Army reconsidering Prince Harry's deployment to Iraq: report

[Nfld Sapper]

Army reconsidering Prince Harry's deployment to Iraq: report
Last Updated: Thursday, April 26, 2007 | 6:23 AM ET
CBC News
Article Link
A British newspaper reported Thursday that army chiefs were reconsidering their decision to allow Prince Harry to fight in Iraq with his army regiment.

The Defence Ministry would not confirm the report in The Sun newspaper, saying only that "all operational deployments are under constant review" and that the army wanted to treat the third in line for the throne as an ordinary soldier.

However, Britain's Press Association and Sky News cited unidentified sources as saying Harry would quit the army if he wasn't allowed to go to Iraq.

Clarence House, Prince Charles's London office, insisted Harry was on track to go to Iraq, but declined to comment further. 

"It's an army decision and always has been and always will be," a spokesman said on condition of anonymity in line with palace policy.

The Sun cited unnamed senior military officials as saying that the review was likely to lead to Harry being banned from the battlefield, but he could still go and do a desk job.


<MORE ON LINK>

 

[geo]

To whit Harry has said that, if the MOD pulls that stunt, he's OUT!

 

[a78jumper]

Harry, go with your heart and not with some pile of Whitehall bureaucrats in uniform. And quit if you must. And indeed your brother also needs to serve there as well, if not ZERO credibility. If the worst comes to pass and both you die, there is a number three ie Uncle Randy Andy.

If you both are forbidden to fight, as you were trained to do, it will just concretely prove that the Royal Fmaily is little more than a bunch of figurehead welfare cheats, exempt from the everyday trials of military personnel Commonwealth wide. If your Grandmother had any gonads this would not have reached the point it has, Tony Blair would have been "duly advised" end of story.

 

[observor 69]

Keep Prince Harry out of Iraq
TheStar.com - opinion - Keep Prince Harry out of Iraq

April 29, 2007
Prince Harry is, by all accounts, an exemplary soldier.

It is part of his creditable attitude to his job that he is so keen to serve in Iraq, where 145 British servicemen have so far lost their lives. It is important that royal service in the forces is on the same basis as everyone else's. So far this has been true in the prince's case.

However, insurgent groups on both sides of the Sunni/Shia divide in Iraq have announced their intention to devote their resources to kidnapping the prince, holding him hostage, and to be prepared to kill him. There is no reason to believe they are joking.

Equally, given the recent debacle of the naval personnel captured by the Iranians, the notion of a government as innately incompetent as ours dealing with the third in line to the throne being taken hostage by a vicious enemy is terrifying even to contemplate.

It shows what a good leader the prince is that he wishes to run the same risks as his men. But if he goes to Iraq, he will have to run risks infinitely higher than almost any other soldier does – except those with him, who will be sitting ducks because of his presence.

This is monstrously unfair to him and his comrades, and a huge distraction from the job our troops are in Iraq to do.

No special case should be made for the prince because of who he is, but to send him could be little short of suicidal. Our army is overstretched: There are plenty of other arduous challenges to which he could be directed.

To send him to Iraq would be madness.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an edited version of an editorial that appeared Friday in the Daily Telegraph, London.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/208257

 

[RangerRay]

From, of all places, The Guardian:

<a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2068003,00.html">Link</a>

For his sake, Harry must go to Iraq


The link between monarchy and the army is historically strong and should not be ignored

Tristram Hunt
Sunday April 29, 2007
The Observer


These must be nervous days for the Queen but if Britain's monarchy still has any serious meaning left in it at all then Prince Harry should be despatched to Iraq. If he is barred from serving with his Blues and Royals regiment then there remains little point in holding on to the Royal Family.
Certainly, reports of special units within the Mahdi army militia dedicated to Harry's capture makes the decision all the more fraught. Talk of insurgent spies in the British camp at Basra is disturbing. Nonetheless, senior commanders in Iraq and the MoD are unanimous in their view that he should go. According to informed sources, the view of the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, is clear: Cornet Windsor is in the army, in a combat unit, and that's what people in the army do. Any plans to rescind his six-month tour will undermine both Harry's own sense of self-worth and the vital connection - of loyalty, service and sense of nationhood - which still exists between royalty and the army.

Militarism and monarchy have a long history. For a prince, war provides a moment of rare power and equality. One needs only think of that other Harry on the fields of Agincourt on 25 October 1415, displaying an unrivalled example of regal machismo - artfully garnered into national myth by Shakespeare:
'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now abed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.'

This celebrated, eve of battle speech has more than a casual relevance to today's Harry: the allure of war; the brotherhood of combat; and the self-loathing of those spared the fight. Modern soldiers trained for, then withdrawn from, combat find it equally hard to continue their careers within the army. Like Shakespeare's English gentlemen, they too often think themselves accursed. Or as Harry less felicitously put it: 'There is no way I'm going to ... sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.'

It is has been a long time since a king led his troops into battle - George II at the battle of Dettingen in 1743, during the war of the Austrian Succession. Yet heirs, and most especially the spares, continued to serve. From the Duke of Clarence (the future King William IV) in the late 18th century to Prince Andrew, Duke of York, in the Falkland Islands war, the armed services have proved efficacious careers for otherwise aimless princes. Moreover, royal involvement remains important to regimental ethos. Hence the extraordinary military ardour for the late Queen Mother. And it works both ways.

Even in today's 'value-added monarchy' (as the Prince of Wales's private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, prefers to call it) the military is more than just outdoor relief for the third in line. The armed forces constitute one of the cultural props of the royal family. Not only do members of the armed forces swear allegiance to Her Majesty, but their very meaning is bound up with the monarchical ideal.

The armed services are above and beyond politics: their calling is to country not party. Their ethos is one of duty and public service. Officially an organ of the state, the military is part of civil society with its Royal British Legion clubs, county museums, historic regiments and regional affiliations. The patriotism, implicit Protestantism and ethic of obedience the military embodies is regarded as a bulwark against the kind of self-gratifying, materialist spirit of the times the Prince of Wales so often decries.

But is this all rather out of date? In addition to preparing for his Iraq posting, this summer Harry is also involved with organising a pop concert to commemorate his mother's death. Her idea of monarchy - of human empathy rather than isolation; of metropolitan London as opposed to Balmoral stalking - was very different from such gung-ho militarism. But after the humiliation of the Royal Navy personnel in Iran a touch of Old Britain might not come amiss.

There is no denying the Iraq war is a very different conflict from the kind of popularly endorsed world wars of the last century. George VI at Jutland this is not. It is a divisive conflict and Harry is either contributing to a widely condoned act of colonial aggression or a high-minded moment of liberal interventionism. Some Iraqis on the ground certainly see Harry's arrival within a more imperial time frame.

Abu Ahmed, a commander in the Mahdi army, was adamant: 'His grandmother is the Queen of Britain and his father is the Queen's heir. What's he coming to do here? I'm afraid he wants to be king over us.' Indeed, Harry's service could come to be seen in the same light as the Prince of Wales's position as Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment - a connection for which he has never been forgiven by the Irish nationalist community.

While some worried army families have decried Harry's departure for the Gulf, others hope it could help to restore some lost mettle. It needs to be handled carefully. The 'war on terror' is as much a media war as military campaign and an attack on Harry would represent a propaganda disaster. Yet it is not beyond the wit of officers to ensure Harry's posting is managed to avoid extra danger to himself, his troops and, not to be forgotten in this, the Iraqis we are meant to be assisting.

Beyond the mechanics, his service will show not only that there remains a continuing connection between monarchy and militarism but that the wider royal family still has a purpose. For if he can't join his fellow Sandhurst cadets in the back of a Scimitar, what can he do?

 

[The Bread Guy]

It appears they're being pretty careful, too - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Special forces sent to Iraq amid fears for Harry's safety
Army strengthens protection for the prince, as experts warn of 'nightmare kidnapping scenario'
Mark Townsend and David Smith, The Observer (UK), 29 Apr 07
Article link

Army special forces have been sent to Iraq to provide increased protection for Prince Harry ahead of his tour of duty in the country.

An extra detachment of special forces has arrived in southern Iraq to monitor militia groups and reinforce the prince's protection as fears grow that insurgents will target the third in line to the throne.

The Army is aware that militia groups are claiming to know when his regiment, the Blues and Royals, will arrive in the country. Last week The Observer revealed plans by insurgent groups to kidnap and kill Harry. The insurgents now claim to have informers inside the British base in Basra who will track the Prince's movements.


Special forces sent to Iraq amid fears for Harry's safety


Army strengthens protection for the prince, as experts warn of 'nightmare kidnapping scenario'

Mark Townsend and David Smith
Sunday April 29, 2007
The Observer

Army special forces have been sent to Iraq to provide increased protection for Prince Harry ahead of his tour of duty in the country.

An extra detachment of special forces has arrived in southern Iraq to monitor militia groups and reinforce the prince's protection as fears grow that insurgents will target the third in line to the throne.

The Army is aware that militia groups are claiming to know when his regiment, the Blues and Royals, will arrive in the country. Last week The Observer revealed plans by insurgent groups to kidnap and kill Harry. The insurgents now claim to have informers inside the British base in Basra who will track the Prince's movements.

Article continues
As he completed his intensive pre-operational training at Combermere Barracks, Windsor, defence officials were yesterday sticking to the line that he will still be travelling to Iraq as a troop commander.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the defence staff, is believed to be satisfied that Harry should serve in Iraq amid claims that politicians are steering clear of taking such a contentious decision.

Officials close to Prince Charles and his sons refused to be drawn yesterday on whether a media strategy is being devised for a situation such as Harry's capture or death in Iraq. Although the prince appears destined for deployment, military sources indicated yesterday that a significant amount of time in Iraq might have to be spent 'behind a desk'.

Two months into his Iraq tour, he will be allowed extraordinary leave to help organise and attend a concert on 1 July in honour of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, who died 10 years ago.

Senior military figures are unanimous that the Prince - known as Cornet Wales - should be allowed to serve as troop commander, leading 12 men in four armoured reconnaissance vehicles. One military source with considerable experience of the security situation in Iraq said: 'The probability of Harry becoming a victim is incredibly slim.'

Despite fresh claims from insurgents that they are planning to target Harry, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday they had not received any complaints from senior commanders in Iraq or from junior ranks over the imminent arrival of the Prince.

Military sources stressed that preventing Harry going to the country at such a late stage would hand insurgents a propaganda coup. Hugo Vickers, the royal author and constitutional expert, said: 'On balance he probably ought to go; if he doesn't, it looks ridiculous.'

Although most military blogs referring to Harry's deployment have been removed from the internet, those that remain suggest concerns do exist over the situation among service families.

One message describes the Prince as a 'bullet magnet'. Another from the website rearparty.co.uk - a site for friends and families of the military - states: 'Why don't they just paint a great, big red cross on Prince Harry's waggon. Don't these people have the common sense to keep this quiet? Why risk the lives of prince Harry and the people who are in the tank with him? If I [were] the wife of one of them I would push him down the stairs so he doesn't have to go.'

Most commentators yesterday warned that the nightmare scenario would be if Harry was captured and paraded on television like the 15 British sailors who were effectively used by Iran as propaganda pawns before being released.

Robert Lacey, the historian and author of Majesty, a biography of the Queen, and The Kingdom, a study of Saudi Arabia, said: 'Imagine if the commanding officer of the Iran hostages had been Prince Harry. The kidnapping in Iran may have given the MoD food for thought about handing over a celebrity target in such an unconventional theatre of war.'

Lord St John of Fawsley, the constitutional expert and friend of the Queen, added: 'The thought of him being captured is horrific, a much bigger disaster than him being killed. Despite Harry's understandable desire to go with his men, it's in the higher interest of state security that he doesn't go. I think Princess Diana would be thinking along the lines I describe.'

Lacey added: 'It's clear he's a celebrity target. His capture or death would be an enormous victory for the enemy and setback for Britain. In the age of celebrity culture, one also has celebrity warfare. In the Middle Ages kings led their men into battle and took the risk in a very obvious way to inspire them.'

Vickers, said: 'If Harry died we'd think it was a pointless waste of life. The person we'd all blame would be Blair. I'd be inclined not to send him. I dread to think what Princess Diana would have thought,' he added.

His comments came amid fresh claims obtained by The Observer from both Sunni and Shia militias operating in southern Iraq that they are keenly awaiting the prince's arrival.

Abu Zaid, a commander in the notorious Mahdi army militia, said: 'I would like to advise him to remain in the lap of his friends and to learn a serious lesson from what is happening to the British soldiers in Basra.'

Abu Ahmed, another commander within the Mahdi army, claimed Harry was being brought to Iraq to establish colonial rule. He said: 'I'm afraid he wants to be king over us. Now the true intent of the English has appeared.'

Abu Ghassan, one of the Iranian-backed Sunni group Thar-allah - God's Revenge - said: 'I hope he will come down to the street so that he will be able to see with his own two eyes what may happen to him'.

 

[medaid]

wow bunch of ignorant people! I say, let Harry go. He is a solier. As a soldier, he is obligated to do his duty, and if his regiment is going, then so should he. No special treatment for Royalties.

 

[tomahawk6]

Either the unit deploys to Iraq with the Prince or the unit stays in the UK. This has become a problem now because the UK no longer has control of Basra. If we want to see what Iraq would look like in the event of a US pullout all we need do is look at Basra. The only way to protect the Prince is robust combat operations against the Mehdi Army. We have two US Army brigades that will be moving into Iraq next month, I think to secure our supply lines one brigade needs to go into Basra and begin operations against the Mehdi Army. Sadly the Brits wont like that because the Mehdi Army "might get mad" and try to kill even more British troops.But if you destroy the mehdi army the threat goes away, the population feel safer and the government regains control of a key city.

 

[vonGarvin]

Prince Harry will go to Iraq, head of army says​

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070430/Prince_Harry_070430/20070430?hub=TopStories

The head of the British army says he has personally decided Prince Harry will go to Iraq.
Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt told BBC News the decision will be kept under review, but says he hopes his statement will end media speculation on Harry's deployment.
The 22-year-old Prince's regiment, the Blues and Royals, is due to begin a six-month tour of duty in Iraq within weeks. British commanders had reportedly been reconsidering their decision to allow the prince to fight in Iraq.


More on link

 

[Kirkhill]

Either the unit deploys to Iraq with the Prince or the unit stays in the UK. This has become a problem now because the UK no longer has control of Basra. If we want to see what Iraq would look like in the event of a US pullout all we need do is look at Basra. The only way to protect the Prince is robust combat operations against the Mehdi Army. We have two US Army brigades that will be moving into Iraq next month, I think to secure our supply lines one brigade needs to go into Basra and begin operations against the Mehdi Army. Sadly the Brits wont like that because the Mehdi Army "might get mad" and try to kill even more British troops.But if you destroy the mehdi army the threat goes away, the population feel safer and the government regains control of a key city.

T6, You seem to be trying to "yank" chains these days. (Pun intended  ) .  This is the second posting referring to a lack of British aggression.  (The other being the Apache article). I don't have a great deal of problems with controlled, targeted aggression.  While it can be argued whether or not the Brits are applying aggressive force at the right time and place and might be erring on the "passive" side equally it might be fair to suggest that your forces have erred on the aggressive side.  Your man Petraeus,  while still willing enough to employ force certainly seems to be trying to find a new balance in that regard.  One that seeks to separate wheat from chaff prior to getting rid of the chaff.

Cheers.

 

[pjocsak]

Well,

A decision has been made. Not entirely unexpected I would submit.

Reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the copy write act....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6663053.stm


Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq

The prince has expressed a wish to be involved in active service
Prince Harry will not be sent to Iraq, the head of the British Army has said.

General Sir Richard Dannatt said the prince's deployment would pose an "unacceptable" threat to him and the men who served alongside him.

It had been reported that militant groups had planned to kill or kidnap the young royal.

Clarence House said Prince Harry was "very disappointed" but will not be leaving the Army as a result.

'Extremely disappointed'

The move represents a U-turn by the MoD, which said as recently as last month that the prince would be heading to Iraq as an armed reconnaissance officer in the Blues and Royals regiment.

The general said he had reached his decision following a visit to the region at the end of last week.


I know Prince Harry will be extremely disappointed
General Sir Richard Dannatt

Army statement in full
"There have been a number of specific threats, some reported some not reported, which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual.

"These threats expose not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable."

General Dannatt said he knew Prince Harry would be extremely disappointed and that his soldiers would miss his presence in Iraq.

Iraq map
Harry would have been deployed with his regiment to Basra

He said had proved himself as an officer of "determination and undoubted talent - and I do not say that lightly".

The Army chief did not rule out deploying Prince Harry to the region in the future and paid tribute to all British service personnel deployed around the world.

But Reg Keys - whose son Thomas was killed while on active service in Basra in 2003 - said he found the decision distasteful and questioned whether insurgents could have told the prince apart from other service personnel.

Mr Keys added: "It would appear that Harry's life is more valuable than my son or the other nearly 150 service personnel who've given their lives."

'Extreme reluctance'

A Clarence House statement said: "Prince Harry is very disappointed that he will not be able to go to Iraq with his troop on this deployment as he had hoped.

"He fully understands and accepts General Dannatt's difficult decision and remains committed to his Army career.

"Prince Harry's thoughts are with his troop and the rest of the battle group in Iraq."

Asked if Harry would quit the Army as a result, a spokesman replied: "Absolutely not."

The former British Army commander, Colonel Bob Stewart, told BBC News 24 the decision would have been taken very reluctantly.


HAVE YOUR SAY
Disappointing for him personally, but the right move by the MoD
Bob, Chester

Send us your comments

He said: "The Chief of the General Staff has actually made such a decision with extreme reluctance; I know that, he's a personal friend and I know exactly the way he's feeling."

Harry would have been the first British royal to see action since his uncle, Prince Andrew, served as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands conflict in 1982.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "It's an operational decision taken by the military which we of course respect."

But former Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Portillo criticised the MoD for "terrible vacillation" over the issue, and Tory MP Desmond Swayne - a former Territorial Army officer in Iraq - said the decision was a victory for Iraqi insurgents.

 

[stealthylizard]

Harry could probably go if the media didn't have such big mouths.  Just don't report that he has gone over to Iraq.  Plain and simple.

 

[Mike Baker]

Harry could probably go if the media didn't have such big mouths.  Just don't report that he has gone over to Iraq.  Plain and simple.

+1. He is a soldier, and he is not aloud to do it? I know the threat for his safety is huge, but he should be able to do what he wants to do. Oh well.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Being a soldier does not mean you get to do what you want to do....

 

[aesop081]

+1. He is a soldier, and he is not aloud to do it?

ALLOWED........."aloud" is something noisy

I know the threat for his safety is huge, but he should be able to do what he wants to do. Oh well.

You have not served a second in the military.......stay in your lane

 

[The Bread Guy]

A little more, from the UK MoD:

Specific risk to Harry deployment "unacceptable" - CGS
Defence News (UK MoD), 16 May 07
Article link

Chief of the General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt has decided that HRH Prince Harry should not currently deploy to Iraq, on the basis of his constant review of the specific risks.

In a statement, General Dannatt said:

"Over the last few weeks I have made a particular point of saying that I would keep under constant review my decision to deploy Prince Harry to Iraq with his Troop. As with any military operation, circumstances do change, and therefore so should decisions, if necessary.

"I have decided today that Prince Harry will not deploy as a Troop Leader with his Squadron. I have come to this final decision following a further and wide round of consultation, including a visit to Iraq by myself at the end of last week.

"There have been a number of specific threats – some reported and some not reported - which relate directly to Prince Harry as an individual. These threats place not only him but also those around him to a degree of risk that I now deem unacceptable. Now that I have decided that he will not be deploying with his Troop, the risks faced by his Battlegroup are no different to those faced by any other Battlegroup or other of our Servicemen in Iraq.

"I have to add that a contributing factor to this increase in threat to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his deployment. It is a fact that this close scrutiny has exacerbated the situation and this is something that I wish to avoid in future.

"Let me also make quite clear that as a professional soldier, Prince Harry himself will be extremely disappointed. He has proved himself both at Sandhurst and in command of his Troop during their training. I commend him for his determination and his undoubted talent – and I do not say that lightly. His soldiers will miss his leadership in Iraq, although I know his Commanding Officer will provide a highly capable substitute Troop Leader.

"In conclusion, two further points: First, I have asked Prince Harry’s Commanding Officer to continue to develop Prince Harry’s professional career in the Army, but I am not prepared to speculate, either now or in the future, on what Prince Harry might be doing over the next few weeks, months and years.

"Second, I pay tribute once again to the excellence and commitment of all our Servicemen deployed around the World and I thank them, and their families, for the way that they are doing their duty in the best traditions of the Armed Forces."

CGS had previously stated that Prince Harry’s deployment would be kept under constant review. As with any military operation, circumstances change. Current intelligence indicates that the treat to him and those around him is at an unacceptable level of risk, and significantly greater than that which would be associated with a deployment without him. CGS’s recent visit to Iraq further informed that assessment.

In light of this, CGS has decided Prince Harry is not going to deploy at this time, as he is not willing to put him or those around him at unnecessary risk. As before, the threat level will be kept under constant review.

This was a military decision based on a military assessment, taken by CGS. Clarence House, Buckingham Palace, 10 Downing Street and the Defence Secretary have been informed.

Whilst MOD acknowledges that the security situation in Iraq is challenging and demanding for all our troops, this decision was taken as a result of the very specific threat to Prince Harry. This is not the first time that deployment plans for individuals have changed in the light of a specific threat.

This does not mean that Prince Harry will never deploy. Both Prince Harry and his elder brother Prince William will continue to play a full role within their regiments, with future overseas deployments considered on a case-by-case basis.

Lessons will be learnt from the widespread knowledge of Prince Harry’s deployment. CGS's preference is to say nothing or the absolute minimum about any future deployments of the Princes for reasons of operational security.

Although some insurgents might try to paint this decision as a success for them, the reality is that UK operations in support of Iraq's government will continue, and deny them such a high value target. Prince Harry's troop will still deploy, commanded by a suitably qualified individual.

 

[Flanker]

Specific risk to Harry deployment "unacceptable" - CGS

What's all the buzz about Harry?
Have not even heard of discussing "specific risks" to every particular soldier.  :

 

[tomahawk6]

The decision reflects the total lack of control the Brits have over their AO in Basra. The US is going to have to send several brigades to basra if we can sort out the Baghdad area.

 

[KevinB]

In all fairness to the Brits -- its less their Militaries issue -- but their gov't not wanting their military to face off with the JAM in Basra.
  Elsewhere the JAM have sidelined themselves (no doubt to some side deal).

And the Americans and Canadians taught the Brits a valuable lesson in Somalia... --> that the easiest exit strategy is declare victory and leave.
 

 

[formerarmybrat23]

Alright I could have swore that there was a thread about Prince Harry being here to train. A search however, only brought this thread up.
Heres the latest:
Taken from The Austrailian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21844425-1702,00.html

Harry at military training in Canada
From correspondents in Ottawa
June 04, 2007

ROYAL bad boy turned soldier Prince Harry has arrived at a military base in Canada, where he is on shooting training for a possible deployment to Afghanistan, local media reported.
An anonymous source cited by the Calgary Herald newspaper reported seeing the prince laughing and joking with soldiers in a cafe bar at the British Army Training Unit Suffield.

"He was just talking to the boys. He just blends right in. I think he's just a normal boy. He likes to enjoy himself," the source was quoted as saying.

Harry, 22, is a second lieutenant in the elite Blues and Royals regiment of the British Army's Household Cavalry, responsible for 11 soldiers and four Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles.

He has earned a reputation as a party prince, with British media documenting - and photographing - his antics at nightclubs.

His regiment is training at the Suffield base, about 160km southeast of Calgary in the western province of Alberta.

The training is likely to signal a possible deployment in restive Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, British media earlier reported.

British forces there are battling resistance by supporters of the former Taliban regime which was driven out in 2001.

Harry was expected to practice "fire and manoeuvre" operations at Suffield, the largest training area available for British armoured vehicles, according to the British Sunday Mirror newspaper.

A spokeswoman for the base refused to confirm or deny whether Harry was there, the Calgary Herald said.

Army top brass stopped Harry from joining his regiment's recent deployment to Basra in southern Iraq over fears he would be headhunted by insurgents.

Reports have said he is being lined up for a posting to Afghanistan instead, where it would be harder for Taliban rebels to pinpoint his location.