It's a mistake to send Prince Harry to the front in Iraq

Prince Harry, 22, the second in line of succession to the British throne has stated that as an officer and a troop commander in charge of 11 men, he would not take a desk job when his regiment goes to Iraq. He said that if he cannot fight with his men, he would resign from the service.

I don’t know if this was pure bravado or if he said it because to do otherwise would make people think he was a coward but the prince had no other choice but to make that statement. In any case, the Department of Defence announced in February that the prince would take on a normal troop commander’s job which will mean he will command 11 soldiers carrying out reconnaissance work using four armoured Scimitar vehicles, each with a crew of three.

He wouldn’t be the first of the royals to offer to undertake hazardous duty in time of war. The Duke of York served in the Falklands in 1982 as a helicopter pilot. Prince Charles served in the navy as did his father. King George VI offered to go to the front during the Second World War but Winston Churchill talked him out of it. The Duke of Kent was killed in a plane crash in 1942 while in Scotland when he was on active service and Edward VIII served with the Grenadier Guards during the First World War, although he was kept back from the front because he was first in line for the throne.

I think it was a very bad mistake on the part of General, Sir Richard Dannatt to have given his approval. The reason should be obvious for four reasons. The first is that there is a very good chance that Prince Charles could be killed by a road-side bomb. Second, the insurgents and terrorists will go out of their way to find him and kill or capture him and this will increase the danger facing his men. Third, if he is captured alive, the government of the United Kingdom will be under enormous pressure to pull out the entire British contingent from Iraq if his captors make such a demand. It would be a condition of his release. And finally, the men will be shamed if extra precautions are afforded them in order to protect the prince.

He should have been told right from the getgo that if he was to go to Iraq after being commissioned as an officer, he would be given administrative duties behind the front.

I realize that every young royal wants to have a fighting role in the armed services to bolster his reputation but nowadays with terrorists and insurgents fighting in the manner that they are, the risk is far too great and the consequences far to severe.

Latest information:
May 18, 2007: General Sir Richard Dannatt has said that Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq because of "a degree of risk" that has become unacceptable. He added, “There have been a number of specific threats - some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual. These threats expose not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable.”

Later information
March 1, 2008 Prince Harry was sent to Afghanastan but it was a secret in which all the newspapers in England agreed to keep secret. He was put in the front where his encampment was attacked at least five times a day. An American newspaper source discovered the truth and it then his deployment to Afghanastan became world-wide news. The minister of Defence of the U.K. decided that since the Taliban were now aware that the prince was in Afghansistan, he decided that he better bring the prince back home otherwise the prince and the members of his unit would be subjected to greater attacks. A wise decision. In my opinion, it was OK to send the prince to Afganastan providing it was kept secret. Once the secret was out, the minister of Defence had no other choice but to bring the prince home.