Harry's Tank Regiment To Be Deployed Within Few Weeks: Mahdi Promises Warm Wellcome

[Shehz]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.harry.ap/index.html

Report: Militants to target Harry

POSTED: 1130 GMT (1930 HKT), April 28, 2007
Story Highlights• Militants set up squad to target UK's Prince Harry in Iraq, Guardian reports
• Mahdi Army commander says group has informants inside British army bases
• Harry, third in line to throne, due to be deployed to Iraq in next few weeks
• Military reported to be reconsidering the deployment for fear it could endanger lives

LONDON, England (AP) -- Shiite militants in Iraq claim to have set up a special squad to target Prince Harry if he is deployed there with his army regiment, The Guardian newspaper reported Saturday.

The newspaper quoted a commander in the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, as saying the group had informants inside British army bases who would tip them off about the prince's presence.

"One of our aims is to capture Harry, we have people inside the British bases to inform us on when he will arrive," the newspaper quoted commander Abu Mujtaba as saying.

The Guardian said it could not substantiate Abu Mujtaba's claims and the British military dismissed them as propaganda.

Harry, 22, is a second lieutenant in the British army. His regiment, the Blues and Royals, is due to be deployed in Iraq in the next few weeks.

Royal officials announced earlier this year that the prince, who is third in line to the throne, would go with them. But this week military chiefs were reported to be reconsidering the deployment for fear Harry's presence could endanger other soldiers.

The Ministry of Defense would say only that deployments are kept "under constant review."

Abu Mujtaba told The Guardian that Harry would be a target not just for the Mahdi Army, "but every person who hates the British and the Americans will try to get him, all the mujahideen in Iraq, the al-Qaida, the Iranians all will try to get him."

The government announced in February that it would begin withdrawing 1,600 of the 7,000 British troops in Iraq this summer as it hands over control of southern Iraq to local forces.

But the past few weeks have seen a surge in violence, with 11 British soldiers killed in Iraq this month. In all, 145 British troops have died there since the 2003 invasion.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Adux]

Best of Luck to the Prince, Hope he gives a Royal *** whopping to those idioitc suicide market bombers over there.

 

[Keysersoze]

It looks like they are not going to deploy him there now. It's a big discussion point over here.

 

[Adux]

It looks like they are not going to deploy him there now. It's a big discussion point over here.

Well, they should, And I hope he goes there and the Kid comes back alive and makes a point to all those who wanna kill him.

 

[Shehz]

That kid is a druggie, all he'll do is drive his tank in the dessert searching for dime-bags! And when he finds it, William will fly out there as well.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well, they should, And I hope he goes there and the Kid comes back alive and makes a point to all those who wanna kill him.

If he gets killed then it would be an absolute PR disaster for the Government and the public outcry would be huge.
It was believed that an attack on a Scimitar tank the week previous in which a soldier was killed, was a dry run for a attack on Harry's unit. a Scimitar has never previously been attacked before and is the vehicle that Harry's unit uses.

 

[Adux]

That it would be a PR disaster if he gets killed, And the Tank isnt exactly heavily protected.

Anyways it would be a victory if he could make it back alive, And an absolute morale booster for the troops

 

[Keysersoze]

It would be an absolute nightmare for any officer who sends him out on a mission where he might get killed.........that's a career ender right there..... too many potential problems and not enough benefits......

 

[Shehz]

http://dawn.com/2007/04/29/int11.htm

Should Prince Harry be sent to Iraq?

By Mark Lawson

LONDON: On the phone-in programmes on Friday morning, the Go Harry vote was running far ahead of the No Harry faction, but Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, would be unwise to be swayed by this while deciding whether to send the Prince of Wales’s younger son on active service in Iraq.

In an age resistant to authority, voters on the shout shows tend to give the answer they think the establishment least wants. If anything happens to Harry on the battlefield, the very same people will be screeching for the head of whoever sent him. The dilemma over whether Troop Commander Harry Wales should be placed in the line of fire is, though, symbolic of the problem that the royal family and their supporters face in modern Britain. The PR effort of the last 20 years has been dedicated to suggesting that the royals live like anyone else — paying tax, supporting football teams, inviting ordinary people to their houses.

But the presence of the prince in the army at a time of a failing and dangerous war pushes this process of tactical normalisation to its ultimate test. Can a son of the ruling family be asked to risk his life in the way that so many of his grandmother’s subjects already have? Those answering media polls seem certain that Harry is no different to any other army recruit. But the decision is treacherous and complex and questions the very concept of a modernised monarchy.

The forces, having recently endured the mess involving the sailors held hostage in Iran, will certainly be considering how their decision might play with the tabloids and the blogs, and they are right to do so. The easy rhetorical cry that Troop Commander Wales should be treated no differently to his colleagues — a plea that is said to have been heard from Harry himself — becomes, on examination, absurd.

The average British soldier, if killed in Iraq, is lucky to make the news-in-brief columns these days. Would Harry be treated like that? There would be days of special supplements and front-page coverage. The average British soldier, if attacked or taken hostage on the battlefield, is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would Harry be treated like that? Insurgents and terrorist groups would devote huge resources to making sure they were in the right place at the right time. Admittedly, this is to reduce a question of military duty to an issue of presentation, but monarchies and wars fundamentally depend on their presentation to the public. Soldiers who are wounded are kept from the battlefield and Harry, carrying the wound of who he is, should most sensibly be given a sick note before he goes.

Because Harry Wales cannot possibly be treated like other soldiers by either his military superiors or by opponents, potential captors or journalists, the clear logic is that he should be kept from going to Iraq.

Such preferential treatment would result in a public relations embarrassment for politicians, generals and royals, but it would be far milder than the savage and career-ending blame game that would ensue if Harry were sent to Iraq and suffered the logical conclusion of conflict. All but the most demented anti-war or anti-monarchy campaigners must conclude that it’s better, in human and practical terms, for him to be called a pampered coward than to be brought home a corpse. The choice, though, should not have been necessary. This fiasco was created by the stubborn insistence of the Windsors that a spell at Sandhurst is what a real chap needs. There can only be a handful of families left in Britain in which it is assumed that the boys will do a spell in uniform; but, despite all the tax returns and open days and the iPods, it seems not to have occurred to the Firm (the Royal family that is) that letting Harry and Wills attempt a line of work that doesn’t involve being trained to kill people might have been a useful modernisation.

However, an institution that insisted that it wished to move with the times has stuck with traditional career lines, and so created an unsolvable paradox. Diana-ites will be tempted to suggest that, had the boys’ mother lived, she would have had them on a management course at UK high street giant Marks & Spencer, but her enthusiastic affair with a soldier, James Hewitt, suggests that she had no deep-rooted objection to men in uniform.

The problem is that soldiers are expendable but princes are protected, and so the professions are incompatible. You either have a royal family or you don’t, but the idea that a member of a family ruling by divine right and bloodline can be treated just like anyone else is ridiculous. The logic of rule by blue bloods is that their precious liquid will be protected. The charade of being one of the men should never have been attempted.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service

 

[JK!]

That it would be a PR disaster if he gets killed, And the Tank isnt exactly heavily protected.

Anyways it would be a victory if he could make it back alive, And an absolute morale booster for the troops

[/QUOTE]

As a recce tank its light and fast which is the battlefield advantage and the main gun is a 30mm cannon designed to fight OUT of trouble and not to get stuck in.

Furthermore a Challenger 2 MBT has recently been attacked and penetrated seriously injuring the driver.

 

[Shehz]

http://dawn.com/2007/04/30/welcome.htm

Prince Harry will go to Iraq: army chief LONDON, April 30, (AFP) - Prince Harry will deploy to Iraq, the head of the British army said Monday, after speculation that he may not go because of fears he could be targeted by insurgents. But General Sir Richard Dannatt also said he could yet change his mind, if circumstances change. “I have taken the decision as chief of general staff. It's my decision as chief of general staff. I have full command of everyone in the army, including Prince Harry,” he said in a statement. (Posted @ 22:24 PST)

Around a month back, 15 Royal Marines were arrested (not kidnapped) by The Iranians, right under the very radars of The British state-of-the-art frigates, and then released in a very humiliating way for the British. It can't get anymore morale boosting than that!

 

[JK!]

http://dawn.com/2007/04/30/welcome.htm

Prince Harry will go to Iraq: army chief LONDON, April 30, (AFP) - Prince Harry will deploy to Iraq, the head of the British army said Monday, after speculation that he may not go because of fears he could be targeted by insurgents. But General Sir Richard Dannatt also said he could yet change his mind, if circumstances change. “I have taken the decision as chief of general staff. It's my decision as chief of general staff. I have full command of everyone in the army, including Prince Harry,” he said in a statement. (Posted @ 22:24 PST)

Around a month back, 15 Royal Marines were arrested (not kidnapped) by The Iranians, right under the very radars of The British state-of-the-art frigates, and then released in a very humiliating way for the British. It can't get anymore morale boosting than that!

Ok that is debatable and besides he will be in one country as opposed to a disputed border.