Home Politics & Debate
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.

MoD to 'Review' Prince Harrys Iraq role

Former MemberFormer 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?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should he get a different role just because of who he is? Or is it one rule for him and one rule for everyone else?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Harry wants to fight though. He doesn't want to be treated any different so it's not really his fault if the people higher up "treat" him any different and assign him elsewhere. I read somewhere that there is a possibility of him and his squad becomming a bigger target if he does go out so there is maybe some logic in it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read somewhere that there is a possibility of him and his squad becomming a bigger target if he does go out so there is maybe some logic in it.

    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 ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was reading a story on the sunday papers on this... Aparently Harry has been made the no. 1 priority for all insurgent groups and there is even talk of different factions that are fighting each other joining forces to try to capture or kill him. The insurgents also claim they have a number of informers planted within the British army bases in Iraq and that they have been ordered to inform of Harry's movements:

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm quite interested (in that morbid trainspotter way) in what this means for the tactics used by nominally 'Islamic' terrorist groups. By understanding was that the targets for such groups had always previously ignored 'celebrity' targets as they inheirently recognise the importance of certain individuals. Instead they've always targetted general populations, to both instill fear, and to imply that everyone is an equal target.

    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?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And as to the original point - if you know something is a bigger target, you'd be a pretty poor military leader not to reflect that in your tactics.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    And as to the original point - if you know something is a bigger target, you'd be a pretty poor military leader not to reflect that in your tactics.

    I would have to agree with this sentiment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I'm quite interested (in that morbid trainspotter way) in what this means for the tactics used by nominally 'Islamic' terrorist groups. By understanding was that the targets for such groups had always previously ignored 'celebrity' targets as they inheirently recognise the importance of certain individuals. Instead they've always targetted general populations, to both instill fear, and to imply that everyone is an equal target.

    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?)
    Although killing Harry would be a 'nice' achievement for any such group the real prize for them would be to kidnap him.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the point has to be that as Prince Harry is a target (fact), which means anyone he works with will also become more of a target.

    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:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    I think the point has to be that as Prince Harry is a target (fact), which means anyone he works with will also become more of a target.

    Which is what my dad told me earlier.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's too late now really but there should have been a press blackout on Prince Harry's role in the Army. Seek an injunction, ban the publishing of any details whatsoever elaborating on the fact that he's in the Army. Take away all the speculation as to whether he will go or not, take away knowledge of where he'll serve and he'd be able to serve like anybody else with no special treatment. I don't like the idea of banning the press from reporting something but if the public expects members of the Royal Family to do something and supports their choice to serve in our armed forces I can't see any other way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He's signed on the dotted line so out he goes. From all accounts he's not a bad officer, so he'll want to be with the boys when they go out.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Harry wants to fight though. He doesn't want to be treated any different so it's not really his fault if the people higher up "treat" him any different and assign him elsewhere. I read somewhere that there is a possibility of him and his squad becomming a bigger target if he does go out so there is maybe some logic in it.

    Does he ?

    Is the area now "free for democracy" ?

    Does that mean all the "nation building" has been completed ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought this is worth bumping as it has just been confirmed Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm

    It's probably for the best.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wouldn't you just love the statement:

    "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!"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I thought this is worth bumping as it has just been confirmed Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm

    It's probably for the best.

    Yep, good idea. Its not just Harry's safety we should consider.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bad decision...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I thought this is worth bumping as it has just been confirmed Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm

    It's probably for the best.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bad decision...

    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....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    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?

    I imagine his troop, who find themselves going into potential danger without him...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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....

    Let's hope so...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    "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!"

    :lol:
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I thought this is worth bumping as it has just been confirmed Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm

    It's probably for the best.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    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?
    The insurgents have many informants amongst the Iraqi personnel that works inside British bases. They in effect would be able to tell in which base the Prince was at any given time. Which would quite likely result in a near constant rain of RPGs as well as suicide attacks and sniper fire on the base in question.

    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.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Aladdin wrote: »
    The insurgents have many informants amongst the Iraqi personnel that works inside British bases. They in effect would be able to tell in which base the Prince was at any given time. Which would quite likely result in a near constant rain of RPGs as well as suicide attacks and sniper fire on the base in question.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    The insurgents have many informants amongst the Iraqi personnel that works inside British bases. They in effect would be able to tell in which base the Prince was at any given time. Which would quite likely result in a near constant rain of RPGs as well as suicide attacks and sniper fire on the base in question.

    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.


    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    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 :p

    :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    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.
    I'm glad your brother has come back safe. It must be quite a harrowing experience to be there to help people and yet having to look over your shoulder at all times.. Is he due back again or that's his lot?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Harry dodged a bullet by not going to Iraq. Probably an American one.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Harry dodged a bullet by not going to Iraq. Probably an American one.

    :lol: 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?
Sign In or Register to comment.