I think this news makes sense.
Prince Harry will not deploy with his regiment to Iraq following “specific threats” to target him by insurgents fighting British and US forces.
The head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said his presence in Iraq would expose the 22-year-old Prince as well as the troops serving with him to “a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable”.
In a statement, Clarence House admitted that the Prince was “very disappointed” that he would not be going with his squadron in the Household Cavalry.
But a spokesman insisted that he would not quit the Army.Update: W. Thomas Smith, Jr. at The Tank thinks this is embarrassing and disgraceful and that it is unfair to Harry. I agree with him that this is not fair to Harry, but I guess that is the price of fame and fortune. My thinking was that as crucial as the media strategy is to the terrorists, that they would all be gunning for Harry specifically, and that would not be fair to those in his regiment. Smith says he thinks this decision not to deploy will play into the hands of the terrorists’ propaganda campaign.
He makes a good point, but so does Scott in the comments section. “Good. I’m glad he’s not going. AQ would have done anything, ANYTHING, to get him on videotape for a beheading. His desire to serve is admirable; and in his family’s tradition. But it’s totally unfair to put other soldiers at risk to satisy his desire. In this day and age, royals have no place in battle. Soldier on, Harry. There’s plenty more you can do elsewhere.”