http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/16...html?eref=yahoo

Some top generals in England decided recently that Prince Harry should not be sent to Iraq because of specific threats against his life. Considering that he is a member of the royal family, it is plausable that he would be a VIP target if he did get sent to Iraq to fight against the insurgents.

But here is the dilhemma. The man was trained to be a soldier and wants to do his job. And a soldier's job during wartime is going to be dangerous, regardless of whether the soldier is a famous person or not. Now, some people will say that having a VIP target like the Bush daughters or a Royal prince will pose a danger for their military unit because of their public stature. But I say that all soldiers accept the risks associated with war when they choose to join the military and serving alongside with a famous person should not be a cause for alarm. If the Government did not want Prince Harry to be sent to a warzone, then they probably should not have let him into the Army. So the question for debate is,

Should the British Government allow Prince Harry to deploy to Iraq with his unit?

Should the British Government allow Prince Harry to deploy to Iraq with his unit?

Harry wants to go to Iraq and he wants to do what it is he was trained to do. Even the most cynical of us wouldn't believe he would go through boot camp and all that hell to sit home and watch as his brothers in arms go and fight. The decision was made because of specific threats on Harry's life by insurgent groups. The increased pressure )along with the special forces unit assigned to protect Harry) would hav garnered too much attention and would have probably put the other troops in his unit in greater danger. And i think thats the biggest thing. The troops dont have it bad enough that they are in a warzone, but to be seeked out and targeted...doesn't make it any easier. This is a smart move to protect those soldiers. Send Harry to Eastern Europe or something...plenty of things he could still do.

Should the British Government allow Prince Harry to deploy to Iraq with his unit?

No. Not only would there have been a danger to Prince Harry, but his presence might have increased the danger for others in his regiment. Is it possible that one or more of the forces in Iraq would blow up a whole unit to kill one man? Yes!

I find it hard take this question seriously. Our own commander-in-chief has done such a crappy job with our military, that one wonders about Americans questioning British decisions. This must speak to American arrogance.

Leder, you beat me by two seconds.

Should the British Government allow Prince Harry to deploy to Iraq with his unit?

No, for the reasons already indicated in this thread. It is more important at this point that the regiment be as effective as possible than to have the third-in-line around to protect and draw fire. I do think it's pretty gutsy, though, for Prince Harry to want to go to Iraq to fight.

I haven't seen any of Bush's family (you know--our home-grown "nobility") stepping up to show their courage and expose themselves to danger over an extended period of time like that.

Even if Prince Harry doesn't go over to Iraq, the men in his unit are going to still got shot at by the terrorists. Every soldier in Iraq is going to be fair game, royalty or not. At this moment, the US Army is searching for 7 of its soldiers who are believed to have been kidnapped by Al-Qaida. Given the way the enemy works in Iraq, every American and British soldier is going to be a trophy target no matter what. And I frankly don't see how the mess in Iraq can get any worse. Even if Prince Harry was not the prince, just going over to Iraq as a civilian would be an extremely dangerous thing to do.

Nonsense. Resorting to the old Bush theme about terrorists is a bit simplistic. Do you think only terrorists are planting roadside bombs?

Do you not suppose that if either or both the Bush twins went to Iraq that they wouldn't be prime targets for killing or capture? Do you not think this would present a secret service nightmare? Why so much concern on your part about what the British are doing?

I'm not trying to give George Bush a free pass on this one. Without a question, the Bush and Cheney daughters, along with the college age Republicans who supported Bush's Iraqi invasion, need to step up to the plate and do military service in Iraq. As far as secret service nightmare goes, soldiers don't get secret service protection simply because they themselves are trained to handle security matters. If the Bush twins and the Royal Prince really were prominent targets that would create additional dangers for their units, a simple answer to that would be to create a special VIP-brigade consisting solely of politicians' sons and daughters and let them fend for themselves.

No.


I may not agree that Prince Harry, or his family, deserves his priveledged position but to send him into Iraq will endanger the military activities of the British forces there, especially given the role of his unit (armoured recon). In respect of the specific threats made against his presence then it became necessary to stop his "tour of duty" in Iraq - to do otherwise would have seriously impinged on his units useability in the field and would have been a substantial hazard to other British forces.

And just thing about the victory he represents to some groups if he was to be captured and killed.

There is a parallel between the Bush twins and Prince Harry. I don’t support sending any of them to Iraq.

We have a volunteer military and the twins are under no obligation to join. Some may see the twins in Iraq as a sort of poet justice. I don't. They have been rather quiet since the comic debacle at the 2004 Republican Convention. In other words, they aren’t “out there” as poster children for this damnable war.

I despise Bush, but he, not his daughters should pay for his misdeeds.

While the twins were on vacation in Buenos Aires, Argentina in November, someone stole Barbara’s purse, even though she had Secret Service protection, which they get by law.

Do you not have the imagination to see the problems involved? Can’t you just see two women toting guns in Iraq surrounded by secret agents to protect the two soldiers from harm? It would be a nightmare for the Secret Service and and present a distraction for their unit. If the secret service can't seem to do it's job in Argentina, how in hell would they do it in a war zone?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6171600.stm

The same problems exist in wanting to shuffle Prince Harry off to war.

No. It is not fair or safe for the unit – which will become an instant target of high priority for AQ.
Better he serves elsewhere. You can bet he will be bitterly disappointed that he is kept back but such is life.

Yes I think Harry should go to Iraq. The boohooers who think he's special and ought to stay safe at home don't seem to have the same sort of life-preserving respect for their own GI's who are being butchered in Iraq. And another thing is the insinuation that Harry would be in danger while ignoring what they're really saying: Intel wouldn't be able to keep his unit and location to themselves. For the freedom fighters to know when to kill Harry, some Israeli or Iraqi intel brethren would have to tip off the freedom fighters. Or does Harry carry a big purple Royal flag into battle..you know, so the bad guys know he's 'special'?

"Some top generals decided...

....Should the British Government allow..."

It's the British Army that has prevented Harry from serving Granny and Country, not the British Government. I suppose the government could over-rule the Generals, but that would open a whole can of worms and gut the command structure...

But I think you mean to ask "Should he be allowed...", and most other people have answered as if that's what you mean, so I'll go with that.

For the record, I am a (small 'r') republican when it comes to the British Royal Family. They don't derive their legitimacy from the people, but from God, and I don't belive in God, so cannot in all conscience accept that they are anything other than an anachronism and a symbol of present-day privilege and inequality. That said, I hold no particular ill-will to them as individuals. (Except maybe Prince Charles, who is a buffoon of the first water).

Tentatively, yes, I think he should go, for several reasons.

1. He wants to go, and is old enough, smart enough and well-trained enough to know the risks
2. In the frenzied press speculation that has arisen since it was first mooted that he might go to Iraq, not one of the suggestions that the men under his command would face unacceptable risks has come from or is attributable to (even indirectly) the men under his command. While lots of royal-watchers and, if I'm honest, people who are deeply opposed to the Iraq War per se have said the risks are too high, the soldiers most directly concerned, and their families, have not.
3. If such dissent existed, I have no doubts that in these leak-prone times, somebody would have said something to somebody which would have got into the media. This has not happened, which makes me think nobody directly concerned in Harry's deployment (i.e. him and his men) is deterred by the high likelihood of extra close targeting by the enemy.
4. I would have thought that having extra enemy resources chasing around after Harry's unit might take at least some pressure off other units in Iraq. It would be no fun for him & his men but, by acting as bait, they could perform a useful service if carefully deployed.

I was vaguely and unpleasantly surprised by yesterdays announcement, which I can only assume arose either because of some undiscolsed intelligence, or pressure applied by government or even the Royals themselves (the British Armed Forces swear loyalty to Queen and Country - nowhere are people and Government mentioned; source of my weak joke in my opening paragraph, and another reason to peacefully dismantle the monarchy.)

The only question that really matters: Would Harry endanger the mission, or add to the mission?

Regardless of his capabilities as a soldier, or his personal desire to go, his presence in a combat zone would be an irresistible target. Somewhere in the UK, an NCO is sighing with relief at this news. For starters, security measures would have had to be implemented to deny the insurgents/terrorists actionable intel (which is impossible as the press would follow his every move). Actions made to protect him would jeopardize other soldiers. Simply a huge waste of resources for everyone involved.

I understand the counter arguments. Harry is either a soldier or he isn’t. Well, he should have gone into military medicine, law, or perhaps become a pilot. His position makes him worse than useless as a ground soldier.

Mrs P nails it. Does his presence help or hinder the mission? Of course, determining exactly what the mission is bears on that question.

As for dismissing the notion that he may be targeted because "everybody is targeted", such dismissal simply illustrates a collosal ignorance of military history.

Just one example of the efforts a combatant will go to in order to "engage" (i.e. kill or capture, kill in this case) a single individual, consider the effort to get Osama Bin Laden. Now, before those of you suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome go off that BushCo isn't making enough of an effort, consider the assumption underlying your charge, namely, that we should make tremendous efforts to get one man.

For a second example, I give you the Death of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.