Prince Harry — The Enemy Within
Updated: 11.42
Four days ago Royal Anecdotes warned that an attack on a Scimitar armoured vehicle in the Maysan Province of Iraq was a “dry run” for an attack on Prince Harry if he is deployed there.
We said : “As if on a dry run, terrorists have destroyed a British Scimitar armoured vehicle in the south of Maysan Province, where Harry will be deployed. … To offer such a high profile hostage to the enemy, like a tethered goat, is very bad strategy indeed.”
This morning the top story in The Times (London) shows that the MoD is beginning to realize this very danger. Echoing this website, the article begins :
‘Dry run’ attack forces Prince Harry Iraq retreat
Army chiefs fear that a fatal attack on two British soldiers in Iraq last week was a dry run for an attempt on Prince Harry’s life, The Times has learnt.The attack was made on a type of vehicle that the Prince will use, and took place in a part of the country where he is due to be deployed as early as next month. The two died when their Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb — the first time that British soldiers had been killed in a Scimitar as a result of enemy action.
The Army fears that extremists deliberately chose the vehicle knowing that the Prince is a troop leader for a Scimitar-equipped unit.
The Times graphically reveals yet another danger for the Prince, even if he’s given a desk job at the base : “… insurgents … have become active this month even within bases used by the British Army in southern Iraq.”
It seems British soldiers have been warned about walking around within the base in case of kidnap. Iraqi police and army units, who share the base, have become infiltrated by the various Iran-backed militias of the insurgency.
The enemy is not only at the gates but within the camp.
We understand the decision on Harry’s deployment will be taken by General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the Army, who spoke out so bravely against the politicians and the war two months ago.
Again, we reiterate : sending Prince Harry to Iraq in any capacity would not just be shooting ourselves in the foot, but in the head and the heart.
Update : The Daily Mail has just reported : “[We have] learned the date when Harry is due to fly out to Iraq from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, but [have] agreed to keep the information secret to safeguard his security.”
However, Royal Anecdotes understands that Sir Richard Dannatt could overrule his deployment at any time. With two former Defence Secretaries, Michael Portillo and Sir John Nott, speaking out against the Prince’s involvement, the General may have serious cause to intervene.
John, I just read the story in the Daily Mail that Prince Harry will, indeed go to Iraq and I almost had a heart attack. The premise that the High Command will send him into the war zone and then will send him home if it gets ‘too dangerous’ is absurd. That is like saying they will toss a baby into shark invested waters and then try to rescue him if he looks like he’s in danger. It will be too late, Ethel, as they say here in Texas. Prince Harry’s statement that he is not afraid to die in Iraq is gallant and courageous, and very commendable. Nevertheless, the material point is that the Nation does not need for him to fight and perhaps die in Iraq. What is wanted is for Prince Harry to remain alive and well so he can serve the Nation as he was born to do, i.e., as Duke of York, in the fullness of time. Even if Prince William becomes King and marries, he may not have children and then it will be for Prince Harry to secure the throne with his own heirs. The young Prince must live, and live for Britain. Someone at the top echelon of the military must put his foot down and forbid the deployment before something dreadful happens. Now is the highest time.
By Gigi on April 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Gigi, Sir Richard Dannatt is still reviewing the case. His is the final decision as Chief of Defence Staff. He’s actually against the war and would like Britain to withdraw quickly. He might just be the man to pull Harry out.
The Mail is not in agreement with most of the press. The Times thinks he’ll not go and the BBC is sitting on the fence.
It’s still all to play for.
By John on April 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Then in this case, John, I am fervently praying that Sr. Richard Dannatt is a courageous man who understands the big picture. This is not a one-man play; this is life and each must play his own part.
By Gigi on April 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Being a soldier is one thing, Gigi, but that one young man should have to take on not only a whole tribe of insurgents plotting to cut him up, but that his own men may suffer from who he is, is just too much to expect, even from a British Army officer.
Why can’t they see that it’s too much of a burden to place on one officer in a war which doesn’t threaten mainland Britain?
By John on April 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I disagree with you that this war does not threaten mainland Britain. Britain has had incidents of terrorism, although not so severe as America has suffered. Despite the vigilance of British and American forces, more terrorist attacks may follow and almost surely will. John, we lost 3,000 innocent people in the blink of an eye, a loss we cannot forget and from which collateral damage we may never recover. It is a mistake to fall back into the self-deluding patterns that prevailed before WWII when evil got the upper hand because we failed to recognize it. America’s military sons and daughters must stand and fight. Britain must be as a hawk, unsleeping in the defense of her island, while evil lurks abroad. While the countries who fund and train these international terrorists remain active and enabled, every nation in the world is threatened. That said, Prince Harry must not be deployed to a forward area of the war zone. Nothing good can come from this, and much that is severely damaging may result. This decision must be made in a sphere that rises above the petty world of politics and public relations. Now what remains is for the man who makes that decision to realize where his duty lies.
By Gigi on April 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
If the Daily Mail know of his deployment date you can be sure the intelligence is out there. Leave Harry home!!!!!!!!!!!
By Trudie on April 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Gigi, I agree the war in Afghanistan was essential after 9/11 and I’m glad Britain was involved.
But the war in Iraq, while taking down a dreadful dictator, unleashed a score of warlords and the whole Shi’ite war machine. We’re in a much worse state now than we were before Saddam fell.
By John on April 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
There have been no more successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, John. That is not an accident. Nor is it from lack of effort by terrorist nations nor their supporters. Successful terrorism requires more than hatred and will. It requires massive recruitment of forces, funds for training and equipment, nations willing to arm the terrorists with guns, bombs and ammunition, and provide them camps in whcih to train and hide. This enemy is multi-national. There is more than one country assisting, armying and funding these terrorists.
By Gigi on April 27th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I must agree…..sending Prince Harry into combat is a HUGE mistake. I’m sure he wants to represent his country in the armed forces, but, because of who he is, a Prince in line to be King, he has an honor to their country to that first and foremost. The other important factor is, not only would he be in grave danger as the sole target by the terrorist, his fellow men in his bregade cannot help but be in extreme danger also because they would be close by him. It’s not fair to send him for several reasons. It would be considered a volunteer suicide for him and the men around him, so sending him into a combat zone period should be totally out of the question!
By Mandy on April 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
It would be a huge mistake, Mandy. There’s nothing to gain by doing it.
By John on April 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm