Just a thought for the sake of perspective--

In checking, I find that the four sons of President Franklin D. Roosevelt served in the military in World War II.

James was second in command of the Marine 2nd Raider Battalion, winning the Navy Cross (second highest decoration for bravery in combat), and later winning the Silver Star (third highest decoration for bravery in combat) as commander of the 4th Marine Raider Battalion; Elliott was a bombardier in the Army Air Force; and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., and John Aspinwall Roosevelt served in the Navy. All four of these sons of the president were decorated on merit.

So, there is ample precedent for sons of leaders to serve their country honorably and well.

Prince Harry deserves no less an opportunity. He should not be held back because of who he is.

Terry L. Walker

Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S,C, / USA

I've been following the American posts about Prince Harry going to Iraq, and the overwhelming majority think he should not go. Not only will he be a prime target, but so will his comrades. This is not like the wars of the past where British royals have fought. The technology of today would zero in on him immediately. He's young, and ambitious...and cute as a bug, but I don't think he realizes that his presence will cause more security problems and perhaps the needless loss of additional lives, including his own. Please keep him home and let's all work, instead, on bringing everyone home from this senseless war of King George's!

Joie, Cincinnati, OH, USA

How can a war zone get worse than bieng a war zone, it is foolishness to state that iraqis will try any harder to kill Britons than they are now just because a member of royalty may or may not be among them, they already using 100% effort and will continue to do so even if Harry doesn't go, yes there are risks of him bieng captured or killed but those risks are no greater in iraq than they are in afganhistan or even in the UK should an intelligent terrorist plot be hatched with him as a specific target, as a scimitar commander he is in no more or less danger than any other as you can't tell who is inside the vehicles, unless specific intelligence is leaked on who is inside it. however not sending Harry after him saying he expects to go with his troop will send a message of cowardice on the part of the british to iraq which will be a coup for them as big as iran's hostage taking.

mini, gateshead, england

All fine and well and bravo to the comments from the USA. Ask yourself one question as a 'would be member' of Harrys section. Would you rather have him as your commander or would you rather have a commander with a lesser media profile. I imagine the answer is self evident.

strewth, Manchester,

Thank dog the press is covering this. It at last gives some insight into the true situation on the ground, namely, that the insurgency attacks at will. We are not taking the fight to them as has been claimed. Important point, that.

Haroon Jahed, Portland, USA/Oregon

its not what he wants , he is 2. in line behind william and this is a responsibillity to ! he will jeopardiese his mates as he WILL be a target , think about it and give him another respossible post he and granny can be proud of !

charlotte, knysna, south africa

If the Establishment prevents Harry from going to Iraq, he can always join our US allies for a tour of duty instead.
SI

SI, PD,

I can see why he'd want to go and be treated like anyone else- but I think, given the danger if increased attacks around him, he needs to either be moved to another, completely different place/role (if possible) or just honourably bow out when asked to. I'm sure people would respect the decision, as it's not for him, but for the good of the fellow soldiers- 'discression is the greater part of valour', right?

It would be nice if it was safe enough there for him to be so publicly visible, but this isn't the case, so it will have to be a truly secret role, which may be impossible with that huge bounty hanging overn him, or somewhere less obvious. What a choice to make, though!

Gideon, Chiba, Japan

Prince Harry would be at far higher risk of death in Iraq than other soldiers, and the same would apply to those serving in his unit. Furthermore, a scenario like his public beheading by insurgents could triggger world war 3. It would be folly to send him to Iraq.

Wiiliam, Ipswich, Suffolk

Would more be done to prevent Prince Harry from going to Iraq if there weren't questions about his paternity? Hopefully he won't be accidentally killed, like his Mother.

DS, Oxford, England

I think Prince Harry had some good teachers and mentors at his recent school. Probably the best. He's being a good soldier/student. This is the worst theatre for that, it's partly because the theory of war is antiquated - times HAVE changed and we do run out of things here on Earth. Harry's loss would be unfair to Prince William.

mariam, Potomac, Md. US

Prince von Bismarck of Germany was a great military man but also was responsible for industrialising that country. Harry should do the tour - we know how much he respects warmongering German leaders.

Ben, York,

The biggest danger for Prince Harry in Iraq ,will be that his track record shows he is not up to the job and should never have been acccepted for Sandhurst in the first place.
His school record was not up to scratch and whatever the courts said, everyone knows he cheated to get his A level exams,, and the Teacher who helped him was sacked for her troubles. Also his stunt to dress up as Hitler was an embarassment to say the least, not forgetting his regular drunken rowdy behaviour.
If he hadn't been a member of the Royal family; "Harry" would never have even got an interview at Sandhurst. His blatant lack of intelligence, shows the main risk in Iraq is not the insurgents but The Prince himself , in protecting the men under him when making split second decisions.
The Army needs clear thinking people to be in charge of troops not hotheads. They should have known better and never accepted him for Sandhurst in the first place, as he clearly wasn't suitable.

john.gilmore, Chantilly 60500, France

And will the press acknowledge its role in this? How did the insurgents know of his whereabouts or what vehicle he will be using? Have they infiltrated the British army? No, the press publishes his every step and then gets further mieage out of the danger they themselves have created. Would the press do this to any other soldier? It is nearly criminal in my mind and I hold them repsonsible for the deaths of the two soldiers.

Susan Schurer, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania

Prince Harry would be THE prime target in any military theatre anywhere in the Middle East. This puts his own life at risk but more importanly significantly increases the risk - an unnecessary risk at that- to the lives of those around him. Allowing him to go woulkd be as sensible as pouring gasoline on the fire; it can only inflame the situation.

My bigger concern is that should the enemy succeed in capturing him and harm him or heaven forbid, kill him - and we all know they are capable of doing so - it may escalate the military situation to such a level as to mark the beginning of the Third World War .

I suggest we bestow on Prince Harry some recognistion of
his bravery so the whole world can know that he himself wanted to go to war, but for the sake of his fellow soldiers, innocent Iraqis and to prevent escalation of the violence to something even more horrible that the present, he listened to the voice of responsibility and common sense. This is his higher duty.

Leon, Swindon, U.K.

If Harry is posted in Iraq - the main focus - will be on protecting Harry rather than defending the territory or the job at hand.

Whether Harry likes it or not - he will become a prime target. There will probably be no end to the volunteers - electing to blow themselves up near the British forces – if they though that Prince Harry might be there - where they would have normally chosen a market full of innocent Iraqi shoppers.

I am not sure if is the wisest decision to allow Harry to be posted in Iraq - although - in the long run - it may turn out to be one of the best decisions for this country's part in the war.

Rebecca, LONDON, UK

At last, a warrior king in waiting. When do we march on Westminster?

DC, Shetland, UK

For the sake of his honour,his family, his regiment and his country, let Prince Harry be deployed to take up his duties in Iraq - but for Gods sake, if our Prime Minister wants to do just one good deed in his life, let him impose a top level D-Notice on the media banning all mention of the whereabouts of Prince Harry during his deployment to Iraq. The British media appear to be highly skilled at aiding and abetting the enemy.

Ron D Carey, Blandford, Dorset

Harry's courage is commendable, but sending him to Iraq is one of the stupidest ideas anyone's had since we went to war there in the first place.

It is ridiculous to pretend that Harry is 'just one of the lads' when clearly in political terms he is about the biggest bargaining chip that Iraqi militants could ever hope for. I admire the courage of every serviceman and woman in the armed forces, but Harry is simply not in the same position as the others, becase of the huge political implications of his capture.

Consider the scenario: after however many days/weeks/months, Harry is taken prisoner by Iraqi insurgents. With such a hostage they can demand basically anything they want, with the British and American forces almost powerless to challenge them. They can call for immediate release of all prisoners, immediate withdrawal of all troops, etc etc. It is madness to risk this. He will not only endanger his comrades but potentially the whole British/American position in Iraq.

FC, London, UK

I KNOW the world has gone mad, but I can't honestly believe the Queen, the Prime MInister, and those senior enough to be in charge of our armed fores in Iraq can for one minute think that it is the right thing to do to send Prince Harry to Iraq.

Are we so governed by our own pompous sense of British stiff upper lip, losing face and the propoganda war with Al Queda ,that we have lost sight of the fact that our enemies must be laughing their heads off!

Are we so predicatable that we are prepared to sacrifce Harry and countless poor souls that have the misfortune to serve with him.

Nothing can detract from the boy's courage becuase he wants to serve, and let's find a way to help him, but this isn't 1940 or the Falkland War, it is global terrorism and we need a reality check.

DON'T send this young man to Iraq make a really brave decision to save him, his comrades and show the world that we are not the caircature that the world sees us as.

PLEASE, PLEASE do not send Harry.

Susan Boyd, Ayr, Ayrshire

Worlds highest paid welfare recipiants...might as well get some use of em!

DK, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Let him go. 2LT Whales doing the right thing. It will help him in later years. Duty, Honor, Country. It's very simple. But for those of you who have never served it's a concept you can't understand.

For those of you who are concerned about his fellow soldiers, let his platoon be made up of volunteers. I’ll bet to a man they all stick with him.

I'm headed to Iraq myself next month. And I'm 54. I'd be proud to serve in the same unit with him.

Tony Oresteen, Montverde, FL, USA

If the Army, Government and Press were able to keep it under their hats (a highly unlikely scenario) by making everyone believe that the Prince has been deployed to Iraq, it could prove to be a great opportunity to set a trap and eliminate these vermin that we call "extremists". The Prince can be flown out of harms way before seeing any action and then the other troops can flush out the insurgents. Just a thought!

Edward, Detroit, MI

It's funny to see all these comments from the USA whose current President hid from the VietNam war in the National Guard, whose vice-President had "other priorities", and whose immediately past President hid out at Oxford and didn't inhale for three years.

But the Yanks are quite happy to fight to the last Brit, aren't they.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US

I am afraid that Prince Harry will suffer not one but many attempts to be kidnapped or just murdered by the Shiia or any other Iraqi group who are fighting against the American and British forces in their country. Quite obvious, that would be a main target for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It is nonsense to say that he must deploy in name of a false patriotism. Is this a war where British interests are primordial or at stake, not at all, as Robin Cook said to your House of Commons more than four years ago. So why accept this senseless decision taken by the Prince and perhaps by some other people from his entourage. Is somebody measuring the extreme risks that he will face, and worst of all, anyone who must protect him. Is Britain ready to give as a present, this young brave and chivalrous young man, but extremely stubborn, to any of the Islamic fundamentalist groups which are involved in the Iraqi civil war now? I hope that HM the Queen in name of common will stop this.

Louis A. F. v. Wetzler, Santiago, Chile

It would be incredibly good for the morale of his fellow soldiers, the whole army indeed, not to mention the country if Prince Harry were to go to Iraq. When his brother went to the Falklands he lifted, in an immeasurable way, the pride of his nation.

Dr Patrick J. Salt, Walsall, UK

Oh please, the increase in attacks, the increase in intelligent attacks, the danger that having a royal deployed to iraq presents.......whatever happened to the needs of the many outweigh those of the few? He can be deployed elsewhere other than Iraq. What about Afganistan? What is the Prince trying to prove by going to war? Young people are always so confident, that is a good thing, not a bad one but when it overrides good common sense - please people. This is a no-brainer. He can do much more alive than he can, God forbid injured or killed. THAT would be a tragedy, think of the morale? I would not want to be the one that made the decision to let him go. He would be thankful for not being sent in 20 years when he is thinking more and looking at the bigger picture. There is one here folks, someone I hope tells him what it is.

RT, Charlotte, USA / NC

In my opinion the root cause of this situation stems from the actions of certain sectionsof the British press in a cynical approach to maintain circulation figures.

There should be a 'D Notice' - do they still have these ? - imposed on all news organisations in UK jurisdiction in respect of ALL British troop movements into and out of theatre and then no one would be any the wiser as to where or when Prince Harry and his men are serving.

Prince Harry is a member of the Royal Family and so attracts more media attention than Joe Public, but no one made him join the Army and so he made his choice and he is willing to live with the consequences.

As King Edward said at the Battle of Crecy when the Black Prince's battle group - his own son - was under severe attack by the French '....let the lad earn his spurs!..''

Impose a general news blackout on movements and let this young man get on with his job for which he has been trained!

Martin , Rotherham , England

Fine for the Prince to go in with guns blazing, but what about the added threat and additional death and injuries to his comrades because of him (and not the situation in general)? I say he and the other Brits togehter with the Americans come back (not go) and let the Iraqis sort their own lives out.

Deepak, Wayland, MA, USA

Let's not waste the opportunity if young Wales deploys. If he draws fire, excellent. It may expose an enemy. However, If his scimitar gets hit by an IED, he'd be just another tragic loss to the ambush tactic that has defined the war. It may be time, perhaps past time, to utterly, ruthlessly and violently reduce the enemy's capability to do violence, starting with the usurper and runt cleric Al Sadr, razing the city bearing his illustrious ancestors' name. It may be time, past time perhaps, to allow the military to acccomplish the work, with the well intended politicians, especially in the US and Britain, laying down, by their bowl and shutting up. War cannot be conducted sweetly, by facile and 'sensitive' political objective.

COL KEV, Arlington, VA, USA

There are a number of views expressed in this forum that suggest Prince Harry's service in Iraq will either make him and /or his troop specifice targets or, increase the likelihood of other members of the armed forces being targeted for "dry run" purposes. This is not only absurd but shows the level of media/political manipulation that is numbing our senses to the reality of the situation. Iraq is a country riven by insurgent action. It is both irrelevant and pointless to endlessly debate the rights and wrongs of the the initial decision to invade; we are where we are. In Iraq, targets of opportunity are just that; targets of opportunity. If evidence (from within a coalition camp) that a patrol is going to take place, insurgents will hastily convene to plan an ambush. If a sniper (and recent British fatalities by "small arm's fire" suggest that this is the case) has a target in his crosshairs then he is going to pull the trigger rather than consult his "royal mugshot album".

Stephen Edwards, Norwich, Norfolk

I'm not sure why I'm fascinated by this debate, but here goes. There have been more American G.I.'s killed on hot rod motorcycles AFTER they got back from the sandbox than fatalities IN the sandbox. There is no doubt that the ops in Iraq are a quickly evolving disaster for everyone involved, but to non-stop analyze some poor guy's every move has got to be hard on the kid. Leave it to the British Army. Jeeze I'm glad I'm only minor royalty.

Mike Leahan
Sun Prairie

Mike Leahan, Sun Prairie, U.S.A./Wisconsin

Prince Harry is a serving officer in Her Majesty's armed forces, and as such he is required to follow his orders! The basis for the issue of orders to Lieutenant Wales must be done in accordance with tactical operational requirements in the Iraq theater, and the forces deployment agenda as set down by the responsible commanding officers.
The facts are clear in this instance in that the insurgents in Iraq have become emboldened by the prospect of a member of the British Royal Family being physically within their grasp; hence their "dry runs" and increased "intelligence" gathering activities.
So it is also clear that to deploy Lieutenant Wales into Iraq will of necessity require an increased security regimen, further straining available military resources. This is unavoidable since anything unfortunate that should befall Prince Harry would without question create enormous turmoil, not least a media frenzy and the resultant worldwide public outcry!
Common sense should prevail!

Christopher Smithers, Bangkok, Thailand

Perhaps Mr Blairs son might consider joining up.
I take my hat of to Harry who is obviously made of the 'right stuff' !but in these circumstances other commentators are right, it would compromise the safety of others.
Isn't it amazing, that in WW2, we managed to invade Normandy in secret and yet the preparations that took place were immense even to the day that the allies massed in the middle of the English channel! the media would today blirt every move out to the enemy just to sell newspapers,Harry would probably gone had his every move not been reported from when he joined up. I seems that the media need to learn the meaning of responsibility and loyalty to their country!

Robert, Towcester, UK

Why does he not go unannounced? We should only have found out he was there at the end of his tour of duty. Is there no where else he could serve - Afganistan? His location should not be reported. Surely the press would agree to this, as they did when William was at college.

Chris, Harrogate, England

(i) The British Army is a professional military organisation, adept at fighting counter-insurgency warfare (despite what the Guardian or the BBC would have you believe). Intelligence and counter-intelligence are foremost in such a conflict and the identity of any member of a patrol, prince or pauper, is jealously guarded.
(ii) The insurgents are attacking 'occupying' forces at any given opportunity - April has been the bloodiest month for the British forces since the invasion of 2003 - they certainly haven't been waiting for Prince Harry to arrive.
(iii) Even if the insurgents did manage to work out which patrol HRH is leading and decided to have a pop, they would be attacking a formation of at least three armoured vehicles. Sure, they have managed, through IEDs, to kill the crew of such vehicles, but to presuppose that they have the capability to take on more than one at a time in a stand-up fight is ridiculous and totally without precedent.

Josh, London, UK

I am afraid that Prince Harry will suffer not one but many attempts to be kidnapped or just murdered by the Shiia or any other Iraqi group who are fighting against the American and British forces in their country. Quite obvious, that would be a main target for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It is nonsense to say that he must deploy in name of a false patriotism. Is this a war where British interests are primordial or at stake, not at all, as Robin Cook said to your House of Commons more than four years ago. So why accept this senseless decision taken by the Prince and perhaps by some other people from his entourage. Is somebody measuring the extreme risks that he will face, and worst of all, anyone who must protect him. Is Britain ready to give as a present, this young brave and chivalrous young man, but extremely stubborn, to any of the Islamic fundamentalist groups which are involved in the Iraqi civil war now? HM the Queen must do something now, in Diana's memory.

Louis A. F. v. Wetzler, Santiago, Chile

Has anybody thought of turning off the base station of the cell phone service in cell the troops are traveling through?

Andy , San Francisco,

With all that uniform and helmet and gunk they put on their faces pray tell me how they will even recognize him.It is a lot of hot air.If he`wants to go let him,not likely he is ever going to be King anyway and a tad more useful to him I guess ( not to me I am opposed to war ) than his usual boozing etc habits and rich kid lifestyle.Kings and princes always led the armies in the good old days of history on horseback

M McGregor, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

I have to agree that the press has caused all of this attention. Doesn't anyone practice OPSEC in England regarding military operations? Harry needs to go and do his part as others have done. The Brits needs to change their ROE in theatre so that they can deal with the nature of the threat. Kill anything and everything that moves. It's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Aaron, Milton, FL USA

Is the Prince not a target in Great Britain? Let Harry follow his quest and support him no matter what.

Mycroft, Brookfields, USA/Ma

Before mechanised warfare, monarchs always led the charge in battle. It is an aristocratic rite of passage. It is a great way to rally the subjects (you and me) and I think it should be obligatory. More so for the likes of Bush and Blair, their children and even themselves should be required to serve a tour. Or two.

Nonplussed , London, Londinium

The prince doesn't want to be seen as a slacker who takes advantage of his postion, but that very position makes him a prime target for these maniacs. It might be better if he were called home in the interest of removing the temptation he represents. It would have to be done so everyone knows it was against his will and he wanted to stay with his men. Touchy situation, possibly no win.

Tony Pitochelli, Wichita, Kansas

Where is the Black Prince, when you need him. Prince Henry of Wales is trying, against apparently very stiff resistance, to be a typical, patriotic, English lad - trying to be a man, and do his duty. Like all who have servered in Her Majesty's forces, know, there is nothing worse amongst the lads, than being precious.

I think Harry ought to have a long, very private talk with one of the few men left, who have both perspective & exposure to hostile fire, his grandfather, about what he ought to do, and what is expected of him. The axiom " where were you when we needed you, and what have you done for us, lately" comes to mind.

Michael Sorrell, Brit working in the USA, Las Vegas, NV, USA

harry has more guts than most in this world today,and yes i have a son that it going to iraqi in july..may god keep them safe,,,,,,,,,,,,

rick rankin, chicopee, ma

I pray Harry will be our next Prince Hal at the battle of Agincourt.

Especially after the Iran hostage crisis we English need to reach deep into our souls and discover our former greatness. Sacrifices will be great. They always are.

Why has this generation become cowards?

The time is now...

John, Seattle,

Prince Harry is a soldier and has stated publicly that he wishes to serve with his unit wherever it may be stationed. The Army and the British government should not keep him from serving with his unit.

Prince Harry may become a target, and may present more of a risk that others--he knows that. He may even put his own troops at more of a risk. But I'm sure the troops under his command would rather serve with a man of courage who is willing to face consequences, than with someone who is less committed to his mission.

There are times when an honorable man simply has to do the honorable thing. And Prince Harry's desire to serve with his unit shows he is a man of honor and courage.

Godspeed to Prince Harry. There are many of us who applaud him.

Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S,C, / USA

This should be an easy decision for the army. Iraq is extraordinarily dangerous. Harry cannot be sufficiently protected and, of course, he will be a target. Given the increasing number of fatalities amongst British soldiers, it is simply stupid and counter productive to think that sending Harry into this mess will ultimately accomplish anything other than handing the insurgency a huge win if they succeed in killing or capturing him. Can you imagine the impact of a video with the insurgents beheading a royal for all the world to see? The Army should do the pragmatic thing and keep Harry home -- the downside is simply not worth the risk.

Richard, Paris, France

Why bother sending him to officer school, and train him to lead troops, if in the end, you are afraid to let him to what he is trained to do?
The schooling would appear to be nothing more than a publicity stunt.

He is trained for it, he wants to do it, let him do it.

James, Charlottesville, Virginia, US

Harry's stated goal is to participate in the military and be treated like any other soldier. The problem is that he is not just any other soldier in the eyes of the enemy combatants; He is a high-profile, valuable target to them. Because of this, Harry's desire to be just "one of the boys" is resulting in the attacks and deaths of his fellow soldiers as the enemy forces attempt to capture or kill him. Harry should volunteer to be pulled back from the front lines, if for no other reason than to lessen the death toll of his countrymen serving with him. Harry has admirable intent, but the real effect of his service is that he is posing an increased risk to his fellow servicemen.

Chris, Dayton, Ohio, USA

If by sending Prince Harry to Iraq places other troops in danger he should not go.
If it does not do so he should take his place alongside his fellow troops and face the same dangers without special privileges as did his uncle Prince Andrew whilst in the Falklands.
His Family origines should not be an issue

Michael Wilkinson, Telford, Shropshire,England

To Prince Harry:

Thank you for your service, even if your fellow countrymen don't get it.

William Kelly, Houston, Texas, USA

Anyone who joins the army and takes the oath of allegiance must be prepared to accept the responsbilities of military life - including obeying orders and being posted to dangerous locations. Everyone should have been aware of this fact when Prince Harry joined the army. He is a soldier among soldiers and should not be treated any differently simply because he is a member of a well-known family.

John Murphy, Bournemouth,

As an officer, one of the fundamental parts of your training is in the mission 'appreciation' process. Forget unfortunate Harry. His superior officers will do their appreciations and conclude that in achieving their mission, he is an unacceptable risk. Switch him to the SAS (if he is prepared to put in the time and effort) and get him experience incognito.

I personally would be damnably disappointed to be told what he must be told, but there is no option.

David O'Donnell, Fremantle, WA

I say let Harry go and see what life is like on the other side of the fence.

I also say ban the media from reporting on anything Harry related. Not only are the media heightening the risks to him and other troopers, they are also feeding the goals of the terrorists and insurgents by paying them all this attention, and giving them all the extra motivation they need to continue the carnage.

Really, BAN the reporters, outright, from publicising this any further. Who exactly is all this coverage benefiting anyway?

Adam , London,

Send him on detached duty to a USMC unit. They'd appreciate the opportunity to clear out more nitwits who were drawn to the royal bait. It is a war, people get killed, yes, I've served in a USMC Infantry unit. I view it as an opportunity to identify and reduce malevolent actors. His presence would draw opposition forces in like cheese draws rats, at which time they could be addresed.

Keith, Houston, TX

Prince Harry has been trained to be a leader, and leaders stand at the fore, not back in the shadows. Let him draw his sword and go forth into battle!
As for the media, whose side are they on? When the U.S. Marines landed in Somalia the media was there with spotlights in the faces on the beaches, illuminating them as targets for the insurgents. How is this any different? Shall the media continue to be complicit in such scurrilous attempts at murder? For that is what it is!
The young Prince has chosen his path and there should be none to dissuade him from it. He is duty and honor bound to follow such a path.

Edgar, Washington, USA

You all give these illiterate thugs far more credit than they deserve. They planted those (and other) IEDs in the ground far in advance of any vehicles, and then pray that ANY cross the bombs' path.

Those knuckleheads weren't planning a dry run -- they wouldn't know a Scimitar from a Nissan Sentra; they just knew it was an "enemy" vehicle, not that it was "Harry's" vehicle class.

Kyle, New York, New York, USA

Trey from Richmond, . On a lot of occassions the British flag was flown out of respect for their legal system and their equitable and practical reasonings. Perhaps why reason today the British flag is still hosted by more nations than the American one. Because some of us Britons can divorce ourselves from the gung ho nature that weighted us down as apes. Now please lay down your club and pick up some history books and some more english books too and whatever else to stop those nimble little fingers of yours from scrawling such rubbish on the internet.

anne glen, goslar germany,

Both Prince Harry & The Media endangered his deployment to the 'front lines of Iraq" by saying too much.
If Prince Harry is insisting he wants to be with his battalion, then shouldn't the members of his battalion, be given the opportunity to voice their opinions re whether or not he may be a help or a hindrance to them?
The decision should be made by Harry's peers, his commanding officers, etc., not be an arbitrary decision made by Harry, as a Prince!
If he's turned down in his bid for deployment, then he should accept the decision & respect his commanding officers & fellow soldiers.
British Politicians should butt out, this is a military decision.
If British Politicians refuse to let the British Military make this decision, then they will demoralize, & denigrate the Military's Mission.
God be with them all.

Andrea Timmons, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

The prince has a duty to Queen and country, like the rest of us he is entitled to freedom of choice and freedom of speech, the two rights left to British Citizens.
We should all accept and remember the role of our Royal family, this is to protect, lead and serve the country. It is inly right that at any one time at least a single member of the Royal femily should be in 'active' service.
Prince Harry, good luck, may God be on your side.

Lee Walsh, Huddersfield, Yorkshire

Prince Harry's petulant statement that I will resign if I can't go. Then resign.. He is putting soldiers lives very much at risk. If he gets captured what will the British Government do then?

As for the press. All the insurgents have to do is sit back and wait for the press to tell them when he comes and where he is. I am all for the freedom of the press, but with that freedom comes responsibility. Sometimes the press forgets that. This time it could cost lives.

Elaine, Canberra, Australia

2nd Lieutenant Wales is a brave man who despite the fear of a war deployment (Yes press, every soldier is scared - It helps to keep them alive) must be furious at the spiteful manipulation of a press that will leap on thier rightious high horse whatever the outcome.
Shame on you media - show some moral duty for once in your narrow column lives.

Vince D, Salisbury, UK

He was born a Royal Prince because his forebears shouldered arms against his enemies. Harry has made his choice, as has not just his fellow officers but thousands of other soldiers.

He has a get out of jail clause but has chosen not to use it...think of the men for whom the army is a true career

markymark, london,

Kudos to you, Harry. This guy has more gumption than the entire rest of the royal family put together. Who'd a thunk it?
A great example of an alpha male who hasn't been sissified and apparently refuses to be. I have nothing but admiration and respect for him. He will be in my prayers.

cara barnes, Lafayette, LA

Kent Daily Bugle, Oct 14th 1066. (second edition)
It was late in the afternoon and the battle had raged back and forth all day with significant gains made by the English in forcing Williams men back down the slopes of Calbec Hill. Rumours that William had been killed and the Normans were on the run was quickly refuted in our early edition as we spotted William on horseback. Our embeded correspondant managed to speak to King Harold who was resting at the back of the front line in the center of his force. He said that during one of the Norman charges Williams men had managed to cross the line of the first English stand and recovered many of their arrows after running out of ammunition in their first archer attack.
Our military analyst says that it could be very dangerous for Harold as he is located only a few hundred yards behind his shield defence and if the Normans see an opportunity to fire over the heads of the English front line he could be well in range of a stray arrow....

keith manton, houston, usa

It's just a big sham putting Harry in a soldier's uniform. You know the military is going to make up stories to make him out to be a hero. They did it with Jessica Lynch. They do it all the time. They OWN the media. The government must really think we are stupid; but we are not. for the first time in history, we have the internet; and they can't control that; and it must really get to them that there is one source of major media that they do not own. Anyone who thinks that there isn't a gigantic security team around Harry ought to have his head examined.

David Moore, Albany, OregonUSA

It wasn't a dry run attack for CPL Leaning or Trooper Turton. Let's not forget them and their loved ones in this ruckus.

The Prince is only doing what leaders have been doing for thousands of years. Have we so easily forgot Macsen Wledwig, Ambrosius Aurelianus, or Uther Pendragon? No matter what your opinion on America's war (and I say get it done with already), we have to respect the prince's willingness to serve. It will make him a better person, and a better royal. What he learns about combat and human nature will stay with him for the rest of his life. Too bad Bush didn't have the same knowledge before lying to the world. And where are Barbara and Jenna?

Kate, Gloucester,

My husband has served in Iraq, and likely to go again - I wouldn'twant him with in 100 miles of the Prince in such an environment. Every Scimitar recce car and possibly every other UK Forces vehicle on the road during the Prince's tour would become an 'RPG magnet'!

We admire Harry's esprit de coprps in whising to take his troop to Iraq, but it he must apply the ethos of selfless committment expected of British Officers and soldiers, and do what he is told in light of the threat assessment to him and those around him.

The press should lay off and stop making 'damned if he goes; damned if he doesn't' headlines and leave the Army to make the best-judged decision.

Jane Dennison, Scarborough,

It's been said that we Americans are aggressive I, like many, detest this war. Having had family that has served in Iraq, it's been said that we should stay until the job is done. What exactly that job is I couldn't say. If we aren't there, we have deserted. If we are there, then our presence is unwanted or maybe we are too late or haven't done enough. It's easy to sit back at our computers and judge.

It's easy to see that Harry feels this is something he needs to do. I don't disagree that it is unwise to send such a public figure to the front lines. I think it would be more of a challenge to him than the average person because of having his life in the media and enemies knowing who he is. I hope the Army reconsiders there. Here, I hope the President accepts the bill that Congress has passed to withdraw our troops. If this step can be taken, then the war can come to an end and hopefully there wouldn't be a need for Harry to be put in harms way. No one wants that.

J. Cotton, Cincinnati, US

I believe when Prince Harry chose to take his oath, he was granted an equal right along side every other soldier in uniform to serve his country when- and where-ever needed. But I also recognize the unique case posed by his position.
While I do support the war in Iraq, I recognize that there is enormous political baggage attached, including a growing stigma for anyone involved. Additionally, the nature of the battlefield there does allow for an individual to be targeted more effectively.
I believe a more advantageous solution would be a posting to Afghanistan, a conflict where there is no debate regarding the righteousness of our presence. Additionally, the context of conflict there lends itself to allowing and enabling him to serve honorably without significant additional risk to his comrades.
In the end, in order for his time in uniform to mean anything, he must be offered the same opportunities and associated risks as his comrades.

Mike, Washington DC, USA

By Harry not going he is a puppet soldier. This begs the question "why did he join the army anyway". The same goes for William he will never be sent on active duty. It is time for our young royals to think before they embark on a career in which they will never get to fulfill their true potential.

Should he go - no he would pose too much of a danger to the the soldiers he is commanding.

Should he resign - yes it is not a career in the true sense.

Derek, Thatcham, Berkshire

Treat him either royal or soldier. If UK consider this war just and her own then Harry is a bigger stakeholder in UK than other soldiers from rank and file, after all. I am convinced now few thousands affluent people have commond and control over around six billion pawns. Lots of proponents of Jihad preach martyrdom but do not like to apply it to thier loved ones. Forget about the deaths of Iraqis and Afghans. Go and ask about the died USA and UK army people and you will find them mostly of the lowest profile. Do any body thinks Bush, Cheney, Blair etc etc cares? Like developing world there is no dearth of robots in Europe and USA. Wake up robots, you major majority.

Ayaz khan, Swat, Pakistan

It's a laudable aim to go to Iraq, but noone will criticise Prince Harry if he doesn't go, whether he's banned or chooses to step down to reduce the risk to his men. The fact is, if he does go, there will be many more casualties, and the risk of a kidnapping is too high. Be honest here - unless he's inside a British compound for the whole duration, his location will be found out at some point. At that point, the whole of the insurgents' forces will be focussed on that area, with the result that he and many other soldiers will either be killed or captured. A killing would be a tragedy, a kidnapping would cause political turmoil. There is no way the British government could refuse to negotiate and the stakes would be enormous. There was enough furore when the Navy crew were kidnapped by Iran - imagine if one had been a Royal?

Without any exaggeration, if Prince Harry goes to war he is jeopardising the whole effort. That cannot be allowed, regardless of his desires.

Ross, Cambridge, UK

Kurdt, I served ten years in the US Army, including a trip to Iraq back during the beginning of combat operations. Since that time, I have served in a more "mercenary" role (i.e., a contractor). During my time in the military, and while working alongside them as a civilian, I have had the pleasure of meeting men and women with Bachelors and Masters degrees, and even a few PhDs. Furthermore, I know many more who joined the military with no post-secondary school education who subsequently utilized the benefits that the United States military offers to obtain graduate and post-graduate degrees. The misconception that our current military is made up of impoverished half-wits with no other option in life is perpetuated by leftist media outlets at home and abroad with the sole purpose of undermining our country's efforts in Iraq. You can knock our foreign policy all day long, and I might even join in, but don't disparage the intelligence or wherewithal of those currently serving for us.

Jason, Washington, DC

I feel for Harry - why should his immediate destiny be influenced in any way by the realities of a title and situation that he neither asked for or has ever shown any indication of wanting. I can fully understand how much he must want to go and do his duty and I fully admire his courage.
But, he is just one man - the potential psycological gains at stake if he were harmed or captured could be untenible... what would be the public's reaction to seeing him beheaded online?
It's a crazy hellish mess out there - morality and rationality look completely out of place. I'd seriously question whether the honourable and just wishes of one young man are worth the additional baggage that deployment would require.
Of course, the media have delivered this situation - they should be ashamed. Biggest problem by far - the modern media sees itself as above morality and thought for it's choices... who the hell do they think they are?

Richard Mee, Cambridge,

Its not Harry's decision. The lack of media black out has partly caused the problem in the first place. It is clear his presence would be a catalyst for increased attacks, and the real safety question is no longer about Harry - it is about anyone else associated with a scimitar vehicle or his base. Media reporting/leaks in this instance and many others like it must follow the event, not precede it. The nature of the Army's role and exposure makes it inherently different/exposed to that of the Navy and, say, Prince's Andrew's former role. That's forseeable right? Godspeed to the serving forces.

Simon, London, UK

I agree, in the sense of what Daniel Ruthers says, Prince Harry is not indispensible as an heir to the throne, there are others! But, I thought more from the historical viewpoint, that he wouldn't be the first royal prince to lead troops into battle (or for that matter, kings, who did the same). Therefore, why the big issue?

If he wants to go, and his superiors are convinced he is able (he must be, to pass out of college); why shouldn't he go? He's a grown up now, and I am sure he, especially, will remember who he is and for whom, he is fighting...

If we had truly evolved, as a species, beyond sending the likes of HRH, would we still have these wars in the first place? War is a human way of showing we are not so different from many other animals, fighting for territory and food, status and to show off our strength.

Tim Mellor, Naples, Italy

Also, the ultimate decision as to whether or not to send Prince Harry should rest with the military commanders responsible for tactical decision-making in the Iraqi theatre. If the senior commander present in Southern Iraq feels as though the Prince's presence would be the catalyst for increased attacks and abduction attempts directed against the personnel for which he is responsible, and if the leadership that Prince Harry would bring to the unit is not worth that increase in attacks and abduction attempts, then the right decision is to assign the Prince elsewhere. His position within the Royal Family SHOULD be taken into consideration when making this decision, but only insomuch as his presence would negatively affect the safety of the other personnel in his unit. It should have nothing to do with his being "privileged" to a point where he should not be exposed to the same risks as the the other subjects of the United Kingdom serving in the military. I'm sure most would agree.

Jason, Washington, DC

This seems very similar to debates over here in the states. There seems to be this myth that there is some taboo against using soldiers for political means. Every act of war is political. Often times like it or not life and death decisions are made for the basest of political reasons. It is no secret at all that virtually every important military action in Iraq was carefully timed to the political benefit of Blair or much more often Bush. Soldiers are routinely sent to otherwise meaningless deaths solely to change the days headlines. I remember my wife and I watching Wag the Dog when we lived in London. It was definitely an ugly American moment because we couldn't help from loudly laughing and repeating "so true!"

I think having the Princes actually face combat would send an important message "In Britain unlike America every man is expected to do his duty!" I think it is a message worth asking him or even his comrades to die for.

Charlie Marques, San Diego , CA

The Prince has chosen to be a soldier. he was aware of the risks involved. Those that endorsed that decision, in both the Royal Household and the MOD were also aware. To the troops in his troop, his presence will be a boon and a curse. He will make friends for a lifetime as your first unit is always the most fondly remembered. At the same time he will be a target, although quite how the insurgents will have the intelligence to identify him on ops is not altogether clear. To not allow him to go to Iraq allows not only the insurgent propoganda to claim that Iraq is now too dangerous for The British Royal Family, but his future will be bleak in the army. Additionally, at such an early age, he will feel he has failed at what he chose to do by an accident of genetics. If the Prince goes and, god forbid, is killed then the Royal Family will have shared in the agony of the people of the UK - I would suggest that this will further cement the relationship of people and Royalty.

Bill E, Newcastle,

While in most cases the military careers of the Royals in modern times have been incidental footnotes and, best as I can tell, more for appearance than substance, the one shining exception was the late Earl Mountbatten of Burma who served with great distinction and achieved the highest ranks on the basis of his personal ability. That was several generations back. Everyone seems to look at the downside of Prince Harry's service as if disaster is a foregone conclusion. Perhaps he will emulate his distinguished great great uncle. Being denied the opportunity he apparently wishes for because of his position, is as ridiculous as being given the unearned and undeserved military honors historically heaped on other Royals.

Was the royal court in a tizzy about Henry V being at risk before the Battle of Agincourt?

Incidentally, the caliber of posts here is extraordinary when compared to many current events message boards in the US.

Stephen G. Richardson, Hillsborough, North Carolina USA

Apologies for the dissenting voice, but can it realistically be known what insurgent groups are thinking and planning in respect of any given individual? I doubt it. If it were the case, it would be a short step from there to taking them out. Mostly what we hear and see in this area is PR chaff from the MOD, and the rest is journalistic speculation.

I personally think it's unlikely in the extreme that there is really such interest in Prince Harry from insurgent groups, with presumably plenty of other things on their minds. Like staying alive. The only people unequivocally interested in him are the MOD, who clearly don't want him to go as the PR fallout could be disastrous, and the press and public, whose obsession and vain self-regard will ensure that he doesn't go.

philip, cambridge,

I think due to the fact this has become more of a bungled "police action" (more so for the Brits even than the US) than a conventional war Harry would be a prime, easy to reach target and a great propaganda tool for the enemy. Due to the nearly complete lack of British control where he will be deployed. I think he is a brave man who wants to serve his country but given the circumstances he will serve his country better somewhere outside of Iraq. Maybe he can serve in the next inevitable war with Jihadis in Iran (or Londanistan possibly) which hopefully will be more of a straight up fight.

I think we could still pull a victory out of Iraq (in spite of Bush's bungling) with a strong, smart counter insurgency plan. Unfortunately the Democrats here in the USA are hell bent on surrender no matter what the cost.

Rich Krumm, Mohnton, USA - PA

A lot of people appear to be under the impression that Harry will be a target. He will, just like everyone else in his troop. He's also a target that will be able to shoot back. Just like he's trained to do. Harry is a Cornet in the Bluesand Royals, a dedicated armoured recce unit. He's just spent a year at Sandhurst, which is not easy, I speak from experience, and is now a leader. Not just a peace time leader, a leader in an ARMED FORCE. Let him do the job he's trained for. An enforced avoidance will hinder his relationships with the most important people in his life. His troops.

Martin-Bacon, Tamworth, Staffordshire, UK

Perhaps if so much attention had not been paid to Prince Harry and his career in the Army and he had been left to do his work with the same anonymity as his fellow soldiers then there might not be so many people in Iraq waiting for the chance to pull off such a PR stunt as capturing or killing him.
He joined the Army knowing full well that he would be sent to a war zone and his family did not object, but there should NOT have been so much written about what he was doing, where he was and when and where he was likely to be posted.
Now other members of his troop will be put in greater danger than before of his presence.

Judy, Worcester,

As an American, whose elites have been by and large spared the exertions of combat, I express great admiration both for Prince Harry and for your nation. I don't know why the lad chose the Army, though. He could have gone the Navy route and this discussion wouldn't be happening. Godspeed, Harry, to you and to all of your brave countrymen and women serving in that hellhole.

Tom Kurzeja, Haddon Heights, NJ, USA

I think some perspective on this is being lost and I do wonder how it has come to this situation.

When Prince Andrew joined the Falklands war we did not have this type of worry and debate; he was a member of the armed forces and did his job as others in the royal household have done in the past.
The Argentines had very good weaponry and the risk to Prince Andrew was high when you consider they had Exocet missiles designed to destroy ships and could had targeted HMS Invincible.

What I find shaming is how people do not give the royal family credit for joining the armed forces, how many of our own families would do the same?
It is not about playing soldier, its about discipline, defining oneself and more importantly serving the country you were born to.

A Sturgeon, London,

I think that Prince Harry should put all personal ambition aside and do what is best for his men.

I also think that the British Army and the Press should be more discerning with the information they provide for public & international knowledge.

Vanessa, Paris

Vanessa Jouning, Paris, France

Let him go. At the same time warn the Iranians that any more attacks on personnel in the area will be met with swift retribution.
Make them responsible, as they can guarantee his safety against IED.

Dave, Rochester, NY

No one wants to be left behind. Im bored of the Kings Road, and want to do my bit with my mates.

Harry, London, UK

An "ordinary" person can't just decide that they want to be treated as though they are royalty, so why should Harry get to choose to be treated like an ordinary person when he feels like it?

Harry has to realise that he can't have it both ways; a person can't be born in to a position as such as his (and have all the priveleges that go along with that), and then expect to be treated as an ordinary person when it suits them, especially when doing so will put his colleagues in increased danger - not to mention putting his entire country in a vulnerable position.

And I don't blame the media for this situation. Hopefully, their coverage of this issue will result in Harry being kept away from the warzone; even if Harry's intentions hadn't been reported in the press, he still could've fallen in to enemy hands, and then recognised upon being captured (leading to disatrous repercussions, since he would not be an ordinary captive).

Jack, Norwich,

2LT Wales should go. I'd go with him. I'm 54 and have just been recalled and I'm off to Iraq 26 May. Not going is a win for Al Qaeda.

He will do just fine. Leave him alone and let him do his job.

Tony, Montverde, FL

Harry is like so many other 22 year olds. Of course he is special as a figure head for the country but he himself I think would say he life is no more valuable than anyone else in his troop or the armed forces.

My brother is due to go to Iraq the same time as Harry. This will be his second tour of duty as a Officer in Iraq. He is also 22. He is excited about going, not because he is gun happy as some others seem to think, not because he necessarily agrees with this war or has any issue with the Iraqi people, but because he is a soldier. A soldier is trained to fight for and defend his country. He will be going to do the job he was trained for. This issue is not about the rights and wrongs of going to war.

Harry is a soldier. His job is to fight for and defend his country. If he does not go and fulfil his role then taxpayers money WILL have gone to waste.

EVERY soldier is a target, and every man (and woman) will be looking out for each other.

May God watch over them all.

fee, Oxford,

The media will have a field day with this one. Harry can serve his country anywhere in the world. If the bad guy's have his number in Iraq, send Harry to serve elsewhere. Iraq is not the only place a soldier can serve proudly and there's risk anywhere you go.

Bob Reed, Norwich, Connecticut USA

Harry doesn't have to prove nything, and would probably endanger
his squad. War is terrible, but not nearly as bad as our American
media who would have him zeroed in as a prime target by tracking his every move, just to stick it to Bush and Blair. Don't do it,
Harry.

Peter, New York, USA

If they are so afraid of him being targeted maybe they should send him out disguised as a mouse! In all seriousness, what is the point of spending vast amounts of taxpayer’s money on pampered Royals just so that they can play at being soldiers and ponce around in tanks. It would be much better for everyone concerned if they just stopped wasting our money and spent their time with their father playing polo and sipping champers in the grounds of the country hoyce.

RJ, Birmingham, England

Leave it up to the British Army's intelligence to determine the decision on this one. If it turns out sending Harry to Iraq and in a position where he puts his fellow unit at unnessesary risk, then he shouldn't go.

Brian McCurdy, Brooklyn Center, USA, MN

Should they let Harry go? I think so. He signed up for this knowing what he was getting himself into. However if it puts more lives then his in more danger then they already are in now. His deployment needs to be reassesed. Maybe the british should deploy him but keep secret where his is.

Taylor , Phoenix, USA

I think a lot of you are confused. It is not up to Cornet Wales to decide on which postings/tours he can and cannot have. His Commanders are going to decide as to whether the threat level to there units/assets is worth another set of boots on the ground.
Due to the lack of security thanks to the press they have effectively signed an open cheque on the Blues and Royals. Every insurgent who wants to make a name for themselves will be in the area targetting all of them. Could you imagine if we had todays press in WW2, we wouldn't have won as they would have leaked D'Day 48 hours in advance. For operational security reasons this should have had a D'notice slapped on it.
I have respect for him for wanting to do his duty, as I and others have and are doing at this moment. The Royal families role within the HMF runs a lot deeper than "Wearing the uniform and given rank", as proven by Prince Philip earlier this year when he went out to Iraq. Not bad for a man in his mid 70's.
Good Sir

Mike , MK,

Why do the British media keep telling us (and the 'baddies') more-or-less precisely where and what the prince will be doing if he goes out there?

Adam Neilson, Birmingham,

Should 2Lt Wales carry out his duty and deploy on an opertational tour of Iraq as part of his Regiment's deployment?
Without any shadow of a doubt he should. He is a commissioned officer and his Troop, his Squadron,his Regiment and indeed the Army, with whom he is already very well established, would be weakened if he did not. That is to say nothing of the weakening of the combat effectiveness of the Regiment through the potential loss of deploying without an important member of a well drilled and thoroughly trained unit that has recently been described as "currently the best battlegroup in the British Army ".
The shame of not deploying him would far outway the risks of potentially loosing this man who has chosen to make military service his career. As for the potential increase in danger to the soldiers around him, they know the risks. Almost all will have served in Iraq before and under much greater danger than is present now.
I for one hope the CGS has the back bone to send him.

Damien Lipman, London, The United Kingdom

Hmmm, nobody mentions that the military uses Depleted Uranium (DU) ammo. I certainly hope any enlisted soldiers serving in Iraq don't receive the highly toxic DU residues (it's in the air, soil/dust, water in Iraq). Is Prince Harry aware of the DU facts?

Brian, Seattle,

Normaly I could not care about royalty However, Prince Harry has my respect

Harold H, Kingston, ON Canada

I miss Great Britian,do you?

john smiths, LA, CA

Eddi,
It's not because people want to hold a gun, it's that there are people who are willing to hold a gun and use it against those who would do harm to you and yours, and so you don't have to hold a gun.

Duane, CDR, USN (Ret), Springfield, VA/USA

Sending Harry to Iraq is an assinine decision, much as sending women into harms way. Politically correct / feel good / everybody's equal nonsense is just that when war is involved. If he's killed, AlQuaida gets a great victory and will crow about it ad nauseum for months. If he's captured, the Iranian seaman and marine incident will seem like a mosquito bite compared to the huge hunk of hostage meat the enemy will have bitten off. If he causes others to be killed defending him, or preventing his capture-that is just wrong. We're sure you're a brave lad Harry, but stay home and dodge the paparazzi for your thrills. For the good of the cause and the country.

Fred Little, Atlanta, USA, GA

Mike from Kanada:
Your "prince" is no better than anyone else, so he should fight or flee and take his raps like everyone else!!! There is nothing special about him and he is no more fit to be king nor queen than your brother, sister , mother, father aunt or uncle!!! Time to declare a REPUBLIC!!!

Mike from Kanada, Toronto , Canada

This is all about the prince and his own personal agenda. There is no need to create additional security risks in an already unstable region. It is evident that by introducing the prince and his men to the theatre of combat, that all of their lives will be jeopordized. From my own experience, I was injured prior to my units deployment to Iraq and I missed the initial invasion. Allthough I felt I could have deployed, I was remanded to desk duty. I felt terrible for not being able to fight with my men, but a year later I would have my chance to face the enemy along side my Marines. I realized the first time it wasn't meant to be and that although I wasn't in Iraq, I was still serving my country proudly as will the Prince if he doesn't deploy. He should not go and that's the bottom line.

Jeff, New York, New York, USA

He wil be a target, but being nobel may cause the death of his men. It's a hard decision. I will pray for the right decision

Linda Bell, Las vegas, Nv

"I want to fight like common people,
I want to fight however common people do.
I want to die with common people,
I want to die with common people like you"!

Jack, Norwich,

It's too bad the British cower at the threat of a fight nowadays. They ought to let Prince Harry go in there guns blazing and show the everyone once again why Britain ruled most of the known world 100 years ago.

Trey, Richmond , VA

If he must go, then at least let him and his "mates" kick butt. The best defense is a good offense. If they must go, let them strike first and take out the enemy and forget about waiting around to defend against a possible kidnapping. It doesn't sound like he wants to hide behind his title, so give him the support he needs and let his unit bring some smoke on the so-called insurgents.

Tom, Denham Springs, LA, USA

I applaud Harry for doing his duty, however if the brass feels that his presence is endangering his fellows to a degree significantly above the norm, they should recall him. He can still serve honorably in either situation.

Godspeed to him and his mates, regardless!

Dar, Seattle, USA

I cant see why it is published when Prince Harry serves anywhere, we do not publish any other serviceman or womans tours of duty.Most troop movements used to be covered by the offical secrets act, but now it seems we let the enemy know where when and how many are arriving. Its a wonder they dont draw them a map
A Patriot

jenny, huddersfield,

Isn't this what princes and kings used to do all the time before they became narcissistic bums?

robert, vancouver, bc

I know he wants to fight along side his men, and that is so honorable....but the media just couldn't keep their mouths shut!

I agree with the above, if it were Bush or Blair, they would have waited...why paint a target on the prince?

He will be a dangerous companion. If he's kidnapped, they have us wrapped around their fingers. We'll have to resort to whatever it takes to get him back. And even on the battle field he puts those in his troop at higher risk. Enough blood has been spilt.

I can't wait till we're out of there....

Jamie, HOUSTON, TX

I seem to get the theme here, He and his soldiers have no way to defend themselves, according to most of you he will definately get killed or beheaded. What a joke that he is more of a target or that he would bring more enemy ontowards himself and his troops. You people from the west side of the pond don't seem to have much respect for your own military. In order for him to be killed or captured that means the insurgents would have to try. Did it ever accur to any of you that he and his troops might actually be successfull and kick some behind??? I have had enough of the what if crowd. I applaud him for his service and I would serve with him in a heart beat. I have met a few of your chaps here and believe it or not they are doing an exellent job!!

Tom, khowst, Afghanistan

Look at it from the insurgents' perspective and one has to conclude that it is crazy to put the Prince into this situation. Every insurgent sniper and spotter will be looking for him and will have no shortage of recent photos to aid identification. Indeed, if they have any doubts, the MOD have thoughtfully written his rather distinctive name across the front of his helmet.

Charles, London, England

The harder, but wiser choice for Prince Harry, will be to stay home. His presence takes the focus off the mission. Preserving life for British soldiers trumps public relations. The priority is clear. At a funeral service for Princess Diana, St. Marks cathedral in Seattle, I promised in writing to her to be the praying Mom on earth for her sons and I have been faithful to do so. May his Guardian Angel light, guard, rule and guide him. God bless and protect our British defenders.

Patty Burnett, Mercer Island, USA/WA

If only the Bush girls could find it in their hearts to have at least have a sliver of the patriotism and professional maturity Prince Harry shows to Country and cause. The Royal Family should be proud!

Harry, chesterfield, missouri usa

You Brits are a canny lot when it comes to this sort of thing. MOD should be figuring out how to use Harry (or even rumor of Harry) as bait to catch terrorists. The same thing worked in WWII with Gen Patton as bait for a Calais invasion.

Ben Hoff, NJ, USA

My first point: I've got alot of respect for a man like Prince Harry who has all the luxuries available on this earth and yet chose to join the Army and deploy to Iraq to serve his people by sharing in the sufferings, hardships, and dangers experienced by your British fighting men. In the American Army we call that Leadership, it's a rare thing but incredibly necessary.

My second point: Every young man has to prove himself to himself and others. Prince Harry must go to Iraq so that he will prove himself in battle as a leader of men and when he returns, he can hold his head high and assume the role he was born to take in leading your country. To prevent him from going is not only a great injustice to him but a greater one to the UK because it will leave in him a bitterness that may never dissapate. We think too much about avoiding danger and being safe, and yet ignore the greater good that comes from the refining of character that cannot be accomplished in the safety of home.

NG, 2LT US Army, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

If I was Harry I would be saying the same thing but I believe his presence in Iraq causes too much focus on his fellow soldiers and puts other individuals at a greater risk.

Tim, Charlottesville, VA

Over 115 comments which is high so soon for comments. It's a very close call. On balance he has to go. He is 'only' third in line and he does seem to be 'the right stough' to set an example.
Now is the time for positive 'spin'. Press release 'he is not going because....' then let him go anyway.

Crombie, Garstang, UK PR3 0JE

What amazes me is that we have forgotten the words "loose talk costs lives" that was well known in the 2nd World War. Now we seem to give the enemy every nitty gritty detail that we can by Government leak, News articles, Google Earth etc etc etc. I pity the soldiers that are compromised by such information. It is high time that the Government/MOD imposed a news blackout out on anything that may give the enemy an advantage and it is high time that UK newspapers stopped publishing material that may be detrimental to safety of our troops. The 2 deaths noted in the article are perhaps 2 notable casualties ,as how did the enemy know this fact of the Scimitar other than news articles ?.

John, Woking, UK

By going to Iraq Prince Harry will increase the threat to those directly under his command. The tasks they will have to carry out are dangerous enough without the added danger that Prince Harry's presence will have. No one doubts his commitment to his men and regiment, but perhaps he should look at some of the Core Values and Standards that define the British Army, in relation to his presence in Iraq. Not only will his men be affected but their families too. The men who serve under him must be asking themselves questions about the effects that their commander's presence will have, especially with articles like the above being printed/aired. Will the risk to them be greater with him there? The efforts of insurgents will be far more focused towards destroying Scimitar vehicles for the duration of his tour. All those commanding these type of vehicle know this and it will not have a positive effect on their morale. If Prince Harry wants to leave because he can't go then that's his choice.

Camlan H, Salisbury, England

Though I applaud the desire of anyone to serve their country, it is not their right. If an individual, because of their notoriety or sex, takes away from the mission and/or puts others at risk just for being there, then he/she does not belong there! This is why women should never be allowed to serve in combat roles!

There are many other ways one can serve their country; however, the political correctness and self-serving attitudes that defy common sense will probably prevail.

Mike, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

He should not be allowed to go. He will simply be a distraction and a nuissance. No one will want to be near him once it's clear that the insurgents have every gun trained in his direction. The only military use he has at this point is to be the bait for an attack, so that the US or British troops can have influence on time and place of attack, and so catch the enemy in a trap. But they can use other people or things for that. Harry is too valuable an asset to the British gov't to risk.

Matt, Rochester, NY, USA

Our media is so ridiculous, that we can now know what troop he is in, what vehicle he drives, how many men he has in his troop and where he is to be posted.

What this has in the public interest I have no idea. Whether he should have gone or not, he definitely cannot go now. Not because he is scared of dying, or because he is an inept soldier, or because he is the Queen's grandson. It is rather that because we cannot keep out mouths shut, every other man in his troop is now at greater risk.

What public interest did it solve to know where, when and how he would be deployed?

Nicholas Wood, Bangkok,

There is always someone else to take the throne. If he wants to defend freedom he should be allowed to. No one is fooled into believing that it is normal for a military Cadet or Officer gets weeks and months off regularly to party in opulance. He needs to prove he is a man to himself.

Billy Carter, Swainsboro, GA USA

maybe he and his troops would not be in such danger if the news media had not reported so much detail about his deployment, unit, location, vehicle, etc. Just a thought.

What is the point of being in the army if one if never allowed to do the job, because - SHOCK - combat is dangerous.

Chris, Los Angeles, California/US

Like so many wonderful Brits, Harry is a bright, brave young man who is willing to serve his country along side his mates. But, inspite of his desire to do the "right thing" for God and country, Harry's role in history and life was cast at birth. There are many ways to be a responsible royal. In this case, the right thing may be staying home in England. It goes without saying that Harry is a prized target. The risks to the him and his group far exceed the pluses of having served with the prince in Iraq. Find another way to serve your mates Harry. Be an advocate for the needs of veterans.

Linda, San Diego, California

Which person in the press or the army leaked the type of vehicle and squad that he would be in command of???? Ah-ha!!! it was the damned press. You all should get up in the morning, in the words of me old mate Dave Bahr, and before you have a bathroom experience, a shower or comb you lovely locks, look at yourself in the mirror and repeat this mantra " I am an idiot" at least three times...In WW2 this would have amounted to treason....I am not a Royalist, I'm Irish, but I have respect for a man who is prepared to be a warrior and serve his country...shame on the lot of you!!!...Fish

MIke, Saratoga, USA

Although there is a risk here, and security could be difficult, he is a soldier and a man that has volunteered to go. He should be allowed to do his duty. Why bother to be in the Army at all, if you can't serve with your mates when called on?
I'm sure Al Jazeera and the like are waiting with baited breath to propagandize the fear of the British to be unable protect their own. Is it British sheep, or British "Bull Dogs" they will write about?

John S., Mesa, Arizona

He is a solidier and so his life should mean no more than any other life. Unfortuantely, his presence will mean all of the men under his command are at a much higher risk of attack, injury and death. Allowing him to go is simply giving the insurgency a prime target, and I dont think they will spare the others around him! Do the right thing and stay home, Harry!
And I dont think the press giving out details of where he will be stationed, unit, what type of vehicle etc, is very helpfull. You may as well tag him and give them a GPS unit to ensure they know exactly where to put the roadside bombs.

Steve, Bergen, Norway

Harry should be pulled out of combat duty for the safety of the other soldiers. He must be a distraction to others trying to do their own jobs, and I am sure good soldiers have been pulled away from other duties to ensure his safety.

Kim B, New York, NY, USA

The MoD have been really stupid about this!

Firstly, this should not have been revealed to the media - until Harry had completed his tour of duty, and returned home.

Secondly, MoD have handed vital intelligence on a plate to the insurgents. Right down to type of vehicle and Regiment.

Can nobody get it right in Government any more?

Tony J, Swanage, UK

Please do not put him into jeopardy by doing this. The insurgents will target him and all British troops because of this. It is not worth it!

T Simandl, Spartanburg, SC, USA

The blood-thirsty press goes for whatever bad coverage of the war that they can, correct? So when Prince Harry gets deployed, they jump all over it and broadcast the "news" all over he world. Do they have any concept that this is their fault? Don't they feel any duty to ensure his safety as best as they can by--gasp!--not reporting that news story? I'll be surprised if he even comes out of Iraq in one piece now! Does the press feel no loyalty, no sense of duty?!

Larry, Sacramento, California

I don't understand why everything has to be put into press so that our enemies are kept informed. What happened to armies having secrets and being covert? It is not criminal, it is being smart. They (the press) put everything in print and on the air and then act surprised when something terrible happens.

Glenda, Erie, PA

I think the lessons taught by Prince Harry's mother should remain with us: the Windsors cannot live a "normal" life. The family has endured enough heartache and the loss of Prince Harry would be devastating to his brother. I fully understand his willingness to risk his life to be with his men, and it says alot about his character, but he will be putting them at increased risk. However much he may want to, he will never be able to live his life quite like everyone else.

Chris, Cleveland, Ohio

Prince Harry serving in Blairs illegal war would be an indicator to Iraqi insurgents, that they (Royals) fully support Blairs incompetent actions? I would have thought the Royals were a lot smarter. In all honesty i had great respect for our Royal Family.

What a pity!

Mohammed, London, UK

"We few. We happy few. We Band of Brothers. For those who shed their blood with us today shall always be our Brothers."

It seems to me that it isn't his honor that's at stake here.

Mike , Topeka, USA

Why not have the young prince grow a beard and dye his hair? He could take the name 2nd Lieutenant Smith and who would be the wiser? Of course, it's not perfect, but at least he wouldn't be walking around with a target on his back.

Glenn Turner, Providence, RI

I think that the government would not have been keen fro Prince Harry to go to Iraq as it would have cost too much i.e. proper equipment denied to other servicemen. If he had been properly supplied then it would have been necessary to similarly supply the others.

Peter, Maidstone, UK

At least he is a MAN. He could get out of it if he wanted to, but he isn't trying. That already makes him more man than half the so called peace group. My guess would be that if the Prince were ever captured, he would be the first and only prisoner to flip off the camera when told to make his little dog and pony show about imperial aggression. I say let him go, and let him do the job the British trained him for. I truly believe he would be as good at it as any other turned out by the British Army.

Stephen Gearon, georgetown,

isn't "discretion the better part of valour"? Harry's presence will act as a magnet for attacks on British soldiers- Harry can do more good for his men and fellow soldiers by not going to Iraq than by going. I don't doubt that he has the courage to get shot at, but does he/the military have the courage not to s