Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Harry, England and St George…

So Prince Harry has killed some fellas in the ‘stan. Well, that’s his job innit? Put a fellow in a GBP65mill choper and expect them to pootle then that is an obscene waste of money. He was there to stick 30mm chain-gun rounds up beards. Have you seen what one of those does to a personage? They cut you in half. And then there are the Hellfire missiles and Hydra rockets and that is DNA if you are lucky. You’re still well dead mind.

An aside: I’m glad the BBC has finally admitted Harry ain’t a pilot. He’s a gunner. I knew that months ago because I saw him get into the front seat of an Apache.

Well, it’s good Harry is back and in one piece (unlike so many of our lads and lasses that get C-17ed back in bits). God and Captain Wales possibly know. I don’t. After 9/11 we should have gone in done an epic stomp, bagged bin Laden and got the fuck out by January at the latest. Afghanistan is an unmitigated and unmitagetable shit-hole of the first water. I saw an interview a year or so back with a US Army officer. He’d been to meet the twinkly ol’ tribal elders and they’d given him tea and all. But when (he was an engineer) suggested building a bridge to this Allah-forsaken shit-hole which would create jobs and work and all the rest they were like nay! For all the young fellows were a-Talebaning. Well, fuck ’em I say! Post being nice to the locals this US Army officer didn’t say but gave every impression what he was really thinking. Which was basically, “Beam me up Scotty!” We could spend the next hundred years “nation-building” in the ‘stan and we would get nowhere. The gaff is undefuckable. It doesn’t even look medieval. It looks Jurassic. Either we get the eff out like now or we take the Lt Ripley option but this buggering about in what is Britain’s 4th (count ’em!) Afghan War is just an inglorious waste of blood and treasure.

You know how the Taleban came to power? Two warlords fought a duel in Central Kabul over the rights to the bottom of a young lad. They fought it in ex-Soviet tanks. I mean as you do. Most natural thing in the World – to get in your T-72 to claim your buggery rights. And that is how the Taleban came to power. People saw them as a stabilizing force. Obviously they were very evil but a choice between Islamist repression and complete anarchy isn’t much of a choice.

I’m just glad I don’t live there. I will be grimly curious as to what the female literacy rate is ten years from now.

I’m not hopeful.


  1. Paul Marks says:

    Yes it is his job – “Captain Wales” is a soldier.

    The last King of England to lead his army in battle was King George II (against the French).

    But there is no reason that Princes should not risk their lives – and every reason why they should share the risks in battle of others.

    Although my own opinion is that the Afghan war is a hopeless cause.

  2. Henry Crun says:

    I felt sorry for the young Prince having to field daft questions such as “did you kill any Taleban?”

    If there’s one thing soldiers don’t talk about, it’s the enemy they have killed.
    The British press really is staffed by complete fuckwits

  3. Mr Ed says:

    Captain Wales was unlikely to have been tailed by paparazzi in Afghanistan, so I don’t see why there was this pact with the media, as he put himself on show in Vegas in a situation where the risk of exposure (literally) was obvious .

    I don’t see why he bothered with the interview, and whether or not he killed anyone, from his view point, I would expect that it would be highly likely that he had, even if he never saw his victims.

    From the inception of the Afghan War, I had this feeling that the Guardianistas were for it as it would be an opportunity to impose Women’s rights at gunpoint on a patriarchal society, the lefty British press were full of chatter about the poor situation of women and girls under the Taliban. The argument that they were defending the UK from terrorism is so fatuous no one could seriously believe it, since the UK’s borders are effectively valves through which terrorists pass but do not leave, for fear of their human rights being breached, unless the Feds demand them on tenuous charges.

    And how come, like in Iraq and Mali, we always back the side that cannot fight? How did we find the side in Afghanistan that cannot fight? No one else has managed in 2,000 years.

  4. NickM says:

    Mr Ed,
    So what is wrong with women having rights? What isn’t wrong with a patriarchal society? I don’t want to impose anything at gunpoint – not for a bust flush anyway. But you want to take away the equality the females in my life have. You don’t just hurt them but me too. And every man who views a woman as their equal as I always have. You take away from me lovers and friends and that just won’t do. If a desire for gender equality makes me a Guardian reader then so be it. Actually a need, a demand. If giving women the rights they fought for in Britain and America and Australia and France and Germany and wherever civilization exists was both the agenda and an achievable goal then I would be OK with hundreds of dead British men and women. And Americans, and French, Germans and Poles and Danes and all the rest…

    But no. It ain’t like that is it?

    If I believed women were inferior I’d be growing a beard and beating my wife (though she has been to the gym way too much). Or commentating as Mr Ed.

  5. Mr Ed says:

    @ Nick M. Your entire post is a Brownian extrapolation, not a deduction.

    How on Earth did you get to: ‘…you want to take away from me lovers and friends…’ from an observation as to the motives of the Labour government for invading Afghanistan?

    I’m genuinely curious about your chain of reasoning, if it can be called that.

  6. Lynne says:

    I used to ask my dad if he’d killed anyone (a 22 year vet who went through both WWII and Korea). His stock answer was a humorous diversion.

    I’m fairly certain he did reduce the enemy ranks because he was in the Gloucesters during the Dunkirk evacuation. His mortar squad defended a crossroads to buy time. He fought his way across North Africa and up Italy (briefly taking in Monte Cassino before being posted to another zone). He missed out on the D Day landings but there were other, equally fierce battle zones. Since I wasn’t there and I never served I was never party to his war experiences unless they were family friendly ones, like the little mongrel, Scruffy, he and his mates adopted.

    Although he was a professional soldier he was of the opinion that war is horrific and killing people is something no decent person would brag about. He was deeply contemptuous of anyone who did.

    I share those sentiments.

  7. Tim Newman says:

    An aside: I’m glad the BBC has finally admitted Harry ain’t a pilot. He’s a gunner. I knew that months ago because I saw him get into the front seat of an Apache.

    Hmmm. I have a good mate who is an Apache pilot in the AAC, did 3 tours of Afghanistan. I believe the configuration of an Apache is that the chap in the front is the pilot, and the chap at the back the commander (I may have got the seats the wrong way around). In any case, they are both pilots: when you are the chap flying the thing you are pretty much a taxi driver; after a few years you become a commander and you decide where you’re going, what targets to engage, etc. I’m not sure who exactly fires the gun, but there is no “gunner” as such in an Apache. If Harry was in an Apache, he ought to be a pilot (unless he was just doing one trip for show).

  8. Paul Marks says:

    If I thought that most people in Afghanistan wanted to reject Islam I would support the military operation – and if me and Mr Ed fell out over it …… well we would forgive each other eventually.

    But I do not believe that most people in Afghanistan want to reject Islam – so I do not support the military operation.

    In fact I think it is doomed.

  9. NickM says:

    Mr Ed,
    (a) I did support the invasion and then changed my mind. I was horrified by the vileness of the Taliban and 9/11 was the final straw.
    (b) If you don’t think women have rights then you can fuck off. To Afghanistan where you’d fit right in. Of course that would mean never knowing (in any sense) a woman who could read or write. Dear God sir! If you want a domestic drudge and sex-slave then knock yourself out. I don’t.
    (c) My logic is fine. Oddly enough I’ve known a fair few female logicians. now if you think having ovaries makes you a dimwit then you have no place here. Or I don’t. Oh, and logic… I got back to back solid firsts from Nottingham University in Logic and I wrote my MSc thesis on Kurt Godel. So basically piss-off on the subject of logic.

    It has been doomed since the first off.

  10. Mr Ed says:

    @ Nick- you argue like a lefty.

  11. NickM says:

    Mr Ed,
    Is that actually an argument? I may argue “like a lefty” whatever that means but at least I argue. You merely come-up with truly Wildean rejoinders. It may surprise you to know that some of us who are generally right-wing on matters economic and stuff are actually in favour of women having the rights they enjoy in England but alas not in shit-holes like the ‘stan or Shoddy Absurdia or a dozen African countries. I guess what I’m saying is if it is considered religiously righteous to shot a schoolgirl in the head (she was casevaced to the UK for treatment and has done well and been given asylum here) for the temerity of going to school then why wonder when your’re still living in the dark ages? My point is not about moral obligation or whatever but practicalities. And we are not winning there if such a basic thing as education for girls is still something girls get shot for over a decade after we landed boot on the ground. Hell’s teeth! How long did it take from D-Day to Berlin. Exactly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *