Harry's "job" is to do what he's told!

Senior army officers are apparently reviewing plans to send Prince Harry out on patrol in Iraq’s dangerous Maysan province in a Scimitar armoured reconnaissance vehicle following the deaths of two soldiers there last week. The two soldiers from the Queen’s Royal Lancers died when their Scimitar was destroyed by a bomb. The Lancers are due to be replaced next month by Harry’s regiment, the Blues and Royals.

I have always been highly suspicious of the suggestion that Harry would be sent out on patrol in Maysan, a pretty lawless area which even Saddam could not control. It always made more sense that he would have been kept back in Basra as one of the "watchkeepers" in the headquarters. This is a desk job that has to be done by some of the officers in his unit. It is as much a part of his job as being out on patrol, involves a great deal of responsibility, and is of course considerably safer. But apparently he insisted he be allowed to go and “do his job”.

This is all very honourable and if I were a member of his recce troop, which will be made up of four Scimitars, I would think very well of him for making such demands. But the simple truth is that it was always inevitable that once they knew Harry was going to be patrolling on their patch the local hoodlums would come looking for him. They have apparently been distributing photos of him around southern Iraq and putting huge bounties on his head. One group has even boasted that it will take him hostage and cut off his ears. How cruel these insurgents are.

Just imagine yourself as a trooper in his unit. You have a choice. You can be part of just another anonymous army patrol simply attracting attention from the local thugs who want to chance their arm, or a patrol that might have Prince Harry in it, attracting all the thugs, terrorists and insurgents from across the Middle East to try to take a pot shot at you. Your choice. Pretty simple isn’t it?

So why on earth did senior officers ever consider allowing him to go out on patrol? They should have made him a watchkeeper back in brigade headquarters and invited the media in to film him doing his job while insisting that he would never ever be sent out on patrol. There is no shame in this. No doubt the other officers in his unit ordered to perform the watchkeeper role would prefer to be out on the ground with their boys as well. Are they deemed to be "not doing their job”?

By suggesting that Harry could go out on patrol, senior officers have simply made it much more dangerous for the rest of his unit and in some ways nothing they do now will change that. Even if they do call in the television cameras to show Harry back in headquarters doing a desk job, will the insurgents believe it? They will continue to attack his unit’s Scimitars in the hope of a lucky strike.

As ever, the whole mess has been pretty badly handled. Senior commanders must now surely insist that Harry is not going out on patrol. If he wants to leave as a result, then he should. But not because the army is not letting him “do his job”. He joined the army. His job, as with everyone who joins the army, is to do precisely what his commanders tell him to do. If he can’t accept that simple truth then he should never have joined the army in the first place.

Comments

[Tom Benford]

'As ever the whole mess has been pretty badly handled' Just like your blog, then.
The crux of the matter is NO PATROLLING. Just like Vietnam.
The army, and it's armour, in all it's pomp rolls up an down the highways DURING THE DAY. And at night the insurgents do whatever they wish, including laying these IED's.
The essence of British Army control of the ground has ALWAYS been aggressive patrolling, especially so at night.
The Prince(is this really the 21st century?)is an irrelevance. What is important is, why is the army not patrolling aggresively ?
Mick says: Totally agree with you on ceding the night to the insurgents, something the British and the Americans have done since day one, but that wasnt the issue the blog was addressing was it? The prince is not an irrelevance because his presence is putting troops needlessly at risk and inviting an increased effort by the insurgent to attack British troops.

[Neil Murphy]

Not doing something because it puts soldiers at risk is a poor argument for keeping Harry out. However I agree that as a soldier his job is to do his job, which is whatever his superiors order. His desire to go on patrol at any cost sounds a little too gung ho and immature for a good officer. But then, perhaps he is being mis-reported

[Kiwi]

Mick, overall I think this is another entirely unnecessary cock-up. What staggers me is the incompetence of the MoD in not placing a DA-Notice on the deployment, along with the lack of restraint shown by the media in its reporting. What ever happened to the saying ‘dangerous talk costs lives’? Regardless of the presence of Royals, there should be little or no comment on units about to deploy. The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan is media savvy and the way the British press has been gleefully reporting the deployment of Prince Harry and his regiment is reckless and needlessly endangers lives. The constant press speculation has undoubtedly increased the risk, which was already considerable, and provided another distraction for the Battlegroup Commander. That being said, I’m sure that he will go, whether it is as a watchkeeper or Troop officer, and wish him and his fellow soldiers all the best, with luck the Islamists and some members of the press will be disappointed by his safe return.

[Chuck Unsworth]

It’s my view that this affair is being badly handled on all sides. The MoD with its customary (and enormous) skill and foresight has managed to generate a controversy out of what should be a minor issue. As Mick says, Prince Harry’s job as a serving and somewhat junior officer is to do as he is instructed. MoD has not even had the wit to turn this debate to its advantage.

The reports that the Prince is likely to leave the Army if he is not deployed with his troop are unlikely to have emanated from MoD, so this could be construed as a Royal PR attack. These attacks are not unprecedented and sometimes arise from the determination of various Royals to - selfishly - have things their way.

One might commend such a stance, if it were not for the fact that the Prince’s presence in Iraq will certainly place his immediate colleagues in a more hazardous position than would otherwise have been the case. If he is to patrol and reconnoitre as any other troop officer, he will certainly be singled out for ‘attention’ by the various factions – both Sunni and Shia, and any other crazies who want to get in on the act.

So the questions arise. Is his presence likely to be beneficial or detrimental to the Blues and Royals’ operations in Iraq? One could envisage that his presence might prove to be a morale booster but, equally, does he have better skills or abilities than most of his colleagues? Is the Prince’s presence crucial? What, simply, does this officer Prince bring to this particular party?

[frog]

Sounds fair enough to me Mick, young officers should not engage their superiors through the Press .

This scenario was envisageable long ago, and the Royal Family, MoD, should have done a deal with the Press, as the Family did for the childhood of those youngsters.

Failing that a D-Notice.

Nobody knows if his regiment will be under even more pressure than the previous one, because of his presence in even an unknown job. But certainly some incitement to work even harder for the opposition...who are already working hard...

Aggressive patrolling has rarely been the game, too under-resourced. Holding on by the skin of the teeth is now the situation -

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2488848.ece

(glitch on link, today's indy.)

indy

A further point.

Why even invite the media to film him at a desk ?

[frog]

Chuck, more good points,as always, particularly the "selfish" word.

Hindsight is so easy, but whatever happens in this case, what are the lessons to be learned ?

Go back a few decades, would a young prince have been deployed to NI ? Same risk.

Lesson one might be, join the Territorials if you want, but NO deployments.

Therefore you can join the Navy, if your maths etc are up to it .

Recent events,( lesson just learnt, maybe... ) , no boarding operations in the Persian/Arabian Gulf ...

[Confused of Basra]

Prince Harry wishes to lead by example, let us follow suit.

I propose a vote, after all was introducing democracy to Iraq not one of the objectives back in 2003?

So, given the inevitable fact that the Blues and Royals are about to witness an escalation in the various forms of violence directed against them:

a) would it not have been far simpler for the media to ignore the issue completely;
b) the MoD and the palace could have chosen to remain quiet;
c) both.

Answers on a postcard to:

Confused of Basra
P.O. Box 999
West Scimitar
Iraq

PS: Has anyone (MoD, Palace, media) developed a media strategy just in case something terrible happens? Now there’s a question I’d like an answer to.

[Confused of Basra]

Confused of Basra indeed . . . . . just confused !!!

See you soon

[Randal]

There is a real problem here, because if modern war conditions mean that princes can't face actual combat then their joining the army at all is pretty fraudulent. Better in the Navy or Air Force, where they are much harder to target directly.

Incidentally, will you be blogging about Sir Michael Rose's latest comments (on Newsnight last night - program accessible online through the BBC website)?

A good illustration of the fact that only a retired military man is likely to have the courage to state the truth on these issues - anybody else is liable to be too vulnerable to the usual smears (treason, undermining the troops, etc). Rose was correct when he said last year that Blair should be impeached, and he is correct to state now that the Iraqi insurgents are right to attack the occupying forces. He is also correct in saying that the British and US should admit defeat and get out before any more lives are destroyed in a bad cause.

It is a reflection of the general dishonesty of public debate on these issues, that it is so refreshing to hear such honesty in the mainstream media.

The bottom line is that the US made the mistake in Vietnam of gifting the communists the hugely powerful popular driving force of nationalism. In Iraq the US (and Britain this time) made exactly the same error in gifting the same driving force to the islamists.

Strategic incompetence on a monumental scale!

[Chuck Unsworth]

Well, General Dannatt has now formally issued the counter-order. But there's more to it than just the Royal safety.

Certainly Dannatt's position will have been strengthened by this. After all, he won't now be explaining the circumstances of the Prince's death or injury to the world's press. And no doubt the MoD Press Corps (yes, a very inadequate description) will be able to stand down for a while.

During this lull in Whitehall hostilities the good General should set about overhauling the Press Office with a view to getting some professional competence back into the serried ranks of media persons. This might even involve culling a few. No bad thing, in my view.

But this has really brought the whole debate about the function of the Royal Family within the armed forces into sharp focus. It's another example of the remarkable inability of some Ministers and those in Whitehall to think strategically. Clearly this shambles has lessons for many, not the least of which is to think on a broader scale than simply chasing tomorrow's photo opportunity or headline.

I'm sorry for Harry, a young man who has been badly let down by the whole system. In other circumstances and with different forebears he would no doubt have shaped up into a decent cavalry officer. It's a shame that no one steered him earlier on. One has to remember that the British Army (OK, maybe the Navy and Air Force) has seen action almost continuously since the Second World War. That's plenty of time for MoD - and the Royals - to determine and agree their respective positions.

[The 3rd column]

No doubt that Harry would be an excellent target for the insurgents. But that isn't really the problem; as a soldier, Harry knows that he will be in harm's way in Iraq.

I don't think the issue that the rest of the troops in Iraq would be put in greater danger per se with Harry in tow - serving in Iraq is danger itself but I do understand that operations would be severely tested with an unecessary distraction, i.e., having to be mindful of Harry.

The problem would have been resolved had the decision been made to send Harry to Afghanistan.

Unfortunate that the Army regimental system had cornered him to serve where his regiment goes.