I fail to understand at all why PH's deployment is a matter that the MOD has offered any public comment on at any time and of any sort. There's no doubt that anyone who accepts the Queen's shilling willingly undertakes to do their duty...and PH is no different than any other soldier. Had the MOD refrained from comment throughout neither PH nor his comrades would have been in any greater danger. They have let him down in the most extraordinary fashion - but perhaps that was always their intent.

H Nuttall, London, UK

The matter has been handled very badly indeed , as the issues must have been totally clear from the outset.

The publicised equivocation and decision not to send Prince Harry to Iraq now hands a wonderful propaganda victory to the insurgents, who can crow that if the British royalty and military leadership are afraid, victory is assured.

It also sends a very mixed message to those families who, unlike the royal family, are expected to expose their sons to the risks of war.

Peter, Johannesburg, South Africa

Maybe its because I'm an American I don't understand this decision. If the Monarch only exists because the first Norman King of England, William the Conqueror succeded in defeating King Harold in 1066, and subsequent Kings of England led armies in battles, shouldn't an heir to the throne, whether heir apparent or heir presumptive, lead the force he may well become commander-in-chief of into battle?

Otis Boone II, Sacramento, California, USA

I think this is a very disappointed decision because the troops going to feel unfair that they are fighting in Iraq and the Prince not.
the big mitake has happend when you allowd to the media to write about Army planning.
anyway I wish the best in his career in the Army.

Albaldai, leeds, uk

It is no dishonor for Harry not to serve under these circumstances.
Prince Andrew wasn't in a static position in the Falklands.
I blame the media in your country, mine and the USA making Iraq untenable. His deployment should have been secret. 'Loose lips sink ships'. But that was from another war where we were more disciplined. Perhaps thats the reason we won that one and are losing this one.

Harry must be feeling pretty lame at the moment. Go have a beer and forget about it. We know you have the courage to do the job. There will be bigger fish to fry in your life.

Mark Jensen, Sydney, Australia

How about the recognizing the psychological value of intimidating the British government into not deploying a trained and qualified officer of the Royal Army?

One could not fault Harry for resigning. He appears quite sincere about his desire to serve his country. There was a time not so long ago that such threats would not have made much of impression. They must not have much confidence in their troops, equipment, or commanders in the field. Score one more for the terrorists.

Interesting that another commenter decides to link this with the career choices of President Bush's daughters. Hardly relevant...military service is traditional, and even expected, among male members of the royal family. Not so among daughters of U.S. presidents. Effective and relevant criticism of President Bush can be made without including his children.

G, Broken Arrow, OK, USA

As has been said his own words and the decision will haunt him all his life. Harry should have served in the Navy or quietly avoided the military while supporting the war as does 98% of the American people and their children. Difficult to believe after all he said he now supports the decision as his fellow soldiers are off to the wars.
Volunteer Vietnam

R Chisolm, Coppell, texas

LET THE MAN BE A MAN if he dont go he will never live it
down ,and will haunt him all his life ,the mans trained and ready to go.

george william taylor, hull, uk

Dear Sir:

There is a commonality among us that all have a dignity and value that is precious and equal. For a time, Harry's willingness to go into the war in Iraq in defense of the crown and share this burden among his fellow country men was an example of risk equality needed to preserve our security and heritage across western democratic societies. I am afraid to all our loss that opportunity has been passed by the general staff.

Bill Keller, BASKING RIDGE, New Jersey

Perhaps the Prime Minister in Waiting had a quiet word with the generals?

Richard Jenkins, London, UK

I understand why they are not sending him, it just seems designed this way from the beginning in that if the Brittish army were serious about sending him, they never would have publicised his unit and deployment details. Even so, I respect him for his willingness to serve. A man worthy of his mother.

byron, Belmont, CA, USA

Obviously the recent capture of three US servicemen by insurgents/jihadists has had a chilling effect upon the Royal Army high command. One doesn’t need to be a brilliant strategist to recognize the psychological value of parading a battered but still living prince Harry before the video cameras of Al Jezirah to realize that our adversaries in Iraq would stop at nothing in their efforts to take Harry alive.

One must still admire Harry for his courage (I hardly foresee the Bush twins in uniform anytime soon much less volunteering for overseas deployment) yet the logic involved in actually deploying Harry in-country must be carefully scrutinized. Should he be held back or should he take his turn like the common soldiers?

All this may be moot, hopefully Gordon Brown will show the good sense Tony Blair seemed unable to muster and speedily withdraw UK forces from Iraq, hopefully hastening my own country’s inevitable withdrawal from this increasingly tragic conflict.

Rob Cordery-Cotter, LaPorte, USA

So let me get this right, tax-payers fund his training....for what? Preventing Harry to go to Iraq because of "specific" threats?? As if other British soldiers dont face threats... To me, this signals that his life is more valuable than the other soldiers(which is completely nonesense). He should be allowed to carry on his decision to fight in Iraq.

Michael, Bath,