skip to nav

Prince Harry serving in Iraq

ARGUMENTS FOR:

He is an officer in the Blues and Royals. His regiment is being sent to Iraq. It is his duty to go there with the men under his command.

Not sending him would have an adverse effect on the morale of our troops. Why should they risk their lives if his is thought too precious to be endangered?

The decision to send him there was announced weeks ago. Reversing it now would be hailed as a victory by the insurgents. It would suggest that we were running scared and could not protect the Prince.

He himself is keen to serve wherever the men under his command serve. He says this is why he chose to join the army.

Preventing him from engaging in active service is likely to have a disastrous effect on him. It would condemn him either to life as a playboy or to what he might regard as a futile ornamental existence. The Army has been his only serious interest since he was a boy.
The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

His desire to serve in Iraq is admirable, but it is also selfish. He should accept that his presence there will put the soldiers under his command in even greater danger, and also his whole regiment.

It is not for the Prince to decide where he should serve. If the Army chiefs decide his presence in Iraq is undesirable , he should accept their decision.

It is not his death but his capture that is to be feared. If he was to be held as a hostage, the political consequences would be appalling.

His presence in Iraq will be welcomed by the insurgents because it offers them the opportunity of a great propaganda coup.

FIRST POSTED APRIL 27, 2007

News & Comment: News & Politics