There were increasing claims yesterday that media coverage of Prince Harry's 10-week tour in Afghanistan had been "propaganda" and overlooked a failed military strategy there.
Meanwhile, British newspapers reported that the 23-year-old was set to get a promotion following his time fighting the Taliban in the restive Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, cut short when a US Web site blew his cover last Thursday, forcing the military to withdraw him.
According to the Times and the Sun tabloid yesterday, Harry is guaranteed a promotion next month, having completed two years in the army, along with a ?5,000 (US$9,900) annual pay increase.
The Daily Telegraph also reported, quoting an unnamed senior source, that he will be assigned to train young soldiers in his role of Forward Air Controller, which involves calling in air strikes and and carrying out surveillance.
The prince returned to Britain on Saturday to a hero's welcome, and vowed to return to the frontline as soon as possible, though British military chiefs have said that prospect is unlikely for 18 months or so.
But dissenting voices are now beginning to be heard above the widespread praise for the young prince, not least because of the British media's agreement with the defense ministry to a news blackout until he returned.
The royal and his superiors say the coverage could help the public appreciate more their role in Afghanistan while the former head of the British Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, said it was "not unhelpful" for recruitment.
A high-profile parliamentary committee warned in January that pressure on Britain's military to meet its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, where about 12,000 soldiers are stationed in total, has battered morale and spurred experienced officers to leave.
Some, though, question whether the news blackout deal had eroded trust between media organizations and their audiences. Center-left publications the Independent on Sunday and the Observer both highlighted the lack of analysis about Britain's wider role in Afghanistan in the coverage of Prince Harry.
Former British soldier Leo Docherty, an Iraq war and Afghanistan veteran, said air strikes of the kind Harry called were not succeeding in winning the hearts and minds of local Afghans.
"This [the coverage] is war reduced to entertainment, willingly ignorant of the truth that young men like Harry, both British and Afghan, are dying violent pointless deaths in Helmand Province," he wrote in the Independent on Sunday.
The Observer said scant attention had been paid in the media clamor to the complexities of the NATO-led mission and tensions between allies, particularly over troop numbers and rules of engagement.
Little if any space had been given to recent claims about the Afghan government's fragile grip on power in the face of the obdurate Taliban, the difficulties of reconstruction or NATO's anti-narcotics strategy, it wrote.
The renowned publicist Max Clifford told the Guardian on Saturday he believed the deployment was a "total, superficial, PR exercise" aimed at "rebranding" Harry -- who has a reputation as a wayward party animal -- in a more positive light.
And one columnist at the Mail on Sunday said the focus on Harry and criticism of foreign media for breaking a gentleman's agreement was "sheer propaganda" that "may make us feel `our boys are winning' in Afghanistan."
"But this is not the truth at all," wrote Suzanne Moore in the right-of-center weekly.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS