fury at being forced home from Afghanistan, telling a squaddie: “I’m ****ing p*ssed off.”

His outburst came on the flight home after ten weeks on the frontline fighting the Taliban. But the prince insisted: “I’m no hero”—as he paid tribute to two wounded comrades on his flight.

I'd have a care if you go clubbing in London, Matt. You might find yourself face-to-face with a peeved Royal.

Update II: I see that there is agreement with my position over at Small Wars Journal, especially with my opening position from last week. H/t, Jim C.

Share This Article:

Categories:

8 Comments

By MajMike on March 4, 2008 7:39 AM
i concur with the Armorer and Murray's comments on previous post. OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC. NO personal identities should be attached to down range ops, and even more particularly the identities of High Value Targets.
 
By BloodSpite on March 4, 2008 7:52 AM
To me the equivalent is the same as SOCOM or Pilots You never list the names of bomber pilots in active missions. You never list SOCOM operatives by name Just because he's a Prince we have carte blanche to wave his name, unit and location? Thats painting a target on the rest of his units back as every Tom Dick and Mauhmad think's he can be the one to a bullet in the Prince.
 
By kat-missouri on March 4, 2008 9:03 AM
Sorry. I agree with the Armorer as well. The need to know must be weighed against the need to protect. We weren't talking about some secret government program that endangered the people of the nation or had drastic national defense issues. We're talking about protecting a single man's identity while his life is still in danger. We extend that courtesy to witnesses and victims, juvenile offenders, as well as POWs and their families in order to protect them as long as we can. that is the case here. The good in exposing the information is outweighed by the danger to an individual and should have been evaluated as such.
 
By AFSister on March 4, 2008 12:35 PM
Agreed with your original assessment, and still do. Drudge really screwed the pooch with this one. It has come out that he wasn't the first- I mean, yeah, he's popular, but not so much as to get that kind of information on his own- but it was his site that got the attention of the bad guys. I think I heard it was an Australian paper who first released it, but Drudge picked up and ran with it, garnering fame of the bad kind.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 4, 2008 1:30 PM
A German paper ran a speculative story that noted Prince Harry's absence from the media, and wondered if he might not be in Iraq. Then the Aussie magazine ran a story (and they have since taken a lot of guff over that), so clearly the information was leaking out, and I wonder if the MoD had considered the aspect of the Prince dropping out of the news and the impact that would have on people who make their livings being nosy? The Aussie magazine said that if they had known there was an embargo, they would have respected it - which shows another aspect of the problem from the MoD's perspective. I assume they were able to embargo the info in the Brit press because, not least anyway, of the Official Secrets Act, which gives the Brit government an enormous amount of leverage over their press that we wouldn't tolerate. I'm guessing it doesn't extend to Commonwealth news outlets. I still think that Drudge's editorial judgement was bad on this story. I also think Matt doesn't give a flip what I think. S'okay.
 
By Cricket on March 4, 2008 1:55 PM
Yanno, I had a snark all ready. While we all applaud Harry doing his duty, I would have preferred to read about it after his deployment.
 
By AFSister on March 4, 2008 6:44 PM
I also think Matt doesn't give a flip what I think. Yup. He never does...
 
By Trias on March 4, 2008 9:20 PM
The Aussie rag a tabloid called New Idea ran details first. I guess we can call them No Idea now. Now i'm visualising Osama frantically reading all the tabloids to get the latest goss on Harry. I hope he doesn't miss the latest fashion cos man he needs work. I'm with the Armourer on this one. I can understand the point made by Mike and it has some validity but this really is about OPSEC. This Drudge and indeed other mags could well have gotten this boy killed and stirred other problems. Lewinsky and JFK don't get OPSEC protection for their cases. The only gun Lewinsky was holding was Presidential. Oh granted i'm not actually as OPSEC absolute as ppl like the Armourer. I have not had to bother with the experience of it although i can understand it through the context of research confidentiality. It's not my job I don't know all the rules and i have nothing to personally or professionally loose. But think about it what are the costs of revealing versus the benefits? The number of events important enough to break OPSEC as a rare as hen's teeth. Remember too we're often talking only about a delay in info. Harry's activities (presumably no more or less heroic than others in his unit) would be fine released after he's safely tucked in bed back in Windsor Hotel. Mai Lai maybe would have been worth it. Events in Dafur too. No John we really aren't a colony anymore. In fact China and the US have more influence now than them. I suspect the Brits didn't tell the mags and papers to shut up here. Probably because if they did some upstart would have done it anyway. So there they are damned if they do damned if they don't. Resting on Media's honour is a really unwise thing to do but Harry had not a lot of choice.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.