Prince Harry Not To Be Deployed

[FSTargetDrone]

Guess he's not going after all:

5.30pm update
Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq


General Sir Richard Dannatt's full statement

Peter Walker and agencies
Wednesday May 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Prince Harry will not be sent for military duty in Iraq because of the excessive risks this would cause for him and his comrades, the head of the army said today.

"I have decided that Prince Harry will not deploy as a troop leader with his squadron," General Sir Richard Dannatt told reporters.

Sir Richard said he had travelled to Iraq in the past week and learned of "a number of specific threats - some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual".

He continued: "These threats expose not only him, but also those around him, to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable.

"Now that I have decided that he will not be deploying with his troop, the risks faced by his battle group are no different to those faced by any other battle group or other of our servicemen in Iraq."

A "contributing factor" to the decision was the widespread media reporting of Harry's proposed deployment, he added, calling it "something that I wish to avoid in future".

Sir Richard, who took pains to praise the prince's "undoubted talent" as a troop leader, refused to say he would never be deployed on active service to a war zone in the future.

"I'm not ruling anything in, I'm not ruling anything out," he said.

The news comes only two weeks after Sir Richard said the 22-year-old prince would travel to Iraq with his Blues and Royals comrades.

The decision is likely to dismay Harry, who has made it plain he wants to see active service.

In an interview when he turned 21, Harry made his feelings plain, saying there was "no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country".

There were reports he had even threatened to quit the army if he were not allowed to serve abroad in a war zone.

However, Clarence House insisted tonight that while the prince was "very disappointed" he would not leave the military.

A statement said: "Prince Harry is very disappointed that he will not be able to go to Iraq with his troops on this deployment as he had hoped.

"He fully understands and accepts Gen Dannatt's difficult decision and remains committed to his army career. Prince Harry's thoughts are with his troop and the rest of the battle group in Iraq."

There has been widespread speculation that Harry's position might make him too attractive a target for insurgent groups, imperilling both himself and his comrades.

This speculation was heightened after 12 British personnel were killed by insurgents, or rogue Shia militia, in southern Iraq in April, the worst such month since the invasion of the country four years ago.

Only a fortnight ago, Sir Richard responded to the concerns by insisting the prince would be sent.

"I, as chief of the general staff, will take the decision and have taken the decision as to whether he should or should not deploy," he said in a statement

"And I do so as chief of the general staff and having full command of every member of the army including prince Harry. Second, the decision has been taken he will deploy."

However, Sir Richard did add at the time that he would "keep that decision continually under review".

Harry would have been the first member of the royal family in 25 years to serve in a war zone.

His uncle, Prince Andrew, served as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands. After that conflict, Andrew said his position in the navy would have been "untenable" if he had not seen action in the South Atlantic.

Harry began his army career at Sandhurst, where he spent 44 weeks training to be an officer. He then completed further training as a troop leader for the Blues and Royals, part of the Household Cavalry.

[MKSheppard]

THen what was the point of his 44 weeks of training?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

It's understandable. These threats are being directed specifically at him not because he's in the army, but because he's Prince Harry. This is far above the normal threats the average serviceman faces.

[Mange]

With the enormous media attention this has garnered and the interest this apparently has had among insurgents, this is understandable. I think it would also have increased the overall danger for British soldiers (especially those serving with his unit).

[Aaron]

Then send him to Afghanistan where the threat level is signficantly reduced. It seems a shame to send him through all the training just to have him sit on his ass in garrison.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Yeah, but that'd be reasonable, and we couldn't possibly have that.

This was on the news earlier, and there are already people asking 'If he doesn't have to go, why does my son?' It's a fair point. If we're going to be in Iraq, then it shouldn't just be Pvt Joe Average and Lt John Smith doing the dirty work.

I understand the reasoning, but it's not exactly the best way to garner support for an unpopular war.

[CmdrWilkens]

Honestly with all the "yes he's going" then "no he's not" that has been going on I just continue to wonder if it isn't a smoke screen so that when the Blues and Roaysl do deploy and he perhaps goes on "vacation" a week later only those stalking after him might realize he is going after all.

[Sea Skimmer]

Its too bad he reneged on his pledge to resign if he wasn’t deployed. It really is pointless for him to serve under these circumstances.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Indeed. It seems our modern day enemies are too much to stomach for the monarchy now. This does mean that the voices from servicemen's families who are trying to cope with loss will be ever louder: why is Harry too important to go? Is his life worth more than any other soldier's? The evident answer to that is "yes". No doubt Harry hates what has been decided as inevitable as it seemed when first brought up, so one wonders why the MoD allowed him to become a frontline infantryman in the first place.

[Cao Cao]

It's understandable. These threats are being directed specifically at him not because he's in the army, but because he's Prince Harry. This is far above the normal threats the average serviceman faces.

I fail to see how he'd be under more danger in the field than any other soldier, unless he goes around in an "I'm a Royal, me!" uniform, or British security is so lax that resistance cells in Iraq can gain info on his exact unit and location.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

It's understandable. These threats are being directed specifically at him not because he's in the army, but because he's Prince Harry. This is far above the normal threats the average serviceman faces.

I fail to see how he'd be under more danger in the field than any other soldier, unless he goes around in an "I'm a Royal, me!" uniform, or British security is so lax that resistance cells in Iraq can gain info on his exact unit and location.

You don't think they would be able to gain that information quickly enough? How many average people on the streets of Baghdad are giving information to whatever insurgent cells in the neighborhood? It's international news that he was supposed to be heading over, and the ones who gunned him down would gain a huge popularity boost, so it's pretty much a certainty that everyone's going to keep an eye out for him.

More likely than not, they'll have quite a few pictures of him, and have people on the streets told to be on the lookout for someone who looks like him. He is under far more threat than the average military person because the insurgents see him as a *huge* target of opportunity, and thus, will devote a hell of a lot more effort to taking him out.

I sympathize with the commander on this, he's in a hell of a position. Either send Harry's unit into what is likely certain death, because his exact location *will* likely be found out in short order by those who see much to gain in killing him, or face the huge political backlash of holding him back.

In terms of number of lives not lost, I think he made the right decision.

[FSTargetDrone]

It's understandable. These threats are being directed specifically at him not because he's in the army, but because he's Prince Harry. This is far above the normal threats the average serviceman faces.

I fail to see how he'd be under more danger in the field than any other soldier, unless he goes around in an "I'm a Royal, me!" uniform, or British security is so lax that resistance cells in Iraq can gain info on his exact unit and location.

I suppose it's possible that insurgents could get the details of his unit (especially with the intense media coverage) or at least his picture.

[Netko]

It doesn't even have to be that precise. Its possible that some insurgent groups that are more mobile (I'm mostly thinking foreigners here) would focus their overall targeting on the British in hopes of scoring a kill on the prince, since there is no such high profile target with low security among the Americans.

[thejester]

Indeed. It seems our modern day enemies are too much to stomach for the monarchy now. This does mean that the voices from servicemen's families who are trying to cope with loss will be ever louder: why is Harry too important to go? Is his life worth more than any other soldier's? The evident answer to that is "yes". No doubt Harry hates what has been decided as inevitable as it seemed when first brought up, so one wonders why the MoD allowed him to become a frontline infantryman in the first place.

I think the argument for him not going is that, being such a high-profile target, he will be a danger to those around him - not that Harry himself is too precious to serve.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think the argument for him not going is that, being such a high-profile target, he will be a danger to those around him - not that Harry himself is too precious to serve.

That I'm aware of. But that still comes off as meaning Harry is, by extension, the more prized target anyway and therefore, less suited to the field. Since he was always going to be a celebrity, that they let him train in the armed forces at a time when such wars are ongoing is crazy. Did they not expect him to be targeted or have to go out into an area where people don't play nice?

There's a world of difference between Edward flying ASW and SAR missions during the Falklands and Harry on the ground with people who quite happily blow themselves up and post beheading videos on the web.

I think this ranks as another MoD faux pas to rival the Iran story selling issue a month or so ago.

[Cao Cao]

Well it seems like they thought it was a good idea on paper, get Harry trained in the army, reduce the public perception of him as a useless layabout..
But then they remembered that Iraq is a quagmire and got cold feet.

[DrMckay]

Devil's advocate: Has it occourred to anyone that if he was deployed, he might not be targeted. I wouldn't want to be the insurgent who kills him and brings the wrath of all of the UK down on my little grid-square.

As opposed to not serving, if Harry was killed in Iraq, it may just breed more violence by the "Coalition," (esp. England) and a desire for vengance and escalation??

leading to indiscriminate carpet bombings, etc.

Hardly the thing an insurgent who is trying to sicken the coalition of war wants...

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think this is an all around crappy situation.

If Harry goes then there is the real possiblity that he will attract a lot of heat to his unit and possibly get some of his men killed not because he is incompetent or inexperienced but simply because he is a Royal.

If Harry does not go, then there is a legitimate claim that the wealthy and elite do not have have to pay the price of a war largely initiated by members of that class.

To Harry's credit he seems like he genuinely wants to practice his trade. Although some of this is certainly cause he is still young and probably feels imortal.

If they send his unit to Afghanistan then it will look like they are playing fabvorites with a Royal. At some point you have to decide if a Royal can't serve in a combat position because they might endanger their men then perhaps they shouldn't serve at all.

I personally say let him serve. Not sure what choice you give the men in his unit. Are they just stuck? Can't let everyone quit just because it might be dangers though.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Devil's advocate: Has it occourred to anyone that if he was deployed, he might not be targeted. I wouldn't want to be the insurgent who kills him and brings the wrath of all of the UK down on my little grid-square.

Yes, because the insurgents have consistently shown that they want to avoid controversial, high-profile targets such as journalists/non-combatants, women and children, churches and mosques, etc.

...oh wait.

[CmdrWilkens]

There are still a couple of problems with how everyone is percieving this and how he would be acting. For starters he is with an armored reconnaisssance unit which means every time he was outside the gate he would be in enough kit that you'd need a friggin DNA swab to be certain he was the right guy (other than insurgents always looking to kill officers). Figuring out which vehicle he is in and actually getting him would be a bitch and a half even before one considers the typical British response to pinned down units in their sector which is to literally plow IFVs through anything in their way (and I mean literally they will roll Warriors through an 18 wheeler if it doesn't get out of the way). The space and response speeds to units in distress is such that any force attempting to take on harry and coy would have to mount a HUGE arsenal which, in turn, would be hard as hell to keep from being discovered nad rolled up early. hell it might even be a damn good thing, if you know where your enemy is taargeting his efforts then all you have to do is catch the weak link in the chain and ruthelessly exploit it back through all the logistical back support that any organization would have to have in order to take on armored recon units. Simply put even if insurgents were "targetting" Harry they would be exposing themselves to more likely discovery the very fact that the brits have intercepted those "targeted threats" is indicative of an ability to penetrate and take down any group that tries it. Yes it would be a risk but I honestly can see much more positives than negatives so I'm still waiting for Harry to wind up in Iraq accidentally.

[Enforcer Talen]

To reinforce his point, targetting an officer is not particularly difficult, but targeting one specific officer is much harder. There is no certainty which vehicle, or even convoy, he'll be in.

[Pax Britannia]

Why they didnt just bungle him off to the Royal Navy I dont know. Would have saved him all this publicity.

[Aaron]

Why they didnt just bungle him off to the Royal Navy I dont know. Would have saved him all this publicity.

Because he didn't want to be in the Royal Navy.

[Darth Mordius]

So as far as I understand, the theory is insurgents would target him and his unit, making it more dangerous for the guys around him.

Tell me if I'm crazy here, but where would these extra attacks come from? Any insurgents attacking Harry are forced to be not somewhere else, and not shooting at Americans/Brits someplace else. Unless his going actually creates more enemies, theres still a limited amount of badness flying the Brits way; just more of it where he is, and less in wherever these prince-haters come from.

[Cao Cao]

The way I see it, Harry would be at no more risk than the average officer. Insurgents might get info on Harry being there and general deployment location, but enough to be specifically targetted? More so than others? I don't think so.

The only difference is, if he dies, the public will notice more.
So in fact he is regarded as more important than the other soldiers. Iraq simply isn't safe enough for one of his station.
Democracy? What's that?