Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
August 27, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

The Euro

Truthdig Bazaar
Unmasking Deep Throat

Unmasking Deep Throat

By John W. Dean

Rules of Disengagement

Rules of Disengagement

Marjorie Cohn and Kathleen Gilberd

more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

Prince Harry Is Denied an Iraq Excursion

Posted on May 16, 2007

Prince Harry eagerly wanted to deploy to Iraq with his fellow soldiers, but the head of the British army has said the risks to the prince and those serving around him would be “unacceptable.”


BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood said there had been a number of “specific threats”, but what the Army was most concerned about was the possibility that Iran would use its security services for an attack on the prince.

Reg Keys - whose son Thomas was killed while on active service in Basra in 2003 - said he found the decision distasteful and questioned whether insurgents could have told the prince apart from other service personnel.

“It would appear that Harry’s life is more valuable than my son or the other nearly 150 service personnel who’ve given their lives,” Mr Keys added.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By boggs, May 18, 2007 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

James Yell, you should go back and study the architecture and the roadmap that took us into Iraq and the consequences that our actions brought upon the Iraqi people.
The mess in Iraq is caused from the insanity of Bush and his plundering gang of thieves.
When you invade an innocent country and kill tens of thousands, then invite international terrorists to “Bring ‘em On”, you have asked for a war that we didn’t have to have.
A war contained in the mountains of Afghanistan would have been much easier to win a victory over the terror groups that we were harmed by.
Iraq is Bush’s mess not the responsibility of the Iraqi’s. Colin Powell said “If we break it, we own it.”
Well, seems that Bush owns this huge mess in Iraq and has no clue what to do, so he is preparing to pass his problems on to the next president of U.S.
Just like he has lived his whole life. Never taking responsibility for anything!
Never cleaning up after himself! The taxpayers have always cleaned up the messes left by GWB.

Report this

By Greg Bacon, May 17, 2007 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

“Cheerio, Pip, Pip and all that rot.”

Rich people start and profit off the wars and the poor ones fight, die and suffer the effects of that war.

Wanna see the war against Iraq come to a sudden close?  Re-institute the draft and make no allowances for wealth or connections.
Raise the income tax progressively, so that the richest 10% of the population—the ones that are making oodles of cash off this abomination—are taxed at something like 40% of ALL their income…but only till the war is over.

When kids with names like “Chip”, “Muffy” and “Prince Harry” start coming home in transfer tubes and the income tax bills hit home, watch the White House hang up a “MISSION ACCOMPLIHED” banner in record time.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, May 17, 2007 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

And I agree with Forkboy when he posted:

“Not everything is a conspiracy by the wealthy.”

It seems to me especially the VERY wealthy. When you’ve got more money than you can count (and the power and control that goes hand in hand with it) WHO NEEDS CONSPIRACY?

Most of our troubles come from those whose ambition it is to accumulate power and control. They are DANGEROUS people as Shakespeare noted on more than one occasion. Some of them will do anything to acquire loot - lie, steal, cheat (especially cheat), deceive, connive and generally behave in a manner I would call at the least, objectionable, and at the worst, feloniously criminal.

I’ve met a few very wealthy, high profile people. To a person they’ve been exceptionally pleasant and helpful and generous. And I’ve met quite a few of the clawing, money-grubbing, on-their-way-up types who were, for the most part, arrogant, intolerant, impatient, self-agrandizing, self-important assholes.

Report this

By Forkboy, May 17, 2007 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

I’m going to have to agree with RAE on this one.

Clearly Harry never had to join the military even though it is expected of male heirs to the throne.  Harry hasn’t waivered or faultered (at least publicly) on his desire to serve with his fellow soldiers in the Middle Eastern theater.

I genuinely believe he is displeased with the situation, but agree that his being in Iraq/Afghanistan may only serve to put other soldiers at an unnecessary and increased level of threat.

And let us not forget that the hawks in our current administration did not serve their country in Vietnam and do not have children of their own serving currently.  Their support for the war on terror, etc. seems to end at their front doors.  We do not know the position of the Queen on the wars in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.  She may not have supported them from day one and as such I would have no disagreement with her if she didn’t wish family members to serve there.

Not everything is a conspiracy by the wealthy.

Report this

By QuyTran, May 17, 2007 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

Hey, you don’t have to send this baby to Iraq. Just let him play with war toys that will be enough for his monarch and after that he’ll still get lot of medals as his grandfather and his daddy. War toys do not know how to kill people !

Report this

By James Yell, May 17, 2007 at 6:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh come off it. Harry is a member of the oldest personality, public relations family in the world. It is correct that he would have been a special target and unless you put him out on lone patrol everyone near him would be in the scope too and it would not be just that he was a soldier it would be because of his membership in the Royal Family that he would be targeted.

The British could send him to Iraq, but then they would have to keep him in the Green Zone with Bush/Cheney and his service would be useless and yet cost a lot of money to maintain. The British command shouldn’t have allowed this to go on this long, as it was apparent that Harry’s presence would have been too dangerous for everyone. But, I have a better Idea bring everyone back home and let the Iraqi’s clean up their own mess.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, May 17, 2007 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

What did you expect from to son of one of the world’s richest women?

Report this

By Ken Mitchell, May 17, 2007 at 5:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Every coalition should not be allowed to fight in Iraq. We had no business being there.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, May 16, 2007 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment

Before too many of the usual suspects run off at the mouth about this let me make a point or two.

The KEY argument made was that the prince’s presence would INCREASE THE RISK to the other personnel. Harry desperately wants to go and I’m sure he’s more pissed than anyone that by going he’s increasing the risk to others. It’s not his fault he was born a prince but a prince he is whether he likes it or not.

If you had been following this issue, Prince Harry has done everything but publicly plead with his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, to allow him to serve. (Heck, Elizabeth herself served in uniform in WWII as an ambulance driver and ambulance maintenance technician! But that was then and this is now.)

In interviews I’ve seen, Harry said he’s been itching to “get into it” with no special treatment or consideration whatsoever. His uncle, Prince Andrew, was a fighter or helicopter pilot in the Faulkland Islands war, when Maggie Thatcher was Prime Minister, but a single pilot is a whole different ball game than being a member of platoon of soldiers.

How about this time those from a country whose President could arguably be labeled a DRAFT DODGER just put a sock in it!

Report this

By DennisD, May 16, 2007 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Prince Harry will just have to play war somewhere else. I’m sure he’ll get over the “disappointment” pretty fast.

Report this

By QuyTran, May 16, 2007 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment

A big farce ! Nobody trusted except the monarch of England.

Report this

By nats41, May 16, 2007 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

well as usual some members of the elites in society are spared the realities of life in this case war whilst others mainly from poor working class families are simply told to be brave and defend their country. the British government could have set exemplary behavior by allowing Harry to serve after all to be a good leader you should first learn to be a good servant.
Missed opportunity well so much for democracy where everyone one is equal seems to me like its okay for others to die for freedom whilst others sit at home and watch what Paris Hilton is up to how sad!!!!!

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook