Sir, The overriding factor in General Dannatt’s decision not to send Prince Harry to Iraq was surely the character of the particular enemy. In Prince Andrew’s case the Argentine forces were uniformed, engaged in open battle and, had they captured him, would have given him honourable treatment. Prince Harry, however, would have been targeted from the shadows by men in plain clothes, who would then have displayed him on worldwide TV as a hostage in an orange jump suit at the feet of masked gunmen, facing death or mutilation (duly filmed for sale as DVDs) if their vast demands were not met. Why on earth the decision not to send him took so long escapes me.

JAMES MACDONALD, Taunton, Somerset

Sir, In the statement saying that Price Harry would not go to Iraq, it said that he would continue to develop his military career. A soldier who is banned from going into a warzone can have no proper career. This was foreseeable, and he and his brother should have been saved the inevitable derision, and taxpayers the cost of training them for careers which are a sham.

DUNCAN HEENAN, Niton, Isle of Wight

Sir, Prince Harry could not serve his country better than by bringing home to our political leaders that it is not in the national interest to hazard his life – and others of his generation – in Iraq.

ROGER EVEREST, Pontyclun, Rhondda Cynon Taf

Explore Letters

• Feedback