Prince Harry will complete his training at Sandhurst in April
Posted on 01/31/2006 6:09:15 PM PST by saquin
Prince Harry is to be sent to Iraq next year as a troop commander and is likely to patrol the hazardous border with Iran, defence sources have disclosed.
The third in line to the throne will join the Army's 1st Mechanised Brigade, which will be deployed to Basra in May 2007.
The prince has told colleagues that he is determined to go on operations and be treated as normally as possible - not kept out of the line of fire.
Defence chiefs, in consultation with the Prince of Wales's office, will have to devise a plan that will not put his life or those of his troops in any greater danger. Substantial planning will go into the deployment and the media is likely to be asked for co-operation on security aspects of the mission.
As a troop commander in the Blues and Royals, the prince will have the rank of cornet, equivalent to a second lieutenant, in charge of 11 men and four light tanks.
The reconnaissance formation will patrol the long border with Iran where weapons, insurgents, drugs and money are smuggled.
The prince's men will use night vision equipment to find terrorists trying to bring in sophisticated bomb making devices.
The desert patrols last up to 10 days with supplies being dropped from aircraft. The work is said to appeal to the soldiers as a mixture of Lawrence of Arabia and Prince 'is a cracking officer' the early SAS long-range desert patrols of the Second World War.
Although the mission will be hazardous, the prince is keen that his royal position will not disqualify him.
"There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country," he has said.
Instructors at Sandhurst have been impressed by Prince Harry's approach. "He is going to be a real asset to the Army," a senior officer said. "It would be a real shame if the Palace or MoD did not allow him to go on operations because he is a cracking officer."
Prince Harry will complete his training at Sandhurst in April
Actually, US DoD regulations notwithstanding, I think it's a valid question. I couldn't help but admire the fact that LBJ sent both his sons-in-law to Viet Nam.
For the record, I am a conservative republican.
I didn't ask if you were a conservative republican. And you have further exposed your ignorance with your follow up post. So what if LBJ decided to "send his son-in-laws to Vietnam." Are you questioning the Presidents patriotism because his daughters have not chosen to join the military? It is their choice, not their father's. Does this simple fact not register with you?
God bless you and your eldest. You obviously did a great job, and so has he.
BTW, why are you using an entirely different handle to respond to my earlier post? That is most times a trolling method and questions your integrity in the "conservative" area.
Please see post #3.
I smell troll meat here.
Sir. I don't recall you asking me anything. Be advised I am not ignorant. I most certainly do not question the President's patriotism. He is one of the persons I admire most.
I'm impressed because I believe he means it. He could easily take on something less dangerous...the way most men of his class do, that is, if they're willing to do anything at all for their country.
You don't question his patriotism, but you bring up another, Liberal Democrat's, decision to "send his son-in-laws" into combat. This questions your motives here.
Hmmm...
I am not a fan of LBJ, but I still admire the fact he sent his sons-in-law into combat. The only motive or objective I have is to take part in conservative dialog.
Take your troll and shove it.
You might be a Republican, but forget the 'conservative' part. "Conservative" means, among other things, maintaining traditional American values. Sending girls off to war to protect the men back home isn't a traditional American value; it's an ass-backwards, new-age feminist phenomena.
"Lighten up, Francis."
Perhaps you should "mouse" over his name and check out his sign-up date.
Troll-meat?
The day after you grow a pair of testacles.
Most men of his class?
While I have the utmost respect for Harry and what he is doing, it's really not all that unusual for members of his 'class' to serve in the military, and that often includes service in combat.
(Disclaimer - I know the Prince of Wales slightly, and like him, and am honoured to consider the Duke of York a friend, and really like him - so I'm not posting as an entirely disinterested party - but these people can't really defend themselves).
It's unusual for the actual heir to serve, because they do have a duty to stay alive to fulfil their constitutional function. But the Prince of Wales served in the Royal Navy for five years - and it was genuine service. He's also had a symbolic role in the military - but those five years were real naval service.
The Duke of York served in the Royal Navy for 22 years, again genuine service, including combat service in the Falklands.
Go back another generation - Her Majesty the Queen, as Princess Elizabeth, served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service during the last year of the Second World War.
The current Duke of Edinburgh (at the time His Royal Highness Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark) served in the Royal Navy during the Second World War, including service in combat in the Mediterranean.
Back a further generation - His Majesty George VI (as HRH Prince Albert) served in the Royal Navy in World War I, including combat service at the Battle of Jutland. His Majesty Edward VIII (as HRH The Prince of Wales) served in the Grenadier Guards. Though denied a combat posting, he spent as much time as he could manage at the front. Their brother the Duke of Kent, served in the Royal Navy and then the Royal Air Force and was killed on active duty during World War II. Their other brother, the Duke of Gloucester spent 18 years in the peacetime British army, before returning to military service in World War II - rather ironic that the only career military man among the brothers had the least active experience.
The point is, Harry is simply doing what is expected of someone in his family. He could opt out (as his uncle the Earl of Essex really has) but that would be quite unusual.
He deserves honour and praise for what he is willing to do - but I don't like seeing the suggestion that others have not done their duty as well.
I can understand why some people (especially Americans) have issues with the whole ide of royalty - but whatever else you can say about the Royal family, or the relevance of their role, they have generally been patriots who have done their duty by their nation.
Thanks, Swamp. I appreciate it.
Hey Swamp thing, if it quacks like a troll, I don't really care when it signed up. He's using two different handles, and talking crap.
BTW, how the heck did you know my first name? Really!
I don't want you anywhere near my nether regions.
Tell me again the reson for the two handles? Jeltz25
Not to worry. Islamokazis like nazis.
Your taking part in questioning some peoples patriotism. Why are you doing this? This is something that a liberal would do not a conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.