Shunpiking Online Vo.4 No.3 The prince goes to war By ELSA CLARO

(2 March 2007) - WITH the dispatch of Prince Harry, the younger son of the late Lady Di and the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, Premier Tony Blair is applying a dramatic effect intended to raise the morale of troops in Iraq, according to the British media.

The announcement was preceded by a barrage of propaganda on the withdrawal of 1,600 soldiers from those deployed in that Arab nation in which some 5,500 are to remain in place and be reinforced with other units like this elite one whose ranks include the prince, third in line to the throne.

It is feared that his stay in a scenario at a far remove from the distinguished college where he was trained, implies much effort and distraction for experienced soldiers who spend time on the ground and have to take care of their security.

But it is not impossible that if they allow him to make effective contact with the existing reality in that occupied nation, his criteria on war in general and this one in particular will radically change. That would be healthy in many senses.

When the United Kingdom accompanied Washington in this invasion it sent in 46,000 soldiers. Within a short period, it withdrew half of them and since then has been gradually reducing or refreshing the number of men, despite the fact that the Basra area, which has been in their charge almost from the beginning, is far more peaceful than other parts, including Baghdad.

But those withdrawals are not absolute. London is to spend around 250 million pounds sterling (more than 372 million euros) on sending a further 1,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, joining the 5,000 already there in the southern region, the location of most of the Taliban resistance actions and where drug traffickers are operating. An area that other governments do not want their forces exposed to, as increased losses would bring social conflicts to their countries.

These are aspects that have influenced the refusal to expand the number of troops and costs that this would generate when, in early February, the United States called for an increase in the 35,000 troops from various nationalities, under pretext of the still-hypothetical spring offensive to be launched by Islamic fundamentalists.

Pentagon chief Robert Gates made a dramatic speech on the honour of NATO, an organization that would be discredited if it loses the Afghan piece. But it did not produce the results he hoped for.

That is a meager harvest from the loyal Blair, and various politicos believe that the U.S. strategy in that Central Asian country is being reinforced not only on account of increased actions against foreign contingents but due to the effect that they are losing the war in Iraq and seeking to compensate the effect of that, while trying to obtain guarantees that the same thing that would not occur on this other front or that they would lose supremacy. That is the reason, more than a few specialists, for moving pieces in terms of Iran.

In the Iraqi context, since Spain withdrew its contingents, many others have followed suit. Of the Latin American nations, only El Salvador maintains a small deployment. The Danish troops leave this summer. Despite its great affinity with Washington, Lithuania is taking out almost all its soldiers, and Poland and South Korea are to do the same before the end of 2007. The flight is taking place when things are worse, in every sense.