Prince Harry's Deployment In Iraq May be Cancelled ...

SeanW

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/25889/Default.aspx

British military considers cancelling Prince Harry's Iraq mission
Fri, 27 Apr 2007 5:02am
Prince Harry

The British military has denied banning Prince Harry from serving in combat in Iraq - but has acknowledged his deployment is being reviewed.

Prince Harry, third in line to the throne, is due to head to Iraq with his Squadron within weeks.

Military chiefs admit that while they still want to send him, his presence there could be a danger to his colleagues.

April has been the worst month yet for the British in Iraq with 11 soldiers killed.

But a decision to cancel Harry's mission would be an embarrassing backdown and a propaganda victory for the militants.

File this one under "what the f**k were they thinking?"

I knew that one of the British princes was to be deployed in Iraq and it always sounded like a terrible idea.

With heaven knows how many terrorists and insurgent groups operating there each fighting for something completely different, I figured that when the Prince was deployed there, it would only be a matter of time before he would be kidnapped, shown on TV, a lot of ransom demands, ending with some fundamentalist whackjob putting a video of them sawing his head off with pocket knife on the Internet.

I would have thought that not sending high-profile VIPs into the middle of a mutli-faceted civil war with a strong enemy heavily backed by propoganda, would be on the first page in "Military Tactics For Dummies."

What I'd like to know is, does Harry really think it would be like leading a glorious charge up Stamford Bridge or something? And why didn't someone in the UK MOD see how idiotic this was before now?

Akrasia

SeanW wrote:

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/25889/Default.aspx



File this one under "what the f**k were they thinking?"

I knew that one of the British princes was to be deployed in Iraq and it always sounded like a terrible idea.

With heaven knows how many terrorists and insurgent groups operating there each fighting for something completely different, I figured that when the Prince was deployed there, it would only be a matter of time before he would be kidnapped, shown on TV, a lot of ransom demands, ending with some fundamentalist whackjob putting a video of them sawing his head off with pocket knife on the Internet.

I would have thought that not sending high-profile VIPs into the middle of a mutli-faceted civil war with a strong enemy heavily backed by propoganda, would be on the first page in "Military Tactics For Dummies."

What I'd like to know is, does Harry really think it would be like leading a glorious charge up Stamford Bridge or something? And why didn't someone in the UK MOD see how idiotic this was before now?

It would be a minor propaganda victory for the islamacists, but in the U.K. it would be like 9/11 times a hundred.
Could you imagine what the war mongers in Britain and America would do if such a scenario were to occor? They'd use it as 'proof' that all muslims are evil animals and the whole middle east should be wiped off the map. The Americans would use it as justification to invade Iran and the whole world would be extremely ****ed

Zambia

He went to Sandhurst he qualified as an officer, he goes.

The royal family have no business in the Armed forces if there not prepared to fight with them.

However in hindsight they should have made him a chopper pilot or something.

HelterSkelter

SeanW wrote:

With heaven knows how many terrorists and insurgent groups operating there ...

Terrorists!! Don't you mean freedom fighters? If some country invaded Ireland and they were sending their prince here to fight us, I'd be at the top of the queue to have a go at him. And I'd consider myself a freedom fighter, not a terrorist.

Oh yeah, I think if he joined the army then he should go to Iraq like any other army officer.

Judt

The MoD is between a rock and a hard place on this one - on the one hand, he joined the army and personally wants to go and do the job he's trained to do. He may be a twat, but at least he's willing to step up to the plate. If he doesn't go, it'll be a blow to him and also appear to be "One rule for the royals, another for my son or daughter."

On the other hand, if he gets killed or kidnapped, or another soldier gets killed defending him personally (because he's being targeted), well that'll cause outcry either way. How the MoD didn't see this one coming down the pipe...

People were saying for a while "He's in a (light) tank squadron, he should be fine." But these new Iranian made devices are hefty - they took out a challenger main battle tank. Usually it takes another main battle tank to do that. A dinky little light tank is almost as vulnerable as a jeep these days, if you run over the right (wrong) sort of bomb.

I'd say all they can do is send him to Iraq and hope for the best, which is a bad situation to be in. Maybe send half the SAS with him...

county

HelterSkelter wrote:

Terrorists!! Don't you mean freedom fighters? If some country invaded Ireland and they were sending their prince here to fight us, I'd be at the top of the queue to have a go at him. And I'd consider myself a freedom fighter, not a terrorist.

Oh yeah, I think if he joined the army then he should go to Iraq like any other army officer.

and would you consider if you were at the top of the queue of beheading him and posting it on the internet like these so called people would do?

Judt

HelterSkelter wrote:

Terrorists!! Don't you mean freedom fighters? If some country invaded Ireland and they were sending their prince here to fight us, I'd be at the top of the queue to have a go at him. And I'd consider myself a freedom fighter, not a terrorist.

They're actually murdering far more Iraqi's than "foreign foes". Not likely to find too many royal Europeans down the Baghdad market when you kill 100 people. But that's another debate.

flogen

I'm confused by this whole thing.

Harry joined the army and stated that he didn't want any preferencial treatment - if his peers get posted to Iraq, he wants to go with them and serve in the same position as them... I had a lot of respect for that as we all know full well he could join the army, sit on his arse all day somewhere in Yorkshire and accumilate shiny medals for his "service".

So his battalion (or whatever they are) gets its call up to Iraq, and some Iraqis get wind of it (via any number of news outlets, take your pick), and they say they're going to target him when he comes over... so the MoD start to have second thoughts about the whole thing....

Sorry, but was this not expected? You send a member of the British royal family to fight in Iraq, and your enemies want to kill them... how is that a shock? From what I gather they have no information about his whereabouts or movements, they just stated an aspiration of theirs that even the dead dogs on the streets of Baghdad knew they'd be hoping to achieve through blind-luck alone.

If they decide not to send him I'm going to chalk this one down to being a scam on the British royal families' part - and probably Harry's too.

"Yeah, I was hoping to go to Iraq too lads, but they won't let me... so anyway, don't let the shrapnel hit you on the way out, I'm off to get locked for the next decade"

Either that or the MoD have zero cop-on

gandalf

If he's in the army then he should go, if they didn't want him to face combat he should have been turfed into the army band or typist pool (or whatever its called these days).

What does this say to all those who have lost their loved ones in Iraq, because you are from some inbred Germanic privilaged family you can get out of dangerous duties because the powers that be are scared of a pasting in the Red tops.

Also if he doesn't go it will be a major propaganda win for the insurgents.

Hobbes

He's third in line. Thats like having two spare tires in your car.

Let him serve. Only his unit/commanding officers would know if he was a security risk and tbh they would be in a better position to ensure that isn't the case.

Zombrex

Vader's on that ship ... I'm endangering the mission. I shouldn't have come
Luke Skywalker

newby.204

Judt wrote:

They're actually murdering far more Iraqi's than "foreign foes". Not likely to find too many royal Europeans down the Baghdad market when you kill 100 people. But that's another debate.

Ref: emboldened text.
I believe anyone who colaborated with the germans were shot or hung after ww2 were they not. The US killed any north korean they could find just incase they colaborated with the VC or the NVA!!!. Its all gravy when the west, (and i dont just mean the US/UK), does it but when the tactic is used on us we start whinging.An enemy of my enemy is my friend, and a friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Zombrex

newby.204 wrote:

Ref: emboldened text.
I believe anyone who colaborated with the germans were shot or hung after ww2 were they not. An enemy of my enemy is my friend, and a friend of my enemy is my enemy.

I'm not 100% sure what your post means, but if you are implying that the insurgents are targeting people they believe work with the Americans, that isn't really it at all

Shia are targeting Sunni and vice versa. It is a civil war. The Americans created the vacuum for it, but the violence is no longer simply directed towards Americans or supports of the occupation.

newby.204

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not 100% sure what your post means, but if you are implying that the insurgents are targeting people they believe work with the Americans, that isn't really it at all

Shia are targeting Sunni and vice versa. It is a civil war. The Americans created the vacuum for it, but the violence is no longer simply directed towards Americans or supports of the occupation.

What it means is if Country X invades Ireland and irish people join them for whatever reason, then it wouldnt be too long before they were being shot at aswell as County X's soldiers!!!

lostexpectation

harry getting killed or kidnapped would great post justification for the war, win win situation for the UK

Judt

Problem with sending the guy is that you could end up seeing his mates getting killed because he's there and he's being targeted.

Reason the MoD is reconsidering is because Iraq has got a lot more dangerous in the south since he joined the army. Like I say, a rock and a hard place - he doesn't go and it's one rule for the royals, one for the rest. He does go and he gets his men killed, or himself, then that's a major loss for Britain and a big problem for them.

So, what do you do? As I say, send him and hope for the best. But I'd say wherever he is will have a good deal more special forces types roaming around than normal. But they're not just there to protect him - remember, if you're in his platoon then you're going to be seeing a lot more action that you would otherwise.

So honestly, it's a catch 22.

Judt

newby.204 wrote:

What it means is if Country X invades Ireland and irish people join them for whatever reason, then it wouldnt be too long before they were being shot at aswell as County X's soldiers!!!

Umm, it's a civil war between Shia and Sunni, who don't like one another. Neither side is working with the Americans particularly - the Shia associate with Iran moreso than anyone else, and the Sunni's, who are the minority in Iraq but the majority in the middle east, are fighting to survive. Nobody's a good guy and nobody's a bad guy, this is just a war to decide who's left when all ends.

Your view is the reverse of the American one that "All will be well when we invade" - frankly, you don't have a clue as to the racial and ethnic makeup of Iraq if that's your impression of things. The Americans, Brits etc are piggy in the middle to a civil war that's ongoing in Iraq. Saying who's with the Americans and against them is as complex as saying the Free Stater's were with Britain in the civil war.

Liam Byrne

Fact is that no-one from the US or the UK should be in Iraq.

But otherwise - following the complete and utter fk-up that was the invasion, yeah, he should go.....otherwise it's Bush and Blair sending "normal" people to their deaths in an illegal war, while the privileged get let off without going.

Anyone who signed up would've done so in order to do their bit if it was required, not just because some gob****e president decided he wanted to pick a fight and dive in where his daddy failed to gain control of the world's oil.

Bush is just damn lucky that he doesn't have any sons, or he'd be going through the same torment as every family in the US. And knowing that half the world is disgusted won't help; I flew out from Shannon earlier this month and the place was crawling with US Troops - I had to remind myself that although they're the visible signs of the disaster, it's not their fault, and I wasn't happy at the level of disgust that I felt that our airports were being abused in this way by these people. But like I said, it's not their fault - it's their psychotic and diplomatically- and intelligence-challenged president and government - these poor sods are just doing what they're told.

War should be a last resort, but if it's required/justified, then it's up to people to do their bit for their country; when the war is illegal, unjust and the antagonists can't even think of a believeable reason to get the people on their side, then it's a very dodgy premise from day one.

The best option, of course, would be to force Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Blair to enrol and do their bit - they're the ones that started this ****e and so they should be the ones that put their lives on the front line.

HelterSkelter

newby.204 wrote:

Ref: emboldened text.
I believe anyone who colaborated with the germans were shot or hung after ww2 were they not. The US killed any north korean they could find just incase they colaborated with the VC or the NVA!!!. Its all gravy when the west, (and i dont just mean the US/UK), does it but when the tactic is used on us we start whinging.An enemy of my enemy is my friend, and a friend of my enemy is my enemy.

I agree. Sure didn't Bush use the line "you're either with us or against us" after the Sept 11th attacks.

Liam Byrne

HelterSkelter wrote:

I agree. Sure didn't Bush use the line "you're either with us or against us" after the Sept 11th attacks.

Ah yes, HelterSkelter, but bear in mind that it has since been proven that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th - not that it needed to be, until the US public started to get brainwashed by Bush's lies about who was behind Sept 11th.

Bush may have since thought up another line or philosophy to relate to Iraq.....he's hardly a model of consistency, now is he ?

If the British prince or anyone else had gone after the guys who actually did perpetrate Sept 11th, most of the world would have supported them (me included, since it involved murdering innocents) and been right behind them. The unjustified invasion of Iraq makes it a whole other ballgame.

Fratton Fred

Liam Byrne wrote:

Fact is that no-one from the US or the UK should be in Iraq.

But otherwise - following the complete and utter fk-up that was the invasion, yeah, he should go.....otherwise it's Bush and Blair sending "normal" people to their deaths in an illegal war, while the privileged get let off without going.

Anyone who signed up would've done so in order to do their bit if it was required, not just because some gob****e president decided he wanted to pick a fight and dive in where his daddy failed to gain control of the world's oil.

Bush is just damn lucky that he doesn't have any sons, or he'd be going through the same torment as every family in the US. And knowing that half the world is disgusted won't help; I flew out from Shannon earlier this month and the place was crawling with US Troops - I had to remind myself that although they're the visible signs of the disaster, it's not their fault, and I wasn't happy at the level of disgust that I felt that our airports were being abused in this way by these people. But like I said, it's not their fault - it's their psychotic and diplomatically- and intelligence-challenged president and government - these poor sods are just doing what they're told.

War should be a last resort, but if it's required/justified, then it's up to people to do their bit for their country; when the war is illegal, unjust and the antagonists can't even think of a believeable reason to get the people on their side, then it's a very dodgy premise from day one.

The best option, of course, would be to force Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Blair to enrol and do their bit - they're the ones that started this ****e and so they should be the ones that put their lives on the front line.

good shout.

Manic Moran

I'll be very surprised if they back out.

Besides, there's a good argument for sending him, or at least making it known they're sending him (Even if he's kept in the base): If the opposition will pull out all the stops in order to try to kill him specifically that's the most difficult part of the British fight dealt with: They know where to look for people planting bombs ands launching direct fire attacks. Just keep an eye on the CVR(T) patrol routes, which are rural areas anyway.

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

Manic Moran wrote:

I'll be very surprised if they back out.

Besides, there's a good argument for sending him, or at least making it known they're sending him (Even if he's kept in the base): If the opposition will pull out all the stops in order to try to kill him specifically that's the most difficult part of the British fight dealt with: They know where to look for people planting bombs ands launching direct fire attacks. Just keep an eye on the CVR(T) patrol routes, which are rural areas anyway.

NTM

More than they do for any other soldier? Edit: You men bait to lure the 'baddies' in rather than to protect one guy more than another?

Manic Moran

You men bait to lure the 'baddies' in

Yep.

NTM

homah_7ft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

bait to lure the 'baddies' in

Wasn't that the strategic thinking behind the war in the first place?

therecklessone

homah_7ft wrote:

Wasn't that the strategic thinking behind the war in the first place?

There was strategic thinking behind the war?

Must have missed that memo...

homah_7ft

There was definately strategic thinking behind the war. Whether or not you find the arguments to be justified is another question.

Liam Byrne

homah_7ft wrote:

There was definately strategic thinking behind the war. Whether or not you find the arguments to be justified is another question.

I'm with therecklessone - I didn't think there was any thinking, let alone strategy, behind the war.

So homah, where was this "strategic thinking", and what did it refer to, so we can see whether it was justified. Was it the "Saddam was behind 9/11" lie ? Was it "Iraq has WMDs" ? Was it "We want David Kelly to commit suicide for questioning our 'intelligence' and 'proof'" ? Or was there something else ?

homah_7ft

Liam Byrne wrote:

I'm with therecklessone - I didn't think there was any thinking, let alone strategy, behind the war.

So homah, where was this "strategic thinking", and what did it refer to, so we can see whether it was justified. Was it the "Saddam was behind 9/11" lie ? Was it "Iraq has WMDs" ? Was it "We want David Kelly to commit suicide for questioning our 'intelligence' and 'proof'" ? Or was there something else ?

I apologise in that I may be causing the thread to go OT. I better bring it back to Prince Harry's deployment. I think he should be sent to the safest posting they can find there. My original point was that the strategic thinking was to create a lightning rod to draw out America's enemies and I had in mind how Harry's involvement was seen by some posters in this light.

Zambia

Liam Byrne wrote:

I'm with therecklessone - I didn't think there was any thinking, let alone strategy, behind the war.

So homah, where was this "strategic thinking", and what did it refer to, so we can see whether it was justified. Was it the "Saddam was behind 9/11" lie ? Was it "Iraq has WMDs" ? Was it "We want David Kelly to commit suicide for questioning our 'intelligence' and 'proof'" ? Or was there something else ?

Someone feel free to correct me but this is off topic there are several threads where you can yadda yadda about the reasons or lack of for the iraq invasion.

Manic Moran

homah_7ft wrote:

My original point was that the strategic thinking was to create a lightning rod to draw out America's enemies and I had in mind how Harry's involvement was seen by some posters in this light.

I don't think there's any strategic thinking about Harry going to the war zone beyond his desire to do his job, as expected of a future royal Colonel-in-Chief of various regiments. It's more an issue of 'if this is going to happen, how can we best take advantage of it'?'

NTM