
The 8216;will he, won8217;t he8217; saga over whether Prince Harry should go to Iraq has been humiliating for him and has damaged the image of the Army. Who is most going to benefit from the decision by the head of the Army to stop him going to war? It8217;s a propaganda gift for 8216;the enemy8217;.
This debacle was inevitable from the moment it was agreed that Prince Harry should go to Sandhurst, which is now a clearing house for sending young officers to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was commendable that he wanted to join the Army, but did not anyone worry that he would be fast-tracking to Basra? Perhaps the Army believed then that by 2007 the security conditions would be more benign.
Now, whatever has been learnt from intelligence sources about the threats against Prince Harry, the confession 8212; in a blaze of publicity 8212; that it is too risky to send a qualified, well-trained and properly motivated officer to serve his country in Iraq, albeit a member
of the Royal Family, sends a clear message to the Shia extremists. They will be laughing.
Some senior American commanders in Iraq believe that Britain had already been sending the wrong signals, well
before the Harry decision, by indicating plans to withdraw a substantial proportion of troops in Iraq by the end of this year.
With America increasing its troop presence in Baghdad by five brigades, one can sympathise with their view that 8216;the Brits8217; are acting prematurely. Again, who stands to benefit most by a declared British troop withdrawal, the ordinary people of Basra or the extremists whose cancerous influence is spreading?
From an article by Michael Evans in 8216;The Times8217;, London, May 18