KEY POINTS:
Some time soon, Prince Harry, the third in line to the throne, will begin a six-month tour of duty in Iraq. Cornet Wales, as he is known in the Army, will be responsible for 11 soldiers and four Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals regiment. Finally,
after much debate and no little buck-passing, the decision has been made by the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Whatever the risks involved, it is absolutely the right one.
Prince Harry trained as a soldier to do a soldier's job. Almost inevitably, that was going to lead him to a combat zone, most probably Iraq or Afghanistan. If he had been refused permission to serve in Iraq, or declined to go there, he would have relinquished his right to be considered a soldier. A resignation from the British Army would have been in order, and the Prince could have devoted himself to the flag-waving exercises that occupy much of the royal family's time. Prince Harry himself acknowledged as much when he said: "There is no way I am going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are fighting for their country."
It was never as simple as that, of course. Sir John Nott, the former Conservative Defence Secretary, pointed out that Prince Harry's presence in Iraq could present a serious risk to his fellow soldiers. Another critic, Home Secretary John Reid, noted that the capture or harming of the Prince would be a huge propaganda coup for the insurgents. Both concerns are reasonable. A commander of Iraq's biggest Shiite Muslim militia has already warned that insurgents would try to kidnap the Prince. Neither danger should be enough, however, to keep a trained soldier from the firing line.
It never did in the past. A long line of royals have served in the armed forces, and many have seen action. Most recently, the Duke of York was a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War, a role that is said to have included acting as a decoy target for Exocet missiles. Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister at the time, hesitated before giving her permission for his deployment. She was well aware of the potential pitfalls. But she also knew that she was involving him in a conflict that enjoyed overwhelming popular support. Therein lies a major point of departure from the war in Iraq.
This explains, in large part, the unwillingness of Tony Blair's Government to decide, as it should have, on Prince Harry's deployment. The death in Iraq of anonymous young men from the back streets of Birmingham and Sheffield provokes grief, rather than wrath. Harm to the young royal, however, would prompt an outpouring of anger that would represent the final indignity for a decade-long prime ministership which has foundered on ill-considered support for the American invasion. The Government, therefore, chose to send unsubtle messages to the Army hierarchy about the dangers of Iraq, while at the same time seeking to avert any potential blame by leaving the deployment decision to it.
Steps will doubtless be taken to shield Prince Harry from danger, and he is unlikely to take on the sort of role that led to two troopers dying in an explosion last month. Nonetheless, there will be some element of peril, and it is probably idle to play down militia claims that informers within the British bases will alert them to the Prince's whereabouts.
But this was a risk that Prince Harry accepted when he entered Sandhurst. It is also the risk that Britain must accept. Confining Cornet Wales to barracks is not a viable alternative. It would, after all, amount to a candid admission that any semblance of control in Iraq has been lost.
