Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq; will he quit the army as promised?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Prince Harry has long said that if he were not allowed to serve in combat in Iraq as normal requirements for a tour of duty with his unit when called, that he would quit the army. Well, now the decision has been made that his unit will not be allowed to serve in Iraq because of the high target value of the Prince. So, is he a man of his word and will quit the army? or was that all just bluster and bluff?

What others are saying is:

"If he didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan he'd be just about the only person in the British army who hadn't been on operations," he said. "As a combat soldier he would have no credibility whatsoever."

-----------------------------------
*Perhaps this thread should be in breaking news? Mods please move it to where most appropriate

[RickSp]

If the Brits had just been smart enough to withdraw more expeditiously this wouldn't be an issue for Harry or any other British soldier. If they had been really smart they never would have followed Bush into this war like puppy dogs following their master.

Twenty one British soldiers have died in Iraq since the beginning of the year. Three hundred and ninety seven Americans have died during the same period. There are now 3,400 American dead and over twenty thousand wounded. And for what?

[rmnunez]

The Prince is right, not going harms his military credibility, but he certainly could claim to have been persuaded to moderate that decision to resign due to responsibilities of state. I'd recommend not resigning, I'm sorry he couldn't go, but its rather tricky; Britain is pulling out, it is very risky and he is the 3rd in line of succession.

[RickSp]

The Prince is right, not going harms his military credibility, but he certainly could claim to have been persuaded to moderate that decision to resign due to responsibilities of state. I'd recommend not resigning, I'm sorry he couldn't go, but its rather tricky; Britain is pulling out, it is very risky and he is the 3rd in line of succession.

As the Prince was not given a choice in the matter how his personal credibility is harmed is not clear.

[grandpa]

As the Prince was not given a choice in the matter how his personal credibility is harmed is not clear.

I think his credibility was harmed for wanting to go in the first place.
Sure, we could say it's great for a prince to actually consider joining the war he supports, but that misses the issue of the war itself.

Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

There are now 3,400 American dead and over twenty thousand wounded. And for what?

Oil, money and profit.... basically the bottom line.

There has been way too much abuse of trust since Bush got into power, and all kinds of alterior motives.... thousands have died, for ideals that were untrue. There were no Weapons of Mass Distruction, there was no proof Saddam was supporting Al'Queda, Saddam's War Machine was on Standby when they were attacked, and now all hell has broken loose....

Why? Because Bush thought he could play his game and get away with it.....

Quite honestly, and you guys in the US, you can take this as a compliment.... But Bush underestimated the US people's ability to not follow as sheep...... although it has worked for a couple of years at the begining of the whole crap after 9/11.... people began to open their eyes and start to realize they overestimated Bush and now all his plans of coming out as a big ass hero for the US people is pretty much became a pipe dream.

In all honesty, if Bush was smart, when he loses his power of presidency, he ought to go into hiding, because if he's not now.... he will soon be the Planet's Most Wanted.

[RickSp]

The British tabloids are reporting that Harry is not only not going to Iraq but he is being asked to stay out of the local bars as well.

Whatever credibility he may or may not have as a soldier, he credentials as a party animal are well established.

For Harry, no Iraq, no partying either

Prince Harry was on Thursday banned from having any more drunken bouts at night clubs for the next six months. The party-loving royal has been told by his commanding officers in the army that he must ‘lie low’ while his unit is away in Iraq.

“It has been made clear that these drunken nights out are strictly off limits. Harry totally accepts how bad it would look for him to be out enjoying himself while others risk their lives,” a royal source told The Sun newspaper. The young prince has attracted a lot of bad publicity recently with his antics both inside and outside his favourite London clubs like Boujis, Mahiki, Pangaea and Purple.

“We have no right to put Harry under a curfew or to stop him going out for a drink, but it is just a case of him lying low and reining himself in until they are home safely,” said the source.

[Mia]

On hurting his credibility - it's not about whether it was his decision, although stating he would not go would be even worse - it's that he won't have the combat experience and thus be behind his peers that do.

[Slevin57]

He is a military target. Groups made threats directly toward him.

He cannot serve in a military capacity because he is part of the crown. Third in line no less.

I am sorry your highness, you will just have to go stalking on your grandmother's estate and continue to have the British people foot the bill

[RickSp]

Regarding his credibility, I suspect his drunken escapades, not to mention his unfortunate choice of party costume, might also play a role.

Why what the "royals" do or not do should matter at all in these days and times is a complete mystery to me.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Why what the "royals" do or not do should matter at all in these days and times is a complete mystery to me.

Errrrr...perhaps citizens are curious to see how their tax money is spent supporting a royal family. That is a clear motive to being interested in the matter. Why are you completely mystified by that?

[rmnunez]

I don't think the notion of taxpayers funding the Royals is well established among Britons. In the US people do think of government as paid for with taxes, the country came to be on the rallying call "no taxation without representation", and this has caught on in other democracies, but not with the strength it has taken hold in the US. Representative government paid for with taxes works fine, but in the EU and especially in Britain, the monarchy is something special, its part of government but different and certainly not accountable in the sense of providing a favourable cost/product ratio for taxpaying contributors.