Concerns over Prince Harry's combat role
2013-01-22 21:33
London - Prince Harry's assertion that he has killed
Taliban fighters while deployed as a helicopter gunner in Afghanistan drew
intense media coverage in Britain on Tuesday and sparked concerns about
possible reprisals.
He made the assertion in a pooled interview first
published on Monday night after he was safely out of Afghanistan following a
20-week deployment in which he served as a co-pilot and gunner in a heavily
armed Apache attack helicopter.
Asked if he had shot from the cockpit, the third-in-line
for the British throne said he and a lot of other people had done so while in
combat.
The response was immediate: The Daily Mirror ran a
page-one headline "Royal Sensation Harry: I Killed Taliban" on
Tuesday along with a photo of a macho-looking Harry in combat gear and designer
shades.
Other newspapers ran similar gung-ho stories about the
prince's military exploits.
"Harry: I Have Killed" was the story in the
Daily Mail.
Video shot during the prince's deployment was shown
dozens of times on Britain's major news networks.
Not everyone was applauding the soldier-prince.
Lindsey German, leader of the Stop the War Coalition,
called Harry's comments "arrogant and insensitive" and raised the
prospect that Harry might have targeted Afghan civilians.
Former officer Charles Heyman, who edits a yearbook on
British forces, said the prince's words may raise the already high threat level
against Harry.
"The royal family are all targets, and he now
probably becomes the prime target, royal family-wise," Heyman said.
"But he can live with that. He's a soldier, he knows
what he's doing. By and large the world's elite make sure their sons and
daughters go nowhere near the firing line. So it brings credit to the royal
family, and it's good for army morale, that Harry's not sitting back in London
saying, 'Well done boys.'"
Under enemy fire
Heyman said that as an Apache gunner, Harry would have
opened fire when directed to do so by a ground controller who would most likely
have been under enemy fire.
Harry typically would have been firing at Taliban forces
in bunkers or protected in some way, not troops out in the open, said the
former officer.
"They would have been opening fire to relieve
pressure on the ground, maybe even to rescue people on the ground," Heyman
said.
"If he was using machine guns, there is no way he
could say categorically he destroyed the target, but if he was using the
Hellfire missiles against a bunker, he would be able to say categorically that
he destroyed the target."
If you see a large explosion, and if there is no more
enemy fire from the area, the gunner can be "pretty sure" the enemy
has been eliminated, Heyman said.
Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British commander in
Afghanistan, said the fevered press response to Harry's words reflects a
certain naivety about the realities of war.
"He's flying an attack helicopter armed with
missiles and machine guns, and its purpose is predominantly to come in and
provide fire support for troops fighting the Taliban, so it would be very, very
surprising if he didn't swoop in and kill," Kemp said.
"I know it's a delicate subject, but I'm surprised
by how much people have seized on what he said. If he'd been bragging about
killing, that would have been wrong, but he didn't brag about it."
- AP
