Prince Harry and the Likelihood of Serving in Iraq

[HRH Kimetha]

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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! 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!

 

[Elspeth]

Not more conspiracies! When Harry went to RMAS, it was thought that the Iraq war would be ending 'soon'.

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.

 

[LadyK]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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?

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.

 

[LadyK]

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?

 

[HRH Kimetha]

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.

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.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

Not more conspiracies!

Come on lets have some fun!

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

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!

 

[Skydragon]

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.

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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!

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

 

[LadyK]

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

 

[Mariec]

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.

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!!!!!!!

 

[Avalon]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Skydragon]

Joining the Marines would be good, but as Skydragon has clarified earlier, that would require a whole new training process.

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

 

[Avalon]

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

For me the most important was that they returned unharmed.
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.

 

[Trudie]

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.

 

[Warren]

this was just a PR exercise to rehabilitate the Wales family.

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

 

[selrahc4]

There really isn't any comparison between the short-lived Falkland War and years long Iraqi War.

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.

 

[Sister Morphine]

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.

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

What did they think they would gain by killing Harry?

 

[Duchess]

i don't quite know how to feel on this one. while i feel badly that by not sending harry to iraq it makes it appear as though his life is worth more than the men and women who are already there or will be sent in the future. however, his being there would definitely add to the danger for the others. i'm sure harry wanted to go but it's a double edged sword.

 

[Duchess]

What did they think they would gain by killing Harry?

i suppose by killing him they wouldn't gain anything but by holding him hostage they'd certainly have the upper hand.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

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.

However, MOD and we knew it two years ago, last year, six months ago, last month and know it now. So the two can't be compared knowing then and what we know about the Iraqi War today. That's why I don't think that the two can't be compared in today's world using today's understanding about the two different wars that the Royals encountered back then and would encounter today.

 

[Alison20]

Harry wants to be a career soldier - that is what many from the RF have been in the past. He has wanted it since he was a little boy. It was not a move to rehabilitate the Windsors. (IMO they did not need to be rehabilitated.).

I think there was always the intention that he would be treated as much like the others as possible. The Duke of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent (the Queen's first cousins) both had careers in the military. Luckily for them, the media largely left them alone - and there weren't wars against such unbelievably cruel and vicious combatants. Prince Andrew was also a career sailor, and did pretty well everything other Naval officers did.

However, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the most senior operational officer in the British Army, went out to Iraq a few days ago to learn at first hand of the new threats to Prince Harry. In the short press conference he gave, he said there were several very specific threats. These showed not only a specific risk to Harry, but also brought a much greater risk to his men, and units attached to his. The General also indicated that he felt these increased threats were partly due to the media highlighting Harry's impending posting to Iraq, and even indicating where he would be based and what he would be doing.

I got the firm impression that the media were going to find it difficult from now on to get information on what Harry was going to be doing - and they have no-one to blame but themselves for this. A headline was more important to them than many young soldiers' lives.

 

[Skydragon]

What did they think they would gain by killing Harry?

To show that they are all powerful and able to kill him, even in one of the heavily fortified camps.

 

[MARG]

Wow, my PC goes on the fritz for a couple of days and a whole new thread started without me.......

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

Got to agree with you there. Even with Harry being naive.

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

The whole Wales family needs "rehabilitation"? Did I miss another "very important something" yet again? In this instance I'm guessing not!
The Wales family are conducting themselves in a perfectly proper and acceptable way. Look at the way they haven't sued all of the yellow and at least half of the supposed credible media in Britain over these last few years.

I got the firm impression that the media were going to find it difficult from now on to get information on what Harry was going to be doing - and they have no-one to blame but themselves for this.

I am reliably informed, via various (creditable) news sources and my very own crystal ball, that there is a long overdue recognition by the government that the laws pertaining to some types of reporting may be in urgent need of a revamp.

Ah yes, lets just reinvent the wheel.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

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.

Yet, we are looking at history and present day and see that there isn't any comparison between the two wars. Harry faces a very fierce enemy that uses uncivilized and inhumane treatment towards their enemy, whereas the Argentinian behavior towards enemies would not be as those in the Iraqi theatre. The enemy against Britain was almost of the same culture and civilized understanding whereas the Iraqi's have a very different culture and civilization that their mode of living and society is so much different and allows such inhumane treatment towards their own people much less an "enemy".

 

[HRH Kimetha]

The Duke of Kent and Prince Michael of Kent (the Queen's first cousins) both had careers in the military. Luckily for them, the media largely left them alone - and there weren't wars against such unbelievably cruel and vicious combatants. Prince Andrew was also a career sailor, and did pretty well everything other Naval officers did.

And Prince Andrew also didn't face "such unbelievably cruel and vicious combatants."

I got the firm impression that the media were going to find it difficult from now on to get information on what Harry was going to be doing - and they have no-one to blame but themselves for this. A headline was more important to them than many young soldiers' lives.

It's only seeing is believing that this will be the case. There's always someone that might be a "mole" at the MOD that may disseminate information to the enemy and back at the press.

 

[Roslyn]

I just found something I think is interesting and maybe others will too. I originally posted it in the current event thread, but snapped it away from there because this seemed a more appropriate place.

I am reading The Last Nizam, a biography of Mukarram Jah, the 8th and last Nizam of Hyderabad. Jah graduated from Sandhurst in 1957 and was commissioned into the Royal Engineers' Corps at the age of 24. Hyderabad was now part of India and not a separate kingdom and he had to find something to do. Soon afterwards India and China were fighting over their border. Jah enrolled for active service but his application forms were deliberately lost. The author suggests it was probably at Nehru's instigation.

According to Jah, "A senior general later told me that there was never any question of sending me to war. He told me that while they didn't so much mind the idea of a prince being killed, they were reluctant to see him taken prisoner by the Chinese. The propaganda surrounding such a capture would have been most unpleasant."

Different time, different place, different battlefield, different prince, same issues.