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

Manic Moran

No sorry British public opinion aganist the war, makes the US distaste for the war, seem postively flag waving. There's no way that the British could spin this to make the public go pro war, in fact Harry's death would be totemic for the anti war movement, allowing people like Cameron to justify an pull out immediate pull out.

This appears to be one of those cases where a possible action can have two totally divergeant reactions. Only one can be right, but nobody may know which until it happens.

The British are an extremely proud people. They don't like to be seen to be bowing to anyone or to any threats. If they're going to get out of Iraq, by Jove it'll bloody well be because they want out, not because anyone forced them out. With the trend in the UK being in that direction right now anyway, a kidnapping of a Royal is going to be counter-productive. Nobody's going to try to spin it to be pro-war, it's going to be spun "We don't give a damn about the war, we were leaving anyway and you've just made this personal. Nobody tries to hold our Royal hostage and gets away with it."

You mentioned the then-jingoism of the Falklands. It wasn't because the British People were particularly interested in the Falkland Islands, the majority had never heard of them. Negotiations had been going on for years about a possible transfer of sovereignty without anyone (outside, maybe, of the Falklanders) objecting in any great detail. Yet an in-your-face action which violated the British domestic integrity sent the British population enthusiastically supporting a chancy military action to go fight a war to reclaim something that they had generally no huge interest in keeping in the first place. I believe this is what you could expect if Harry had a knife to his throat. Not a desire to occupy Iraq, but a desire to put the upstarts who tried that tactic in their place.

NTM

Diogenes

Zambia232 wrote:

I would see it as a cowardly act and would back either Brown or Cameron in a not backing down. I dont see how the death of a Royal would justify a pullout when the weekly deaths of troops dont.

The symbolism. The royal family are symbolic, with the US administration being pressed by the democratic house and senate, the death of a royal would be the magnet for the anti war.

Judt

Umm, anyone remember the Falklands? The Brits don't take kindly to be stepped on, even when their response has a good chance of going down in the annals as one of those "Heroic failures." The insurgents want that response, of course, but if they did kill a Royal and I was living in a neighborhood in Southern Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd be running out in the middle of the night.

Zambia

Diogenes wrote:

The symbolism. The royal family are symbolic, with the US administration being pressed by the democratic house and senate, the death of a royal would be the magnet for the anti war.

Ok that made no sense to me ....

RalphCifaretto

Seems fairly clear to me. He's suggesting that the reaction of the British public to the death of a member of their "royal family" would force the British government to withdraw from Iraq.

Zambia

RalphCifaretto wrote:

Seems fairly clear to me. He's suggesting that the reaction of the British public to the death of a member of their "royal family" would force the British government to withdraw from Iraq.

Cheers, and no it wont.

odonnell

The public were already against the war in Iraq and the government chose to go in anyway - what makes you think the government would listen to us in those circumstances? The government arent for the people in the UK, we are merely battery hens

Its be the biggest publicity the MOD could have in the middle east - a royal, willing to die for his country..... i wonder how the arab nations would respond.

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

You mentioned the then-jingoism of the Falklands. It wasn't because the British People were particularly interested in the Falkland Islands, the majority had never heard of them. Negotiations had been going on for years about a possible transfer of sovereignty without anyone (outside, maybe, of the Falklanders) objecting in any great detail. Yet an in-your-face action which violated the British domestic integrity sent the British population enthusiastically supporting a chancy military action to go fight a war to reclaim something that they had generally no huge interest in keeping in the first place. I believe this is what you could expect if Harry had a knife to his throat. Not a desire to occupy Iraq, but a desire to put the upstarts who tried that tactic in their place.

NTM

I don't think the Falklands is a fair comparsion, the British public have vehmently opposed this war for five years, and the largest mass public demostration in the history of the country was in opposition to the war even before it occured. I don't think the death of a royal, will suddenly turn these people into jingoist war supporters. If anything it will be a lightening rod for the Daily Mail types to come into the already massive anti war lobby.

Fratton Fred

RalphCifaretto wrote:

Seems fairly clear to me. He's suggesting that the reaction of the British public to the death of a member of their "royal family" would force the British government to withdraw from Iraq.

I disagree. In fact quite the opposite.

robinph

RalphCifaretto wrote:

Seems fairly clear to me. He's suggesting that the reaction of the British public to the death of a member of their "royal family" would force the British government to withdraw from Iraq.

I wouldn't be surpirsed if it had the opposite effect. I could not see them suddenly turning round and walking out asap in the event of Harrys death and saying sorry for ever being there, they would be more likely to up the presence and try to get some payback.

If it was Charles that was out there it might be a different matter though but I think the British public would be a bit more "upset" about William or Harry being killed in action.

odonnell

robinph wrote:

I wouldn't be surpirsed if it had the opposite effect. I could not see them suddenly turning round and walking out asap in the event of Harrys death and saying sorry for ever being there, they would be more likely to up the presence and try to get some payback.

If it was Charles that was out there it might be a different matter though but I think the British public would be a bit more "upset" about William or Harry being killed in action.

The problem is though, since when did the feeling of the british public (which is very mixed let me add and not as one sided as a lot of people might think), ever influence the actions of the government?

Judt

odonnell wrote:

The problem is though, since when did the feeling of the british public (which is very mixed let me add and not as one sided as a lot of people might think), ever influence the actions of the government?

Hang on and I'll get Eden on the phone.

irishsurfer

Well, this week hes not going....But then again, none of 'em should be.......Stay tuned.

Zambia

Ah under the circumstances I can see it being for the best.

RedPlanet

Akrasia wrote:

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

Huh? Sure the yanks don't know who that bloke even is. The only "royal" that endeared themselves to americans was Princess Di, and well, she's already dead!

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote:

Huh? Sure the yanks don't know who that bloke even is. The only "royal" that endeared themselves to americans was Princess Di, and well, she's already dead!

they know his Nan, even if they think she is 200 years old:D

RedPlanet

For the yanks, it's a bit odd to get too cosy to the british royalty.
Something about those "Founding Fathers" makes it seem... unamerican or something.

But it is a pity that Harry doesn't go to Iraq, he could've been a uniting force among the insurency. Maybe Sunni and Shia groups would put differences aside for a time and concentrate on scoring such huge propaganda victory.
I suppose one british life is worth so so much more than 1,000 iraqis.