Hard Luck Harry

So today we hear that Prince Harry is not going to be deployed to Iraq. The MOD had previously said that the Sandhurst graduate would be going into active service as an armed reconnaissance officer. Now in a dramatic U-turn they say that the Prince is subject to a number of threats that would also affect those around him.

This is a controversial decision but this was bound to happen and it makes me question why Harry (or now Prince William should be in the army anyway if there is no chance of them seeing active service. This  decision limits them to desk jobs. In recent history all the Royals have some sort of affiliation with our armed forces - Prince Philip saw active service in WW2 and Prince Andrew served as a helicopter pilot in the Navy in the Falklands conflict.

Surely Prince Andrew  (also the second son - but not the only spare to the heir) was as much of a target if not more so on a huge battleship that could be easily identified. I would put it that Harry would be more difficult to target on the ground in combats. I would have thought that all the tactical manoeuvres would be done with an element of secrecy and it would be difficult to track one soldier among thousands. But then I know nothing about the army and maybe I assume too much.

Or maybe, as my cynical streak kicks in, the real reason for this decision is that the next in line to the throne after Charles, William and Harry  is in fact Prince Andrew and then his two daughters by (the outcast) Fergie - maybe, just maybe they didn't want to risk it!

In any case I have a lot of sympathy for the father of one of the boys killed in the conflict who pointed out that with this decision the MOD is saying that Harry's life is worth more than his son's.

Comments

[Zara Gibb]

I think you are missing the point, irrelevant of the fact that he is a Royal, Prince Harry being in Iraq would put every British soldier out their at greater risk as he would be such a huge target for the insurgents, and as we are led to believe specific groups created with the sole purpose of capturing/ killing him. I for one think this is entirely the right decision.

[Carl]

Agreed, unfortunately. I think the saddest thing is that after four years in what is supposed to one of the safer parts of Iraq the British military can't guarantee the safety of the heir to the throne, who would not only have been armed but also would have driven around in a tank. What about the regular inhabitants of Basra and the rest of Iraq? It doesn't say much for the present (or future) hopes of creating stability.

One (theoretical) question I have is what would the US military do if the President's son or daughter was in the military and due to be sent to Iraq? Most of the US military around Baghdad have currently been diverted from their normal duties and are looking for three captured soldiers. Last year Israel launched two wars to bring back captured soldiers. It seems like we can handle soldiers being killed, but not captured. I would say the decision about Harry is justified on these grounds alone. For his sake though I would like to see him serve in a more conventional theatre of war.