Harry's War: Will he stay or will he go?

Is Prince Harry going to Iraq, or isn't he? Certainly the Prince himself, photographed with his friends on Friday night at a "going to Iraq" party in a London nightclub, appears to be in no doubt. But behind the scenes, debate is continuing at the highest level about his role, amid increasing concern about the situation in Iraq and the greater dangers facing all British forces there.

It might seem peculiar that this issue has flared up with such intensity now. Even before Harry passed out of Sandhurst a year ago, it had been clear that his chosen regiment, the Blues and Royals, would be deployed to one conflict zone or another during his service. The destination turned out to be Iraq: again, that has been public knowledge for more than a year.

Related articles

• Patrick Mercer: For every Tom, Dick and Harry
• Des Browne tells the Army: Prince Harry is your responsibility
• Leading article: Prince Harry and the 5,500
• Search the news archive for more stories

Yet with the Blues and Royals due to depart within days, the Prince's posting has become the subject of fraught negotiations between the Ministry of Defence, the Army and Clarence House. The head of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, is due to make a decision this week. As The Independent on Sunday reports today, the Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, has disclaimed responsibility while making it clear that it is up to the army hierarchy to make a comprehensive assessment of the dangers, not only to the Prince, but to those who might face extra risks because he is in their midst.

Why has concern arisen at such a late stage? One reason is that until recently Prince Harry's most likely role, long-range reconnaissance in Scimitar armoured cars, was assumed to be among the safer duties in Iraq. Commanding 11 men and a squadron of four Scimitars, he would be expected to patrol the border areas of Maysan province for long periods, so far from population centres that supplies often come from air drops.

In his helmet and battledress, Cornet (Second Lieutenant) Wales, as he is known in the Army, would be indistinguishable from any other British soldier, it was argued. And he would be well away from the dangerous streets of Basra, where increasingly sophisticated bombs, small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades take a steady toll.

This month, however, has been the bloodiest for British troops in Iraq since the war was declared over nearly four years ago, on 1 May 2003. Among the casualties have been two troopers carrying out exactly the same role as the Prince. They died in an explosion which hit a Scimitar patrol in Maysan: an attack which, it has been claimed, was a "dry run" for a similar attempt on Harry's life.

Suddenly the boasts from militias that they are preparing to capture or kill the Prince and are offering bounties and circulating his picture have become slightly more credible. One group claims it will send him home to his grandmother without his ears.

If nothing else, they prove that such groups are media-aware - far more so, according to one officer who has served in Basra, than the British Army. "They use text messages and websites to get their messages across to the local population, while we seem to think the odd press release is enough," said the officer.

It has been argued that keeping Prince Harry from the front line would hand the militias a propaganda victory. How much worse would it be, however, if he came to harm? As he ponders that, General Dannatt has to contend with another dilemma: conditions for British forces in Iraq have deteriorated sharply in recent weeks as their numbers are reduced from just over 7,000 to about 5,500, and word is beginning to get out.

According to a leaked MoD report, the number of British troops in Iraq suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder jumped last year from 208 to 363, a figure that does not include veterans or reservists. And in the past week, two returning soldiers have spoken up. Corporal Richard Bradley of the Staffordshire Regiment said: "I believe that they should pull every single British troop out of Iraq, because at the end of the day we are not achieving nothing out there. Blokes are dying for no cause at all, and blokes are getting injured for no cause at all."

Private Paul Barton of the same regiment told his local newspaper: "Basra is lost. They are in control now. It's a full-scale riot and the Government is just trying to save face." On his first tour, he had not fired his rifle once; during this tour, he fired 127 shots on five occasions, despite being in a medical support role. He concluded: "We have overstayed our welcome now [and] should speed up the withdrawal. It's a lost battle. We should call it quits."

Pte Barton was at the Shatt al-Arab base, since handed over to the Iraqi army, and said that from January onwards it was "like a siege ... We were getting mortared every hour of the day". The officer with experience of Basra stressed that such attacks remained random rather than targeted, and it was "pot luck" whether Prince Harry or any other individual British soldier suffered.

But an independent observer recently returned from the area said that the only remaining British base, at Basra airport, was now being heavily shelled, "and it is being done with a degree of strategic intelligence and timing". He added: "Britain has never had enough troops in southern Iraq to make a decisive difference. As a result, Basra is awash with criminals and fighting militias, and now that British forces have been reduced, they can't even defend themselves. They are in a holding pattern, keeping their heads down at the airport, and waiting to see what happens with the American-led security operation in Baghdad."

According to another source, the withdrawal timetable may mean that the reconnaissance mission for which Harry originally appeared destined may soon come to an end. But confining him to a desk job back at base might not be the safe option that some imagine. Those considerations, however, could soon be overtaken by another.

It is by no means impossible that the Staffordshire Regiment soldiers who wanted a faster pullout might get their wish: top-level discussions are taking place which could end in such a decision. In that case, would it make sense to send a royal into a situation which becomes the more dangerous as British numbers decline?

Harry himself has been robust, saying: "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." But, in truth, it has never been quite that simple.

War and the Royal Family: who is allowed to fight?

The Prince who fought

Prince Andrew, the last member of the Royal Family to see action, was sent to the Falklands in 1982 as a helicopter pilot. At the time he was second in line to the throne, one place higher than Harry is now. Flying from the aircraft carrier HMS 'Invincible', he carried out anti-submarine and rescue missions. Later he inadvertently revealed his most dangerous task: using his Sea King helicopter as a decoy for Exocet missiles. He returned in 1985, and continued his Navy career until 2001, leaving with the rank of commander. Prince Andrew made clear his feelings about the conflict in 1991: "Had I not gone to the Falklands, my position within the Navy would have been untenable."

The Prince held back

In August 1914, Prince Edward, the future Edward VIII - and, after his abdication, the Duke of Windsor - asked for a commission, having trained with the Navy since 1907. He joined the Grenadier Guards, but soon learned that the Secretary of State for War, Lord Kitchener, had refused to allow him to serve on the front line. He tried to argue his case, but was told that the possibility of the enemy capturing him, and the added danger his presence in the trenches would mean for those around him, ruled it out. Despite this, Edward became the first Prince of Wales since the Black Prince to undertake war service in France, and visited the front line several times - leading to his award of the Military Cross in 1916.

The Prince who can't

Prince William followed his younger brother, Harry, to Sandhurst, having spent four years studying at the University of St Andrews. The Prince is still carrying out his army training, and has not yet reached the point where he could be deployed.

According to Buckingham Palace, "no decision about his deployment has been made", but in practice, it is unlikely that he will ever serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. As the prospective future monarch, he will follow his army training with stints in the Royal Air Force and the Navy to familiarise himself with all three services. But, as second in line to the throne, he is not expected to become a career soldier, despite being trained for combat.