Front line Iraq 'too dangerous' for Prince Harry

[Barrett808]

Front line Iraq 'too dangerous' for Prince Harry
By REBECCA ENGLISH
Last updated at 22:21pm on 25th August 2006

Prince Harry faces the humiliation of being held back from frontline service in Iraq because his presence there could prove 'too dangerous' for both himself and his men.

Although discussions are underway to send soldiers from his Household Cavalry regiment to the war-torn region next May, senior officials have admitted they may be forced to stop the third-in-line-to-the-throne from going.

Their decision is likely to put the head-strong young prince on a collision course with his superiors. He has already threatened to quit the army if he is not sent to a war zone, saying he couldn't stomach being "wrapped up in cotton wool".

But senior Ministry of Defence sources have told the Mail this week that 21-year-old Harry may have no say in the matter.

"We always knew when Prince Harry joined us that deployment would be an issue. Both he and his brother have made clear they want to pursue their careers with us as fully as possible - which for any officer means serving alongside their men on the frontline," the source said.

(more)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=402329&in_page_id=1770

[truthisfreedom]

1. god bless 'em. you won't find any of the administration's kids rushing to

the front lines.

[JI7]

22. Blair's son isn't going either, Prince Charles at least has been critical

of this unlike Blair.

[bluestateguy]

2. I think Harry is on record as insisting on going with his troops

nt

[Akoto]

3. It's very honorable that he wants to go with his men, but ...

I can also see where the officials are coming from. He would very likely turn his unit into a target of attacks because of his social status.

[iverglas]

5. yup

It's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

But it isn't his decision. He doesn't get to decide where he goes any more than the next soldier, and that's what it comes down to. It may be "honourable" to demand that he be sent, but ultimately it makes no never mind.

What's honourable about wanting to go occupy Iraq, I dunno, but there you are.

[Exultant Democracy]

12. He really would put his own troops in more danger just by being there

and if they ever found themselves in danger you can bet that they would put protecting their prince above strategy or critical mission objectives.

[sofa king]

17. He's a strategic target.

The question at hand is whether or not it's a good idea to invite strategic attacks on a unit that is supposed to be performing a peacekeeping operation, and the answer to that question is pretty obviously, "no."

(However, if the British help America invade Iran next year, that's a different story. On a conventional battlefield, it's no mean trick to fight through an armored cav regiment just to get to one guy, and in that case the mission is to fight, not make nice.)

[phrenzy]

4. Prince Harry

That kid is great. Always pissing off the Royals

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

6. Courage. Determination. Honor.

Freepers take note. That is a MAN- the exact opposite of one gee dubyah potted shrubbery.

[MasonJar]

7. He is very courageous. Good luck to him in all he does. I just

hope we are not there any longer by next spring.

[Subdivisions]

8. He will one day be King and I think he

probably believes that by having served on the frontlines alongside his countrymen is not only an honorable thing to do, but, to him, is essential in feeling in his own heart that when he ascends to the throne, there's no question as to whether or not he would be willing to die for his country.

I think they should let him go.

[Demit]

15. Unlikely he'll ever be King. Prince William's the heir, Harry's the spare.

[gorbal]

23. Well both of them want to serve "fully"

The article said they BOTH want to serve "As fully as possible" so I am sure this article is about both of them.

[cmkramer]

31. FWIW

The last two kings of the United Kingdom were second sons.

[arewenotdemo]

9. Honorable? Hardly.

The honorable thing to do would be to raise holy hell about a completely illegal, immoral war.

Fucking gladiators like that are only a step above the chickenhawk scum/war criminals like Bush and Blair that started this debacle, IMO.

Maybe he'll get his chance to shoot some 14-year-old "insurgents".

[JohnyCanuck]

11. I agree, couldn't have said it better myself n/t

[Beausoir]

13. Excellent point. There is nothing honorable about this war.

He should use his worldwide fame to decry this war.

[leesa]

16. I agree. The war is illegal and as a public figure he should be condemning

it and calling for its end.

[LostinVA]

24. He isn't really legally allowed to do that

He is a direct successor to the throne -- he has to legally stay out of politics. Prince Charles has skirted that line many times, but even he has never quite jumped over it. Some people in public positions actually follow laws made to keep them for garnering too much power.

Even though I don't think war is honorable, his response IS honorable. Moreso than any of the offsring of his PM or our Administration.

[Biernuts]

18. The British Monarch Reigns, but the PM rules. The Royal Family

supports the PM, regardless of the PM's party or position, period. No debates, no speeches, they support their government's position. Thwe Queen has her say with the Privacy Council behind closed doors - then the PM decides. With UK history and what it took Britian to achieve a constitutional monarchy, to do otherwise would cause a constitutional crisis there.

As for Harry specifically - his position that if his troops are there, he will be leading them, not some stunt double, is the right decision. Good on you Harry - the way to ensure your troops are conducting themselves properly is to put yourself at the critical time and place to make the difference between success and failure. Anyone who has been in the military longer than 6 months understands this inherently. And this was a root cause of the Abu Ghreb fuck-ups - all the grown-ups were working straight days while the night shift was unsupervised "kids gone wild".

[mumon]

10. Brave Sir Harry ran away

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QvRH-8eF6l0

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen--

[nealmhughes]

14. Members of the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha families

served admirably in the First and Second World Wars on the line. Prince Louis of Battenberg, later Louis Mountbatten was the son of King George V's first cousin. Kind Albert of Belgium served as field commander when the Germans invaded in 1914. King George VI almost had to be kidnapped by Churchill and Queen Mary to be kept from the beaches of Normandy...and Prince Rupert of the Rhine was Charles I nephew and main military commander of the Royalists during the English Civil War. Likewise the King and Crown Prince of Serbia led the Serbian troops across the mountains to evacuate to Corfu, fighting all way from there to Greece.
Harry is a military man by choice and oath, pure and simple. He has not a single word save the most private on his political views, the war is between Tony Blair and the Labour Government and Iraq, not the Mountbattens. His grandmother might be titular commander in chief, but she knows what war was like first hand, and rather than fleeing to the safety of Canada, her mother and father kept her and her sister in London.
The Mountbattens might not be much, but they aren't cowards.

[LostinVA]

25. Her Majesty was also a member of the Services during WWII

[Nihil]

30. Well said!

FWIW, don't forget about Harry's Uncle Andrew ...

Playboy though he might be, Prince Andrew was in the firing line in
the Falklands War (1982-3) despite being immediate Royal Family
(4th in line if I remember correctly: Charles, William, Harry, Andrew).

No, the cowards are the government officials (chief being Blair) who
are happy to send other people's sons into unnecessary war but who will
pull every excuse in the book to keep their own safely out of it.

[SoCalDemGrrl]

19. Excuse me! - Iraq is too dangerous for any sane human being

At this point in time anyone who would contemplate putting their loved one in this quagmire
has to have their head examined!!!

[Anakin Skywalker]

20. Harry Potter is 21 Yrs. Old Already?

Wow!

[Sven77]

21. really dont believe this propaganda

his briedf stint in the military is just for show, like chimpy in the national guard.

[LostinVA]

26. How do you know that?

Prince Andrew has been in the Navy for a long time. It's something Royal males often do if they are temperamentally drawn to it.

The boy is a bit of a punk, but by all accounts has thrived in the military atmosphere. Some people do, my BIL did, and not all who do are bloodthirsty "gladiators," as someone up thread said. I have some career military in my extended family, and that is not how I'd characterize any of them.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[termo]

28. I hope he has a regular uniform...

and didn't dress for a party
:spank:

[samsingh]

27. in honor of Diana - i don't think the Princes should be allowed to go

... but then neither should anyone else's children.

[Karenina]

29. Not anymore dangerous for Harry

but his presence would certainly put a target on anyone and everyone in his vicinity. I do appreciate his moxy in wanting to be "just one of the guys." It's certainly more upright than anything coming from Stateside.

[classysassy]

32. The cowardly ruling class

start wars,fools fight them.