Prince Harry and Iraq
 

What if...

What if the British royalty, in secret with the British government, never intended to send Prince Harry to Iraq afterall? What if it was all a cleverly drawn-out public media stunt, intended to deceive both Harry and his fellow Brits that he was going to put himself on the frontlines of a very dangerous war, in order to change his image of a young, party-going royal into that of a determined man willing to put his life on the line, right alongside the common soldier?

Now let me say this: I personally believe that Harry himself wanted to go to Iraq, and was both willing and eager to fight his bloodiest for God, Queen, and Country. He's definitely a tough bloke. But let's remember: Harry only agreed to go through the long, tough training of Sandhurst IF he got to go to Iraq and fight.

Now comes the dilemma: both the royals and the government needed Harry to become an officer in the British army, in order that he might fit into the long tradition of past royalty who had earned military credentials.

Yet...

Right from the beginning Prince Harry had made it clear he would not submit himself to military training unless he could fight right alongside his fellow troopers. Otherwise, he'd opt out.

So...

The royal family, knowing Harry would be a prized target of the Iraqi insurgents if he went to Iraq, and also knowing Harry would refuse to gain his military credentials unless he could actually fight, decided, with much public fanfare, to "agree" to Harry's demands.

By doing so, Harry subjected himself to the rugged training course of Sandhurst, became an army officer, and fell neatly into the traditional role of royal males having earned their military officer credentials.

Once completed, the British high command and the British government "suddenly" decided "it would be too dangerous" to send Prince Harry to Iraq, based upon genuine insurgent claims that they would either kill Harry, or capture him and cut off his ears. Exactly what the British high command knew all along would happen, thus providing them a pat excuse to keep Harry out of harm's way.

Thus, mission accomplished: Harry followed the straight and narrow and acquired his traditional military credentials in order to satisfy the royals, and also satisfied the British government and the British public by portraying him as a man willing to lay his life on the line - which I no doubt believe he was.

Conclusion: Prince Harry was duped. There was never any intention of sending him to Iraq. He was duped in order that he would submit to Sandhurst. He did. He's an army officer now. He's a "hero" in the public eye, with the added bonus that his life will be spared. Everyone wins - except a very disappointed Harry, who will likely see some of the men he trained with coming back home in body bags.

Not more conspiracies! :rofl: When Harry went to RMAS, it was thought that the Iraq war would be ending 'soon'. Things must be different in the US, the army are not seen as anything special here. They are not even allowed to wear their uniforms off base (except for parades or with special permission), for fear they might be attacked.

Far from making him into a hero when he joined RMAS, he was seen as another nice but dim, Hooray Henry, a chinless wonder officer. Many people whilst feeling sorry that he won't be able to do what he wants, are relieved that his wishes have been ignored, that he has not been allowed to endanger the people serving with him. Others are furious that he is seen as being more important than their relatives, who are risking their lives.

Was he duped, IMO, no, were the MOD, the government, Chiefs and Harry bloody idiots, you betcha! :rolleyes:

Really? I mean, the British involvement in it may have been thought to be ending soon, but it's been obvious for a long time that the war was going to continue for at least the duration of the Bush administration, and that meant that Harry's involvement in it was a lot more than just an unlikely theoretical possibility.

Why would they conspire to keep Harry out of the war? Prince Andrew served in an active combat situation. At that time, he was the second in line, behind only Charles! (the Falklands War began in April of 1982, and William was born at the end of June)

It was actually at the Queen's insistance that Andrew remain in active service (he entered the armed forces in 1979) when the war began, not be moved to a desk job.

The world has gotten even more dangerous now, and what would happen if Harry was kidnapped, something that has unfortuneatly happened to so many people during the Iraqi and Afghan wars? They would be forced to comply with the kidnappers, and maybe send thousands of dollars or use military action, risking injury or death of other soldiers.

Personally, I think that the choices made came from the Ministry of Defense, who never expected Harry to actually serve in an actual active combat war situation, and were looking to protect the rest of the military, the government, and yes, Harry and the royal family. This is one of the few cases when the risk seems to greatly outweigh the benefits.

I would hope that the same standards would apply to him as to the other soldiers. It would be a bad precedent for a government to refuse to give in to demands in order to protect hostages and then just cave in when a high-profile hostage was taken. However, the military would appear to be doing its best to avoid that scenario, and I suppose you can't blame them.

I think it's a darn if you do, darn if you don't, type of thing- if they didn't do something big, then there would be an outcry (especially from some here!). If they did do something special, then it would be called special treatment. So what would they do?

There really isn't any comparison between the short-lived Falkland War and years long Iraqi War. And, I must point out, with joy, that the Argentinians would not have paraded Andrew around if they kidnapped him, or chopped off his ears, beheaded him on video or anything else uncivilized that we see happening over in Iraq or Afghanistan. He would have been treated more humanely during the Falklands. He would have been kept well-fed, well-treated, etc.

So, comparining the two wars is like comparing the American's Invasion of the Island of Grenada to the Vietnam War in reference to death tolls, destruction etc.:smile:

Come on lets have some fun!:biggrin:

What better way to express one's disbelief at those who think they can run or better yet, win a war. Indeed they are a bunch of idiots!

Obvious to us, to the general public, but I firmly believe that Blair convinced himself and his ministers that it would be over before we knew it.

The MOD in it's naivety also didn't take into account the media would deliberatly put anyone at risk for a story. The world has moved on, the ways of fighting have moved on, but most of the people in charge at the MOD are still BOF who continue to live by the the 'old school ', 'old codes' mentality.

I am becoming Americanised in some of my thoughts, writing and spelling! I will have to book into rehab! :rofl:

Oh, don't worry Skydragon, you are definatly still plenty Brit! ;)

Well I am a Brit by birth and for the life of me I cannot understand why the media were informed of where and when Harry was going to be posted with his men!!!!!! One does not have to be a genious to see what could happen by providing so much info. Talk about tempting fate!

Now today it was announced on Skye TV News here in Australia that having been stopped from going to Iraq Harry is now going to be posted to Afghistan!!!! Another War Zone!!!!! Maybe Harry should stand in the middle of the road there and yell out "Here I am Boys" so they can use him for target practice.:rolleyes:

I really am not sure of the logic of these decisions! Maybe Harry should change to the Marines - he may have a better chance of surviving a Military Career!!!!!!! ;)

The media wants attention and wants to have something to offer - surely minute-by-minute information about the Prince in combat or even better (for them), information about the kidnapped Prince would be the best they could wish for. They are not going to care about the safety of Prince Harry and his fellow soldiers if they sell more newspapers or gain more audience. :ermm:

Joining the Marines would be good, but as Skydragon has clarified earlier, that would require a whole new training process. I'm not sure Prince Harry would go for it, especially since he can't be sure that when time comes, he would be allowed to serve as a marine - the Media would already know and share every detail of his supposed deplyment.

Don't forget that some of the men captured by Iran were marines! :rolleyes:

For me the most important was that they returned unharmed. :smile:
And to tell the truth, I don't think there was/would be any danger to soldiers or marines, captured by Iran. They like to show their muscles but they wouldn't do anything to British soldiers.

All in all, I do think that marines are (relatively) safer then soldiers and had Prince Harry been prepared to pass the new training, I think that could be an option. Unless, of course, the Media would tell exactly where he would be stationed, and I bet they would.

Harry duped ofcourse!!!!! this was just a PR exercise to rehabilitate the Wales family. The media knowing his everymove had to be discreetly leaked to ensure a reason for keeping him home. The problem is they have no regard for Harry the soldier who wants to do his duty but have to find a way to please Daddy and ensure good PR.

How, precisely, does Harry not going to Iraq "rehabilitate the Wales family"? Could you explain?

This is easy to say in retrospect. But no one knew at the start of the Falklands War how long it was going to last or how dangerous it was going to be.

I trust no one. Those sailors/marines could very well have been executed, thankfully they were not. If they got a hold of Harry, Lord knows what they might do to him. A prince in captivity has a certain cachet.

The Sydney Morning Herald told me yesterday that they Iraqi insurgents did not want to capture Harry, they wanted to kill him. They had planned to hit both British camps in southern Iraq with chlorine bombs, which kill victims by burning their lungs, to be certain of getting Harry. If this is true, I supect a lot of other soldiers would have died so the insurgents could get Harry.

That was the same article that informed me Harry could be sent to Afghanistan and might be seconded to NATO unit there and carry out low-risk operations and earn a campaign medal after serving for 30 days. He would probably serve as a very junior watchkeeper, possibly working through the night. I thought that was a nice tip-off for those who are after Harry! The SMH article was based on the News of the World reports the previous day.

Was Harry duped? Possibly, but I think it's more likely that he has just been the victim of incompetence.