Prince Harry’s wartime role draws reprisal fears

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

Heyman said 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. The prince typically would have been firing at Taliban forces in bunkers or protected in some way, not at 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 explained. “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 there’s a large explosion and no more enemy fire from the target area, the gunner can be “pretty sure” the enemy has been killed, Heyman said.

Col. Richard Kemp, a former British commander in Afghanistan, said the fevered press response to Harry’s words reflected 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.

He said Harry’s tone was appropriate in the interview.

“I know it’s a delicate subject, but I’m surprised by how much people have seized on what he said,” Kemp said. “If he’d been bragging about killing, that would have been wrong, but he didn’t brag about it.”

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks