Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq.

[pigeonmeister]

News just in- that Harry will not go to Iraq.

Anybody surprised?

[scrapinpeg]

Good way to let the enemy think (know?) you're afraid of them. What a terrible strategic move! I understand the young man was himself opposed to the decision -- showing better judgment than his commanders.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Good way to let the enemy think (know?) you're afraid of them. What a terrible strategic move! I understand the young man was himself opposed to the decision -- showing better judgment than his commanders.

In my opinion they have denied the enemy a potentially very lucrative propaganda (and thus strategic) opportunity. I'm mildly suspicious that Harry would have had 'an eye kept on him' by British special forces- not exactly of great 'strategic' benefit either. This decision also, in my opinion, had more to do with the extra danger Harry would place upon the men under his command-why is taking a bomb magnet to war a good strategic move?

[Dr Epee]

If I were Harry, I'm not sure I'd want to be serving in an area where my greatest strategic value would be as "bait".

[Inquartata]

This is all very complimentary to the intelligence capabilities of the local insurgents, I'm sure.

And the excuse offered is ridiculous. "Expose him to an unacceptable degree of risk"?! Oh, yes, soldiering is supposed to be safe, isn't it? Mustn't send ARMY officers into a war zone, it's too dangerous! ( This smily is still too cutesy to express real disdain. )

Now all Al Qaeda has to do is get a roster of British Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and start threatening them "by name" one by one, and soon they'll all be on their way home, too, I suppose. Allah akbar!

[Phaeton]

Does anyone actually like Prince Harry? He only seems to be getting into trouble. First he dresses like a member of the Afrika Korps prancing around with a swastika, and now he won't go to Iraq. Being from the US my knowledge of UK's feeling about the monarchy is limited...but over here we get a grim picture?

I'm not all sure how long monarchy is going to stay in place. People like the @ueen; it'll be around until she dies, but afterwards I'm not all that sure.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Phaeton

Does anyone actually like Prince Harry? He only seems to be getting into trouble. First he dresses like a member of the Afrika Korps prancing around with a swastika, and now he won't go to Iraq. Being from the US my knowledge of UK's feeling about the monarchy is limited...but over here we get a grim picture?

I'm not all sure how long monarchy is going to stay in place. People like the @ueen; it'll be around until she dies, but afterwards I'm not all that sure.

No- we think he's a prick too. But (and this partially answers Inq) the fact is that like him or not, if he was killed or captured this would represent a much greater propaganda victory than Dave Smith from Essex being killed. That is just the way it is and surely Inq must understand that if David Smith from Essex was threatened by name by the insurgents, then he would still be sent.

The idea that he is too good to go or that we value him more than other soldiers is a red herring. It is the fact that the insurgents perceive that we feel this way that their morale would be raised to an unacceptable level (if he were captured or killed)- rather than our morale being dented to an unacceptable level (which it would not). This is about denying the insurgents a victory, not shielding an individual who we value more than a 'commoner'. Believe me, having been to the US whilst the Queen visited- you like them more than we do (same goes for Blair actually). It would occupy more columns and inches and that is the bottom line- it would detract from whatever 'positive' news they were trying to peddle.

But then, I repeat, the people in Britain who are most glad about this decision are those members of the army serving in Iraq, and especially those potentially serving under (or very near) his command. If all soldiers should share the same risk- would you want your children to face 10x the risk of everyone else by serving in the APV next to his, or to stand next to him in line (a supposed sniper team has been training specifically)

There is another line going around that the army didn't necessarily believe that the local insurgents had the capability to deliver on their threat to send his ears back to the queen- but that 'rogue' elements of Iranian special forces might. I personaly am not convinced by this.

[Inquartata]

If that's the case he shouldn't be in the military at all. Especially given the existence of home-grown terrorist cells in Britain itself.

If his mere proximity poses a risk to his fellows, then he should not be in proximity to any of them, anywhere.

But that's really not convincing logic, or else generals should not be allowed to have staffs or address the troops, because they are high-value targets and increase the risk to everyone around them. In fact no officer should be permitted to serve in the same area as enlisted men.

But I grant the argument about the propaganda value of a dead prince.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If that's the case he shouldn't be in the military at all.

Agreed- the army have not ruled out him going to Iraq, just not in the role he was trained for. Which is a waste of taxpayers money- something his father normally excells in. I think three other factors influenced the reversal of the decision- 1, the fact that April was the dealiest month for British troops. 2, the specific intelligence relating to teams being trained to take him out and his photo being circulated. 3, the emergence of more poweful and sophisticated IED's capable of taking out our heavier(ist?) armour and most commonly targeting the vehicles he would have used.

Especially given the existence of home-grown terrorist cells in Britain itself. If his mere proximity poses a risk to his fellows, then he should not be in proximity to any of them, anywhere.

Surely you accept that we have better intelligence on our home-grown terrorists, the Prince is more easily given 24 hour secret service protection, as well as the obvious fact that the few home-grown terrorists we have are poorly trained, poorly equiped (see point 3 above) and not battle hardened. We may have had 1 attack, but clearly London is a lot safer than Iraq Inq!

But that's really not convincing logic, or else generals should not be allowed to have staffs or address the troops, because they are high-value targets and increase the risk to everyone around them. In fact no officer should be permitted to serve in the same area as enlisted men.

I would rather be receiving a speech from Petreus with 4 appachis, a few A-10's circling and an army of body guards securing the perimeter, than doing house to house in Bagdad or manning a checkpoint on the airport road.

Also- the highest ranking army officers (even Bush) are playing a role that cannot be played by many others (capable 3-5 star generals are in short supply) In effect they are worth the protection (and thus their value justifies the greater risk to the 'outer cordon') and of course not all soldiers can be shielded from the same level of risk- someone has to go on point, or be first through the door) Harry was on the first rung of command, 1000's others have the same level of expertise. The greater threat his men were placed under was thus not justified as for the greater good.

Everything to loose, not much experience or experise to gain. Granted it would have been good PR for the royal family- but how does that help the war at the front, or convince those that oppose it at home to think otherwise?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Surely you accept that we have better intelligence on our home-grown terrorists, the Prince is more easily given 24 hour secret service protection, as well as the obvious fact that the few home-grown terrorists we have are poorly trained, poorly equiped (see point 3 above) and not battle hardened. We may have had 1 attack, but clearly London is a lot safer than Iraq Inq!

For purposes of the argument you made---that he ought not be where he increases the risk to soldiers serving with him---all that is immaterial. He increases the risk to his mates anywhere. How MUCH he increases it is a separate question

For that matter, they could have stuck him in Bahrain or Qatar, or detailed him onto a British ship in harbor somewhere. Much safer than Basra. But that's only if you had argued degree of safety, rather than safety, full stop...

I would rather be receiving a speech from Petreus with 4 appachis, a few A-10's circling and an army of body guards securing the perimeter, than doing house to house in Bagdad or manning a checkpoint on the airport road.

But we both know he was never really going to be doing that.

[pigeonmeister]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

For purposes of the argument you made---that he ought not be where he increases the risk to soldiers serving with him---all that is immaterial. He increases the risk to his mates anywhere. How MUCH he increases it is a separate question

It may be a seperate question, but quite clearly the degree of threat in any given proximity is the key factor in deciding what level of threat is tolerable to his mates. That threat is very obviously tolerable nearly everywhere other than the specific role he was trained to perform in that specific part of Iraq. Otherwise the guy would have no friends and would be sealed alone in a bomb proof bunker til the day he dies.

It was also only one part of the argument I made. You accept the very high value of killing a Prince to the enemy and the degree to which that would frustrate (if not other than by obscuring any 'positive' news though weight of coverage) the military's own Public diplomacy. That risk is not worth his meagre experience and expertise could compensate for- In a way that top military officials can.

For that matter, they could have stuck him in Bahrain or Qatar, or detailed him onto a British ship in harbor somewhere. Much safer than Basra. But that's only if you had argued degree of safety, rather than safety, full stop...

yes any member of the royal family could potentially be hit- regardless of them being in the army or being in the UK. I don't remember arguing that it was possible to keep any one of them 100% safe- implicit in everything I have said is that the 'enemy' can achieve such a propaganda victory more easily when such a 'target' is fulfilling the role Harry would have played in Iraq. In trying to achieve that victory his mates would be placed in a risk that could only be justified if Harry offered something more to the overall effort.

But we both know he was never really going to be doing that.

Actualy I don't- I wouldn't deny that he would have had an 'eye kept on him' but I don't see how he could have even played lip service to the role (which is amongst the most dangerous in the army) and not placed himself in the kind of danger that Petreus would never even consider (i.e travelling everywhere by chopper with air cover, 100's of guards and never using the roads) Of course you could argue that Petreus is a higher value target. But purely in terms of propoganda and in size of media furor I am not so sure.

Regularly using the roads in Iraq is the most dangerous part of being in Iraq- how do you stop the commander of an armed reconnaisance vehicle from using the roads? Surely the very word 'reconnaisance' also shows that he would be using roads which had not been previously travelled on (i.e that day) by the rest of a convoy, column or patrol.

[jBirch]

I think that the decision to keep him home was not what the prince wanted. I don't think it's what his father or his grandmother wanted either. I don't think it was the one his troops wanted, his commander wanted or really anyone below the rank of Colonel wanted.

It was a political decision made by the commanders who didn't want to be the ones whose career was forever tarnished by having had the prince killed on their watch. And the Crown acquiesced to it.

I had faith in the Monarchy and that, in this decision at least, HRM as CIC would simply overrule it. It seems that faith is misplaced.

And it is decisions like this that cause the most erosion in the integrity of our Monarch.

*sigh*

James.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I think that the decision to keep him home was not what the prince wanted. I don't think it's what his father or his grandmother wanted either. I don't think it was the one his troops wanted, his commander wanted or really anyone below the rank of Colonel wanted.

It was a political decision made by the commanders who didn't want to be the ones whose career was forever tarnished by having had the prince killed on their watch. And the Crown acquiesced to it.

I had faith in the Monarchy and that, in this decision at least, HRM as CIC would simply overrule it. It seems that faith is misplaced.

And it is decisions like this that cause the most erosion in the integrity of our Monarch.

*sigh*

James.

That's a very interesting perspective. I think political pressure is speculation (but I would believe it)- but in the end it was the militaries decision. I am slightly bemused by why you thought that the monarch would 'simply overule' this decision-her ability to do is purely symbolic and would be totally out of character in terms of the role she has defined for herself in the last 50 years. If you have faith in our monarch (for whatever reason) then let it not be shaken by this, she really didn't have the practical authority to overule this decision.

In terms of your assumption of the opinions of British soldiers. I can't say exactly how this decision will be received by the average soldier in Iraq (I'm not convinced you can either) The coverage in the UK has mostly been bereaved parents (or of those still serving) saying 'why is he better than my boy'. The very last news piece I saw went to a garrison town. All the civilians articulated the 'why should my son go and not him' line. The one soldier interviewed (who had served in Iraq twice) said he shouldn't have gone- he's a bomb magnet.The one member of Parliament who had served in Iraq (conservative mp who's name I forget) articulated the same argument on Newsnight last night in a debate with a bereaved parent.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

That's a very interesting perspective. I think political pressure is speculation (but I would believe it)- but in the end it was the militaries decision.

Absolutely. But Generals are simply politicians with guns.

I am slightly bemused by why you thought that the monarch would 'simply overule' this decision-her ability to do is purely symbolic and would be totally out of character in terms of the role she has defined for herself in the last 50 years. If you have faith in our monarch (for whatever reason) then let it not be shaken by this, she really didn't have the practical authority to overule this decision.

I meant that she could, symbolically at least, and I was hoping that she would. My biggest frustration with HRM is that she has done very little with the power of the Monarchy, preferring to work through influence rather then wield actual power. Though, honestly, leaving the decision to her generals is probably the correct course of action for the nation (at the expense of the monarchy).

In terms of your assumption of the opinions of British soldiers. I can't say exactly how this decision will be received by the average soldier in Iraq (I'm not convinced you can either) The coverage in the UK has mostly been bereaved parents (or of those still serving) saying 'why is he better than my boy'. The very last news piece I saw went to a garrison town. All the civilians articulated the 'why should my son go and not him' line. The one soldier interviewed (who had served in Iraq twice) said he shouldn't have gone- he's a bomb magnet.The one member of Parliament who had served in Iraq (conservative mp who's name I forget) articulated the same argument on Newsnight last night in a debate with a bereaved parent.

I'm of mixed feelings about this...

On the one hand, if I were going, I'd rather go with Prince Harry then with 2Lt Bob. On the other, I can certainly see how he'd be a bomb magnet. He's got a Prime Minister's profile but with a 2Lt's life expectancy. Though he's certainly got WAY better training than your average 2LT.

Personally, as a General I think I would have asked Prince Harry's RSM and based my decision on that. If the RSM said he should go, off he'd go. If not, he'd stay home. My suspicion is that the General just said that this issue was too much of a hot potato and simply made the safe decision.

Interestingly, how do you think it would have played in Britain if Harry went off and got killed?

And the flip side, how do you think it would have played if Harry went off and all the guys with him (but not him) got killed?

James.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

News just in- that Harry will not go to Iraq.

Anybody surprised?

No.

And it was a foolish decision.

Originally Posted by Jbirch

I meant that she could, symbolically at least, and I was hoping that she would. My biggest frustration with HRM is that she has done very little with the power of the Monarchy, preferring to work through influence rather then wield actual power. Though, honestly, leaving the decision to her generals is probably the correct course of action for the nation (at the expense of the monarchy).

She has no actual power.

She is purely symbolic.

Interestingly, how do you think it would have played in Britain if Harry went off and got killed?

He's a soldier; it's his job. That's a risk he shauld have to take.

And the flip side, how do you think it would have played if Harry went off and all the guys with him (but not him) got killed?

They are soldiers. why would their deaths be any different if Harry was there?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Though he's certainly got WAY better training than your average 2LT.

Why?

If the RSM said he should go, off he'd go. If not, he'd stay home.

If his competency for the role was part of the decision being made then I would agree- but it was not a factor at all.

Interestingly, how do you think it would have played in Britain if Harry went off and got killed? And the flip side, how do you think it would have played if Harry went off and all the guys with him (but not him) got killed?James.

I think people are making an assumption that the decision was made because Harry's life is more important than a normal soldier's. This is tempting, especially if you naturally resent the privilige associated with his membership of the royal family. I believe, however, that this was a cost effective/strategic decision. Whatever value we place on Harry's life in britain is irrelevant- it is the undisputable fact that his death would be perceived as a huge propaganda victory by the insurgents- and in places like the US media that is most pertinent. Whatever value we place on his life, his killing would be counter-productive to the mission as a whole- and thus Iraqi and US lives.

So you either take him and risk this on the basis that his presence would boslter support for the war at home and Iraq (something I cannot accept). Or you take him and spend a fortune in time and resources in protecting him- which (considering the experience and expertise he offers) is not cost effective or fair to the Iraqis or other officers denied similar protection.

Or you just don't take him.....

It is far too simplistic to just say -he's a soldier he should take the risk like everyone else. He would be risking more than his life (which nobody in the entire country believes is worth more than anyone elses) and more than the lives of the 6 men under his command. Who the hell likes Harry in the UK anyway? If he serve without the insurgents ever being able to identify him or his dead body I would say send him- but they can't.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Why?

As a result of his education, and his experience in the limelight.

If his competency for the role was part of the decision being made then I would agree- but it was not a factor at all.

The RSM is the Regimental Sergeant Major. That's the dude that would be able to tell what the troops think of going with him and whether it is a risk that can be mitigated from a tactical perspective.

It is far too simplistic to just say -he's a soldier he should take the risk like everyone else. He would be risking more than his life (which nobody in the entire country believes is worth more than anyone elses) and more than the lives of the 6 men under his command. Who the hell likes Harry in the UK anyway? If he serve without the insurgents ever being able to identify him or his dead body I would say send him- but they can't.

I agree. Equally, I think it is simplistic to argue that it's his death that is the major concern. Far from it. If he went and got killed, it would more likely bolster the war effort then detract from it. There are two worse scenarios if PR damage is your major concern:

1) If everyone in his section gets wiped out, but he survives. The furor from the families would be fierce as well as the outcry from the public.

2) If he gets captured.

If the Generals were really smart though, they'd send him to Afghanistan for his combat experience and not to Iraq.

James.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Gav

No.

He's a soldier; it's his job. That's a risk he shauld have to take.

And one he DID wish to take, as i recall.

They are soldiers. why would their deaths be any different if Harry was there?

The rest of them aren't high up in the line of succession. Until William breeds, Harry's #3 currently in line to the throne.

insurgents killing him would mean nothing militarily...but would be huge PR....can you imagine how it'd be now if it was him and his mates who had gone missing instead of those 3 US soldiers right now???

There's really no best decision here....he's either a bomb magnet or so heavily protected he probably couldn;t do his job very well....both logical presumptions...probably best to leave him home.

I DO respect him for wanting to perform his duties regardless of the risk, however.

'Course, Prince Andrew DID go to war in 1982 in teh Falklands...but the Argentines weren't trying to specifically target him for PR

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


If the generals were smart, they would send Harry to Iraq, only to lock him up in the safest part of the green zone. The rumor would be circulated that he is in some expecially dangerous place, and the sniper teams looking for him would be searched for and finished off. He would be replaced by a lookalike (Hey! Use Saddam´s playbook when it is appropriate!) and reappear in GB after an appropriate time. The lookalike would be whisked off to some faraway island in the South Pacific, with a big bundle of cash, and a minder who keeps him in his golden jail for an appropriate time.

There! Very little risk of injury, enemies baited, and positive PR effect all rolled into one!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Gav]

And one he DID wish to take, as i recall.

Indeed.

For no other reason than that I think he could have been allowed to go.

The rest of them aren't high up in the line of succession. Until William breeds, Harry's #3 currently in line to the throne.

3rd makes him extraordinarily unlikely to succeed. It also makes it a red-herring. .

There was also a time when members of the royalty were supposed to go and fight.

insurgents killing him would mean nothing militarily...but would be huge PR....can you imagine how it'd be now if it was him and his mates who had gone missing instead of those 3 US soldiers right now???

Only as much as we, in the UK or you in the US, allow the insurgents to make of it.

Another thing it could conceivably do is increase people's determination... Until the event it is hard thing to judge. And again it would depend on how it is handled.