Harry Hewitt NOT going to iraq

[Finless]

Originally Posted by String

He's since been found unsuitable to serve in that unit begging the question why is he still there.

AIUI, the decision is not based ........... not reported as being based on his being "unsuitable" but because as such a high profile person he will be specifically targetted by all and sundry out there. This puts his muckers in far greater jeopardy than normal.

Not that I care one way or the other about Royalty but I do think his expression of desire to go out there as genuine.

As for the spurious "no point being in if he isn't going to fight" arguement ....... well that doesn't really hold any ground IMO.

[Paul Oliver]

To me the main point of this is that he has been targeted, and so has his unit, the press would have made sure everyone within shooting distance and a lot further knew he was there and where he was at pretty much any time of the day.

The press really do make it easy for these people.

So although his Unit and Comrades were happy to take the risk is there any point? They have an "I'm Harry" T-Shirt out, in the theme of "I'm Spartacus"

[Finless]

Originally Posted by Lazlo

Blumin stupid idea that to think that he might have actually gone in the first place.... Maybe in the "olden days" royalty went to war on the front line, but not any more. I don't count the Falklands - Iraq is not the same kind of thing at all. Noblesse oblige as it applied to feudal lords went out a loooong time ago.

Why is he treated different from any other soldier .... well because he's a prince. What do people expect? And just imagine what would happen if he was killed, or worse - captured.

Not his fault though.

Agreed. Blaming him is like blaming me for exposing myself in the park the other night when it was plainly an accident that all my undercarriage apparel happened to fall off .............................. did I just type that out loud?

[Paul Oliver]

Originally Posted by Finless

Agreed. Blaming him is like blaming me for exposing myself in the park the other night when it was plainly an accident that all my undercarriage apparel happened to fall off .............................. did I just type that out loud?

Apparently 2 old ladies complained at Bexhill police station that someone had waved an excessively wrinkly and small prune at them in the park

[Richard Mason]

Originally Posted by Paul Oliver

To me the main point of this is that he has been targeted, and so has his unit, the press would have made sure everyone within shooting distance and a lot further knew he was there and where he was at pretty much any time of the day.

The press really do make it easy for these people.

So although his Unit and Comrades were happy to take the risk is there any point? They have an "I'm Harry" T-Shirt out, in the theme of "I'm Spartacus"

I was thinking much the same myself, similar in many respects to the situation when the Black Watch were sent into the US Zone of Iraq to help out in a big push there. It was in the media for weeks beforehand, endless questions in Parliament....it was even big news over here too; so the insurgents knew the Black Watch's likely AO weeks beforehand and they also knew that casualties in that unit would be a sensitive political issue - so what happened? They went all out on targeting the Black Watch and it's quite probable that extra casualties in that unit resulted directly from the advance publicity.

I really question the media's "need to know" on these matters which are close to being operational issues. We know the British (and Australian and US) military are on ops in Iraq and Afghanistan but I don't think there's any real "need to know" in terms of who's going where and doing what and especially the identity of individual soldiers in a given unit. When troops are sent to either theatre from this part of the world, the tv cameras aren't allowed to see faces and ID tags are blanked out.

So whatever happened to D-Notices?
Back in the Cold War, reporters were aware of lots of stuff but the editors were told loud and clear that they simply couldn't publish it.

I think the whole thing has been handled very badly by the govt, it should have been a purely operational decision by the relevant senior officers, instead of which, they've let it turn it into a media frenzy and a young bloke courageously striving to find a useful purpose in his life and choosing a much harder road, in the short term, than most of the rest of us is the pig in the middle. There are also parallels here with the balls-up over the recent capture of naval personnel by the Iranians.

[String]

Originally Posted by Finless

AIUI, the decision is not based ........... not reported as being based on his being "unsuitable" but because as such a high profile person he will be specifically targetted by all and sundry out there. This puts his muckers in far greater jeopardy than normal.

Which will always be the case therefore he's a liability to his unit - unable to fight with them without making it more dangerous for them than normal. Therefore he's not fit for purpose and should be dismissed from the service.

[Richard Mason]

Originally Posted by String

Which will always be the case therefore he's a liability to his unit - unable to fight with them without making it more dangerous for them than normal. Therefore he's not fit for purpose and should be dismissed from the service.

I think that would come pretty close to unfair dismissal. They took him on and trained him knowing full well the situation. Given the dedication and hard work he will have put in to get a commission, I think it's pretty harsh to dismiss those efforts as worthless.

I think there are two different possible situations here:

Take the Falklands where Andrew W. was flying Seakings, he was or would have been targeted by the Argentinians because he was flying a helicopter trying to look like an Aircraft Carrier, not because they knew the pilot was second in line to the British throne. If he'd been KIA or captured, it wouldn't have been for any other ulterior motive, in fact at the time, it would probably have been very damaging for Argentina had this in fact happened. But alls fair in love & war and the risk couldn't and shouldn't have been avoided. You couldn't argue that the risk outweighed the benefits; the Falklands Taskforce needed choppers in the air and the reality is that losing a Prince would have been infinitely preferable to losing a carrier or a frigate.

In the case of a conventional state on state conflict between opposing armies, this would still be the case.

In this situation, he is clearly more of a liability to his unit and fellow soldiers, partly because of the ridiculous amount of prior publicity his case has received prior to deployment. The consequences of his possible capture and the resultant videos on Al Jazheera etc cannot be contemplated politically and if he was deployed, it's probable that half the Iranian army would be sent over the border in mufti to do help out the locals. But just because he can't serve in Southern Iraq doesn't mean he can't serve elsewhere or in other valuable roles and given that the taxpayers have just spent a prodigious sum in training him, it would seem foolish to waste the investment

This sort of thing has happened before. My grandfather was an infantryman who served through WW2 and was then unlucky enough to be retained for service in the British Mandate in what was then Palestine, in 1946, or maybe 1947. Whilst there, he shot & killed an Irgun member (Zionist terrorist group) and as a result had a price put on his head by that organisation.
Because of this, it was deemed too dangerous for him to stay and he was sent out of the country. But guess what? They certainly didn't kick him out/let him out of the army.

I just feel sorry for the bloke actually, he appears to have got what it takes and be dedicated but they won't let him do it, through no fault of his own other than who is parents are. And put yourself in his shoes, what other meaningful work can he do? Lives under a microscope, so he can't go into business and make a few $$$ for himself, as every little problem and irregularity would be blown up into a huge scandal, the only other choice is opening hospitals and factories. At least in the closed environment of the military, he's in a meritocracy and can be respected for his capabilities and look others in the eye knowing that.

[Kalahari Diver]

I detect the sneaky pawprints of the Downing Street machine. Deflects criticism for the lies and spin that took us into the war doesn't it!

David.

[recurve]

Originally Posted by String

BBC NEWS | UK | Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq

An MoD U-turn then.

All that money and time wasted on training someone who has been deemed isn't suitable for being sent to a combat zone.
He should now be immediately discharged from the Army as he isn't fit to serve. What's the point of a soldier that isn't actually allowed to go and fight somewhere? Surely that's the whole point of joining up?

I guess parents of normal people send to iraq who are injured and killed dont get this chance of opt out clause.

Agree wholeheartedly with the above sentiment with the caveat that he should do the honourable thing and resign of his own volition.

Either he's a soldier or he's not. When my son was talking about joining up, I reminded him that he was signing a piece of paper saying he was prepared to die for his country!

[Lazlo]

Originally Posted by the goat

Why not?
Adifferent kind of war?
A different kind of dying?
Not wishing to be controversial but as I remember Prince Andrew served aboard HMS Invincible as a helicopter pilot, a fact reported around the world .Now I m sure an aircraft carrier would be a fine target anyhow , but with Royalty on board? whoopy doo!


Perhaps Andrew was excused from frontline duties, I don t know,Perhaps Harry has been pulled from his frontline duties by the same people.One things for sure,
We aint privvy to the information
ATB
Lee

Well, not a different kind of dying - not wishing to be facetious, but more British people die on the roads every year than in Iraq - they're just as dead.

Different kind of war I would say. The Falklands, it seems to me, was fought in a different spirit altogether. If Andrew had died (a highly unlikely event), it would have been regrettable, but probably seen as a bad PR move by the Argentinians, not to mention that it would have been very difficult to specifically target him. His ship (without which we would probably would have had to go home) was well protected by others, indeed those other ships would place themselves physically in the way of possible attack. His helicopter would have been difficult to single out.

In Iraq, on the streets, it would be literally impossible to hide him away. His position would be quickly known, and just as quickly targetted. In contrast to the Falklands, anything happening to him would be a huge victory for the opposition.

I've always thought that having royals in the military is a bad idea. These questions will always arise, and the risk will always be too great. So what's the point?