If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
MoD to 'Review' Prince Harrys Iraq role
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6594223.stm
Apparantly the MoD is thinking about changing Prince Harrys role in Iraq. Putting aside any opinions people have of the Iraq war, what do people think of this? I think its wrong. He shouldnt get a different job for being who he is. Your average soldier would never get a choice of whether go to the front lines or not, as far as i know, so why should he?
Apparantly the MoD is thinking about changing Prince Harrys role in Iraq. Putting aside any opinions people have of the Iraq war, what do people think of this? I think its wrong. He shouldnt get a different job for being who he is. Your average soldier would never get a choice of whether go to the front lines or not, as far as i know, so why should he?
0
Comments
I think that is the point. His presence will possibly put his colleagues in greater danger if Harry was particularly targeted by the insurgents. It's not really a case of the hierarchy not wanting him in a volatile area just because he is a prince. Andrew, after all, went to the Falklands ...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2062970,00.html
There was also a story the other day about a British tank being penetrated and its driver seriously injured by an IED. It had been previously thought that tanks at least were immune to such devices but basically everything and everybody is vulnerable to attack now.
I think the main concern for the MoD authorities is that attacks on British troops are going to increase dramatically and that many insurgents who are fighting the Americans might be tempted to travel south and bag the 'Big Prize'- which is going to mean a sharp increase of British casualties.
So rather than IRA tactics used at times (Mountbatten, Thatcher) that imply attacking the 'head' of a country, you instead attack anyone and everyone (peace campaigners kidnapped, pro-withdrawl journalists as well as troops, etc). So feels like an ideological change to target an individual this way - mind you that's probably already been seen in the UN targets and the bomb near the American politician (was it Rumsfeld?)
I would have to agree with this sentiment.
Imagine the consequences of that: demand the full withdraw of all troops and the release of whoever prisoners they want or they kill him. It'd be a win-win situation for them.
Though the chances of them actually kidnapping Harry are about the same as Ian Paisley becoming the next Pope.
Imagine Harry gets caught, the fallout would be horrendous. I appreciate his guts and the fact he doesn't see himself as any different to any other solider, however whether he likes it or not he is different. He needs to think about the increased danger he would be putting his fellow soldiers in and not just about himself.
:thumb:
Which is what my dad told me earlier.
Trying to kidnap someone from a Scimitar isn't easy and is likely to result in a lot more dead insurgents than Brits - after all its not like we're going to advertise which patrol Harry's going to be on so the opposition can be ready and prepared.
Does he ?
Is the area now "free for democracy" ?
Does that mean all the "nation building" has been completed ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm
It's probably for the best.
"After much deliberation, it has been decided that it is in the interests' of the Nation that Prince Harry should not serve in Iraq....instead we are sending him to Helmand Province for a year on the frontline!"
Yep, good idea. Its not just Harry's safety we should consider.
I agree. Who would want to serve with him knowing that he would put you in additional danger as he would be such a prize target?
Right decision in the circumstance IMHO.
The wrong one was having the very public debate beforehand thus giving the impression to our "enemies" that it matters to us whether he lives of dies more than it does for any other soldier. Tactically stupid IMHO
Of course, this could still be a smokescreen and he's actually still going out but without the blaze of publicity and army of media scum who would try to follow him around....
I imagine his troop, who find themselves going into potential danger without him...
Let's hope so...
No, it isn't. He should serve just like anyone else. He's pissed off, he WANTS to do his duty (my mates in the Army are the same. Gone out the Afghan now, bet he's loving it.)
Honestly, how are the terrorists going to spot him in full combat loadout whilst in a firefight? They going to recognise his eyes or something?
I don't think anyone would have any problem serving with him, so long as he is a good soldier. It honestly isn't like coalition troops aren't a target WITHOUT a royal serving there. Also, terrorists can (and will) strike at important targets IN the west too. They have already. We KNOW there are terrorists over here.
This is another nothing story turned into a sensation by the media imho. If the media hadn't bloody put it on the headlines, there probably wouldn't be as much of a problem, and he'd have gone out and been fine. Typical media, have to fuck everything up.
I think (or at least I'd like to think) that the decision was made with the wellbeing of the other British soldiers in mind, not Harry's.
You'd probably be thinking wrong, to be quite fair. I see your point, and it is Valid, but I don't think it would honestly make that much difference.
I take this idea that there are informants everywhere in bases with a pinch of salt. A big one. These are the same people that told us:
- Afghanistan had huge unground caves the size of cities with facilities in so that the terrorists could live there.
- That Iraq could deploy WMD's to strike critical world targets within 45 minutes.
And those were way exaggerated. Also, that the west was full of terrorists under cover and they were going to destroy our countries and the people if we didn't invade the Mid East. I don't see this happening.
There are informers, yes. They often get things wrong. And why would insignificant base personell be told the names of who was at the base, tbqh? So you clean the base toilets. Do you know every squadie there?
My brother has just come back from a tour of duty in Iraq, attacking a British base isn't that easy, they are enormous. What they've done is built massive walls around them, then paced out quarter of a mile and built another massive wall around that with a load of no-mans land in between.
As for Harry being there, it's a shame for him that he can't serve with his troops, he clearly wants to. But if he puts the others at heightened risk then maybe it is for the best.
A democratic solution would be to ask the troops in his unit to complete a secret ballot, let them decide if he should be there, accepting for themselves the possible extra risk.
Perhaps they could call in on premium rate phone line 'X-Factor style' and decide it that way
It wouldn't have supprised me if that happened. They've been doing a better job than Iraqi's at killing us Brits.
Meh. Maybe we'd invade and take over again if they did that?