As far as I know, John McCain was the first American dignitary to be driven from the airport to the green zone. Why did we let him drive when everyone else had been helicoptered out of the airport? If he would have been captured or killed it would have been a huge advantage for the enemy.

I would infer that we let him drive because, as a result of the increased troops in the surge, we finally have some level of control and stability in that area. The psychological advantage was greater that the risk. This indicates more progress in Baghdad than the news reports of his trip seemed to indicate.

If the British mission were succeeding, there would not be a question of "introducing anything into the theater that will benefit your enemy more than it will benefit you". If the mission was succeeding, the psychological advantage of sending Harry would exceed the risk. That this risk exceeds the reward is the point. To me it says that the Shia south is unstable, uncontrolled, and more in conflict than we are generally aware of; a very bad sign for our mission in Iraq.

I will not rebut this point here again, but I would appreciate your responding again if you still think I am off track.

Thanks
FredW

The reason they're not deploying him is a military one. He's more valuable as a propaganda win to the enemy than as a soldier to the British forces. This isn't about him, it's about not introducing anything into the theater that will benefit your enemy more than it will benefit you. It would be like gold-plating your tanks.

If this were active combat, instead of policing, then sending him would make sense because he wouldn't be any more of a strategic win for the enemy than any other ranking officer. But since this conflict is about psychology and not strategy, he's a liability more than an asset.

I think about the only way Harry could easily and succesfully serve in Iraq would be for him to go incognito without the security and all that, and use a different name, of course it is kind of hard to avoid people recognizing you, when your picture has been plastered in every magazine, tabloid, and newspaper since the day you were born.

Thanks for the response, but the point is; if they can't secure Harry and his unit against terrorist threats, I doubt that they are capable of securing anything else. Isn't restoring order and security the other thing they have to do? I am looking for good news on Iraq, and this is not it.

The British army isn't in Iraq to protect one of their own. They have other things to do.

In 91 my other brother (not the one mentioned above) was in Germany so someone else could go to Iraq who had more advanced training in a combat zone or something like that but they needed the position filled.

The prince's grandmother the current Queen was an ambulance driver in ww2.

Far more fascinating woman than his mother.

Oh and those 4 were of a graduating class of only 64.

Didn't he say he would resign if he was not deployed to Iraq?

No, you are thinking of former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey who was going to resign after Gonzalez tried to get a near-comatose John Ashcroft to sign off on Bush's domestic spying program.