Prince Harry will not go to Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, May 16, 2007.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    LONDON, England -- Britain's Prince Harry will not be sent to Iraq because the risk to him and his regiment is too great, the UK's top general says.

    Army Chief of Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt said Wednesday: "I have decided today that Prince Harry will not be deployed to Iraq.

    "There have been a number of specific threats, some reported and some not reported. These threats exposed him and those around him to a degree of risk I considered unacceptable."

    Dannatt said the decision was final and commended the prince on his determination.

    Harry, 22, the third in line to the throne and a junior officer in the army, had been due to be deployed to the southern Iraqi city of Basra with his Blues and Royals regiment in the coming weeks as part of the latest British troop rotation.

    Harry has repeatedly said that he wants to be deployed with his men, but Ministry of Defence officials have expressed concern that he could become a target for Iraqi insurgents, endangering himself and those serving under him.

    Reports in the British press in the past month have been conflicting about whether Prince Harry will serve in Iraq.

    Royal commentator Robert Jobson told CNN that he believed security and politics were the reasons behind the decision.

    Jobson said it would be a "disaster" for the British Army if Harry was targeted by militants.

    Prince Harry has said he is serious about an army career. After graduating from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst last year, Harry insisted on an opportunity to serve his country.

    Jobson said he did not believe Harry would quit the army, despite being kept out of Iraq.
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/16/iraq.harry.ap/
     
  2. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #2
    I have to say I agree with this decision. It's admirable that he wanted to serve but generally a bad idea all around.

    Besides, he should have picked a more honourable war to fight in.
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    This is precisely the reason why other royals in recent times joined the Navy. It's a bit easier to be kept out of harms way whilst still being deployed when you're either aboard a ship or flying above the war zone.
     
  4. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    What do the brits think, Is the consensus that he should not go?
     
  5. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #5
    Of course he shouldn't. It's bad enough we've got troops over there in the first place without throwing a high-profile target into the midst for everyone to aim at. Even forgetting the British military casualties that would result, the people of Basra would suffer big time.
     
  6. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    But do they like that he is getting special favors.
     
  7. ebouwman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #7
    it's not really a special "favor"
    he does really want to go
     
  8. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #8
    Don't believe the "spin" being put on this… it is all about one thing:

    They just won't risk the "spare" heir being killed.

    In the UK "blue-blood" still counts… what a joke. :mad:

     
  9. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #9
    As I posted above, they should never have let him join the Army in the first place. Under a more competent Prime Minister, The Palace would have been strongly advised to change his mind for him.
     
  10. Mac-Addict macrumors 65816

    Mac-Addict

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #10
    Why shouldn't he go? What makes him different to everyone esle? What has be done to deserve to be any different to any other troop? Yeah we shouldn't be there but we are so now why shouldn't he be there.
     
  11. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #11
    I understand the decision not to deploy him, but I can't understand the point of training him to do a job he'll never get a chance to do.

    I used to be pro-monarchy, and I still think that most of the individual members of the royal family do carry out the roles they do with integrity and honesty, but I can't help think they really have no place in a modern world.

    I might feel differently if Charles got crowned and actually made any kind of impact, 'Liz has been a good Queen for so long, never rocking the boat or making if difficult for her governments. How different would it be had she turned to Blair and refused to let him send troops to Iraq, would the British people have backed her and brought down Blair, avoiding war, or backed Blair and brought down the monarchy? Either way Britain might be better off now.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    In all probability he's Hewitt's anyway, but it would be like hanging a big target on the neck of anyone serving with him.
     
  13. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #13
    I reckon he should go. He joined the army, they're being sent to Iraq. Therefore he should go.
     
  14. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #14
    he should go. its what he wants to do and what he signed up for.

    the key is keeping the media from knowing so its not a huge deal.
     
  15. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #15
    Yup, you can spot a ginger a mile off.
     
  16. TequilaBoobs macrumors 6502a

    TequilaBoobs

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    #16
    they should send harry in his nazi costume to israel, or maybe the bronx. that'll put hair on his chest!
     
  17. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Actually, I bet he is. But that's OK, Prince Hottie is cute when he's frowning. ;)
     
  19. Mac-Addict macrumors 65816

    Mac-Addict

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #19
    Hay! Don't be so mean! Its not a mile its more like 804.67200 meters (Half a mile according to google.) Now the smug of a Royal, well thats a different story.
     
  20. r6girl Administrator/Editor

    r6girl

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #20
    ha! i love that southpark episode!


    i do think it's somewhat admirable that he wants to stay with his regiment and fight in the war. but i think his request is also selfish in a way - his presence (and status as a specific target of the enemy) will create additional risk for the people around him. he would be increasing the danger his regiment will face just because he *wants* to be a proper soldier and join the war. i haven't read anything to indicate that this is even something he's thought about - it's all about what he wants and not the real risk or impact to those who would be around him...
     
  21. fistful macrumors 6502a

    fistful

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Socan
    #21
    I don't have much of an opinion on this situation but what is the difference between Harry being deployed in Iraq as opposed to a high ranking military official? Both are a larger target which in turn puts other soldiers in their vicinity at higher risk.
     
  22. r6girl Administrator/Editor

    r6girl

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #22
    have you heard of any high-ranking british officials as much as you have about harry and his potential deployment to iraq? given the publicity this has gotten, everyone and their mother knows about it, whereas i have not observed this to be the case with anyone else to be deployed to iraq.

    and i think the enemy views him as a unique target compared to other high-ranking officials - killing a young, handsome, and popular british royal would be a major blow to morale for british troops and quite possibly to a large chunk of the british population.
     
  23. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #23
    I think the presence of a British royal would most definitely attract militants into Basra, which has up until now been reasonably stable by Iraqi standards. If they can't get near to their target to begin with, they will most likely attempt to disrupt the city to draw the British out of their bases.
     
  24. fistful macrumors 6502a

    fistful

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Socan
    #24
    I'm not suggesting he should be deployed I'm just trying to get a perspective of at which point does a persons visibility and the risk that may pose to other soldiers come into account. I realize this is a special case but do higher ranking officials, politicians, journalists, and celebrities not have the potential to put soldiers at higher risk just by being there?
     
  25. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #25
    Does the Queen have the authority to do that?
     

Share This Page