Sorry NJ - this place has been making me very pissy recently. The answer to the question is not since WWII then, which is two political generations ago. It was said of T. Blair that he found it easy to send soldiers to war partly because he had never been there himself.
Good luck to young Harry, if he wants a career in the military, he can look any soldier in the eye.
Harry seems suited to it. Again, for anyone who has read my posts, I wish the man the best in his life, prince or not.
You have to understand that the UK is not aligned with Europe so much as with the US. It works to the advantage of the UK. Geopolitically the UK is the final strong hold of US security and the UK exploits this to their advantage by using the so-called
special relationship between the US and UK. The UK has a policy of supporting the US in its most important foreign policy relationships. This isn't one-sided. The US has pledged complete
defense of the UK no matter the cost. That means that the US will defend the UK no matter what. The UK represents a foothold in Europe. This was proven to US strategists in WWII and nothing has changed that. Come Hell or high water, the US will defend the UK with every ounce of her strength above and beyond any other European political entity. In return, the UK supports the US when possible. During the Falklands war Ronald Reagan offered US support, including combat support, to the UK. That meant the US was ready to devote its entire Atlantic fleet to British operations including direct engagement with Argentine forces. Thatcher cannily refused but it did mean that the UK had not only her own forces to count upon but the entire US navy as well had Thatcher but asked. There is no getting around it. The US and the UK are locked into a mutual strategic relationship defined by culture and geography.
Blair sent troops to Iraq because the US needed a coalition. Plain and simple, that's the case. Afghanistan is different. In that invasion the US had complete international support.
