I happen to think that this is quite good as so many people would be after him, it would be a nightmare if people caught him, and also, he would cost the MoD and hence the public money for people looking after him.
I don't know what side of the fence I sit on this one. On one hand if he's a serving officer he should go, but on the other hand the increased risk to his unit might be too high a price to pay. Now what's to stop serving soldiers refusing to go to a certain war zone, because they can claim it's not safe enough ?
Not the issue here. Most soldiers are expendable, the 2nd in line to the throne is not. Every Jihadist nutter will be gunning for him as soon as he sets foot on Afghan soil. Apart from the fact that this will make life for his fellow soldiers very difficult, I dread to think what the British government's (and public's) reaction would be if he did get killed/kidnapped. Like with the US after 9/11, every Joe Public whose reading ability of an 8-year old allows him to keep up-to-date with "politics" in The Sun will be screaming to have all vaguely Arab-looking people rounded up in concentration camps and/or summarily executed. We don't need the blind reactionary hatred, to be honest.
Feel kinda sorry for the guy - after all, he's spent his time training hard alongside his comrades, preparing for this, and now to suddenly be told 'no you can't' must be a bit demoralising in as much as he can't go out there with the friends that he's made in his unit and actually do the job he's trained to do.
I agree with that. Having heard people discussing the matter they seem to think it's just a matter of him being killed, and that he should go, but personally I think this is the right decision with the increased risk to the soldiers around him.
I think this is the right decision tbh - although he should go, it's better that he can't because a) IF he did go he'd have to have massively increased security, and b) IF he were to be captured or killed it'd be an embarassing farce for the UK.
It seems like one of those catch 22's. Send him, and the minute something happens, the military is to blame. Don't send him, and now it looks like the Prince is being shielded from danger. I understand why he isn't going, and agree with it. However I have to question why such a high profile deployment was so highly publicized. If it hadn't been plastered all over TV and the Internet, perhaps Harry could have quietly deployed with his unit without Insurgent's in the area being alerted to his presence. I have read some stories of the media being blamed, to which is partly agree, but I also believe that the military shouldn't have went public with it. I know they want Harry to have a good image and all, but they should have saved all the publicity for when he returned safely from his deployment.
They should have kept it out of the press completely, and only notified the media on his safe return. That way, nobody gets put at greater risk from insurgent attack because the insurgents don't know where he is, he gets to come home having done his duty, having done all that is asked and expected of him as an officer. The problem is, keeping his deployment secret (difficult - whilst I don't doubt those in his unit could keep quiet, since news of his deployment in Iraq would risk their own lives as insurgents step up their efforts to get harry, keeping it from everyone would be near impossible given how much of a story it would be and how much it would be worth to the tabloids. There'd also be the issue of how to manage any fallout were he to be killed, captured or injured on operations anyway, no doubt people then would be saying he shouldn't have gone and the heir to the throne shouldn't be risked. I was thinking about Nexxo's comment about Harry though... Why is he less expendable than any other soldier? So he's 2nd in line to the throne, but if he kicks the bucket then theres a third...where does one draw the line? Top ten are exempt from danger in the military, top twenty maybe? I also think about Prince Andrew's role in the Falklands War as a helicopter pilot for 820 NAS in the Falklands War which involved some very hairy flying, basically using his helicopter as a radar decoy in an attempt to draw Exocet anti-ship missiles away from Royal Navy warships. If Andrew was allowed to serve, why not Harry? I agree with the decision not to send him based on operational security issues, and the added danger to those around him were he to deploy, but I disagree that he should be spared dangerous service just because he's second in line to the throne.
As an officer in the Army Harry should be deployed with his unit which he has spent time earning their trust and respect. Prince Andrew was allowed and in the past lots of royals have been present on the battlefield. Although i do understand why it was decided that he would not be deployed he did accept the risk when he decided to join the army just like everyone else. His deployment should have been kept secret and the tabloids could have been scilenced with an injunction if that was required.
I have to somewhat agree. a) he is so important that his death/kidnapp would be a massive shot in the foot for all of the UK and the monarchy b) As others have said, I go to school with people who are 2nd and 3rd in line for certain thrones, and they are allowed to go and play Rugby aswell as going into Windsor (there are chavs, lots of them). I know its slightly different, but this does seem like a case of 'over-mothering' Also, remember, about 500 years ago Kings and princes fought amongst thier men and died by them so why change that now. Surely Harry could be like Leionidas from 300? Dieing valently next to his men? AJ
The reason Harry differs from previous Royals who joined the forces is this: Iraq isn't a normal war. The Falklands was a straight-fight, alright it was dangerous, no question, but there weren't covert Argentinian troops in the population, setting roadside bombs and capturing journalists. Iraq started as a normal war, and I'm sure he'd have been allowed to go to the invasion of Iraq, but now it's become a war of attrition, more bitter, even, than Northern Ireland. Insurgency is the most aggressive form of an attritional war, look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they've been at it for decades. The truth is, if we were fighting a traditional war, army against army, he would've gone, but these people are playing dirty, and are desperate to one-up themselves over the enemy at any cost. If that means capturing a member of the Royal Family, they will, without question, and exploit it to its fullest potential to their cause.
I disagree. I'd much rather that this useless, tax-grabbing ******* died than an honest man who has gone into the army to make a living.
But Harry is 3rd in line, after Princes Charles & William. IIRC, Prince Andrew was 2nd in line at the time of the Falklands' War, and the Navy had no qualms about sending him to the front lines. I'm not sure, though, whether the Argentinians knew enough details to allow them to target him or his ship. It shows how much the globalisation of the media has had an effect on the way battles are fought. It is a very difficult decision to make, and not one I'd like to have made...
OK so he's second to the throne...but he is also an officer Whoever thought it was a good idea to release the location that an officer in the Army (especially such a famous one) was going to be is a total idiot.
Ask and ye shall receive. I don't think this war is necessarily different; war is war. The amount and style of media coverage, however, is very different. Once the word got out that a royal was sitting in a tent on the battlefield, all hell would break lose. Harry might have the best intentions to fight with honor and serve with his companions, but everyone else on the battlefield (good guys and bad guys alike) would look at him for who he is: A person who would pull a lot of weight in the media. The movies have given us such a romatic vision of noble kings giving that emotionally stirring speech just before leading their faithful men into battle, swords drawn and horses charging. I think it's much more likely that the kings would send in the most expendable troops first. War costs money. Kings who go charging into battle generally don't last very long on the throne. -monkey
(I stand corrected: he's 3rd in line, and he is not going to Iraq.) It is, as always, about politics. It's OK for prince Andrew to risk his ass in the Falklands because nobody Argentinian particularly knew he was flying that helicopter over that ship, trying to divert exocet missiles. It was all anonymous and remote. Terrorism and insurgency does not have big, anonymous long-distance weaponry at its disposal, therefore it works at a much more up-close-and-personal level. It works psychologically. Specific targetting of a royal now has definite strategic value in demoralising the opponent. If Harry went, people would specifically look for him, and aim to kill him in tortuously unpleasant ways. They'd be making a political point of him. This happened in ancient times too: kings may have led men into battle (although not as often as they'd have us think), but they would get targetted specifically, and if caught, dispatched in particularly unpleasant ways to demoralise their men. Think of Hector in the battle of Troy... If Argentina had known about prince Andrew, he would have become the specific focus of their attention, because it might make the UK population wonder just how many royal deaths was worth a bunch of small islands on the other side of the world. But as long as war was fought remote and anonymously, there was little danger of that. With inurgency and terrorism, things are different.
