It is the duty of HM Government to say no to Harry

It looks like the British Army is having second thoughts about sending prince Harry to Iraq ( who is 3rd in line to the throne ).

I say about time. A little thought shows why. Three things need to be considered:

1. What would the consequences be of Harry being captured/killed be ?
2. Do the insurgents and their various nation state backers have the capability to capture Harry ?
3. How likely is it.

The answers are - 1) if we are lucky they would at best hold him to ransom and a public relations fiasco that would make the Navy's someone stole my iPod experience pale into insignificance would follow. Or, more likely, they would slaughter Harry in their usual sadistic way and post the video on Youtube.
2) Yes and they have clearly demonstrated this recently.
3) Quite likely. Given the draw down of British forces in Iraq those remaining become more vulnerable. Do we really trust the Iraqi army that much ?

It seems to me that prince Harry's pride will have to take a bit of a knock (I have no doubt he's a brave young man) for the good of his country.

HM Government clearly has little choice, if it is to take its duties seriously, and must refuse to send Harry. This is not the same as the Falklands with Prince Andrew.

Not that this has occurred to Blair, who's been on radio getting things very mixed up again. He's saying if Harry stays or goes is not up to him ( reported from Radio Stafford ?). Well it is exactly up to him. One of his prime duties is to protect the monarch and their potential successors to the throne. (Though with Cherie refusing to curtsey to the Queen and the usual NuLabour believing they are themselves monarchy you can see how confused he gets).

If Harry feels very strongly he should relinquish his claim on the throne and become a commoner. Then I don't see how he could be refused. Otherwise he has to stay outside of Iraq.