Prince Harry SHOULD Serve to Learn Leadership by Example
Carlos Estrella
May 20, 2007
Mixed within the news stories concerning the refusal of the British Army to deploy Prince Harry to Iraq is a question of whether he or any other royal should even be allowed to serve in the military. Tradition dictates that Harry, William or other royals should serve, but is this a tradition to be followed in the United Kingdom or other countries (including the United States)?
It’s often been said that a person cannot be a President of the United States unless he (or she) has served at least some time in the military, and in England, male members of the Royal Family are expected to attend schools like Sandhurst and others that instill a sense of discipline unique to military service. Though U.S. President Bill Clinton did not serve in the military and was arguably a good president, the vast majority of American Presidents have at least some military background. Regardless of political party, it is a political “rite of passage” that many who aspire to the highest office of many countries must at least consider. Lost within the “fine print” however, is the simple question: why?
Though the concept of “fighting for one’s country” is muddled with the thoughts of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of learning discipline, leadership, job skills and service to one’s country is not only honorable but in modern times essential. Being able to “think on your feet” and “lead by example” are not only important job skills but in combat, a failure to do those things will get you and others killed. Isn’t the point of becoming a president, king or queen to rule rather than be ruled, yet understand that you’re a servant of the people?
Prince Harry was properly trained and according to his own military leaders, very qualified to lead troops in Iraq or elsewhere. At the very least, he is as qualified as those new lieutenants who in America, we expect to lead our young sons into battle. Though the decision to withhold him from Iraqi combat may be a sound one considering his status and potential ascension to the throne of England, many rulers and potential rulers have served in combat (including relatives of the Prince) and lived to tell the tale. Since death is a real threat to all of us, why use it as an excuse to withhold Harry from combat? As for the risk to others in his command since they would assumedly be in close proximity to him, no army in the world advertises who is in what combat zone, at least on the front lines. Does that mean that ALL British Army units would be at risk? It’s a COMBAT ZONE, so there will be risks!
In America, like England, we have young men and now women of status who still choose to serve, albeit not of a status like Prince Harry. Though not as popular among young people now, there is still a draw to the various military services in spite of combat in Iraq as well as Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rather than shying from military traditions, we should encourage them while at the same time encouraging those who serve to remember why they do, and what to do when THEY are the leaders and policy makers. If it’s true that the vast majority of the lower ranks are “of color” while the higher ranks are mostly white males, then we need to encourage minorities and women to lead by example if not by rank. That way, they leave the military as true leaders with real world experience that can help change attitudes, build bridges and maybe even change politics. For those who enter with “advantage,” they can see how those below them rank-wise can still lead them to excel, while teaching them that ability is both colorblind and gender-neutral.
Should we encourage our future leaders to serve in the military? Of course we should. If they are pacifists, there are other ways to serve that are very good as well. However, remember that not everyone you encounter is going to respond passively to your passiveness, and though it’s not impossible to send men and women into combat without serving in the military yourself, it makes it easier to understand the sacrifice, as well as easier to have restraint when you know that YOUR sons and daughters might be in harms way.
It’s often been said that a person cannot be a President of the United States unless he (or she) has served at least some time in the military, and in England, male members of the Royal Family are expected to attend schools like Sandhurst and others that instill a sense of discipline unique to military service. Though U.S. President Bill Clinton did not serve in the military and was arguably a good president, the vast majority of American Presidents have at least some military background. Regardless of political party, it is a political “rite of passage” that many who aspire to the highest office of many countries must at least consider. Lost within the “fine print” however, is the simple question: why?
Though the concept of “fighting for one’s country” is muddled with the thoughts of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of learning discipline, leadership, job skills and service to one’s country is not only honorable but in modern times essential. Being able to “think on your feet” and “lead by example” are not only important job skills but in combat, a failure to do those things will get you and others killed. Isn’t the point of becoming a president, king or queen to rule rather than be ruled, yet understand that you’re a servant of the people?
Prince Harry was properly trained and according to his own military leaders, very qualified to lead troops in Iraq or elsewhere. At the very least, he is as qualified as those new lieutenants who in America, we expect to lead our young sons into battle. Though the decision to withhold him from Iraqi combat may be a sound one considering his status and potential ascension to the throne of England, many rulers and potential rulers have served in combat (including relatives of the Prince) and lived to tell the tale. Since death is a real threat to all of us, why use it as an excuse to withhold Harry from combat? As for the risk to others in his command since they would assumedly be in close proximity to him, no army in the world advertises who is in what combat zone, at least on the front lines. Does that mean that ALL British Army units would be at risk? It’s a COMBAT ZONE, so there will be risks!
In America, like England, we have young men and now women of status who still choose to serve, albeit not of a status like Prince Harry. Though not as popular among young people now, there is still a draw to the various military services in spite of combat in Iraq as well as Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rather than shying from military traditions, we should encourage them while at the same time encouraging those who serve to remember why they do, and what to do when THEY are the leaders and policy makers. If it’s true that the vast majority of the lower ranks are “of color” while the higher ranks are mostly white males, then we need to encourage minorities and women to lead by example if not by rank. That way, they leave the military as true leaders with real world experience that can help change attitudes, build bridges and maybe even change politics. For those who enter with “advantage,” they can see how those below them rank-wise can still lead them to excel, while teaching them that ability is both colorblind and gender-neutral.
Should we encourage our future leaders to serve in the military? Of course we should. If they are pacifists, there are other ways to serve that are very good as well. However, remember that not everyone you encounter is going to respond passively to your passiveness, and though it’s not impossible to send men and women into combat without serving in the military yourself, it makes it easier to understand the sacrifice, as well as easier to have restraint when you know that YOUR sons and daughters might be in harms way.
Print
Email
