Quote:
|
The insurgents from further North have already been quoted as saying that they would love to get at Harry
|
They've been quoted as saying a lot of old rubbish, as you know this is an area where hyperbole and propaganda are the norm. I still think (and the BBC's defence correspondent was on the radio earlier saying much the same) that it's not the local al Qaeda franchise up North that prompted this decision, but the extent of Iranian influence in local militia, who know the area, don't have to watch their backs quite as much as an AQ cell trying to operate in the South and who have seen the mess we made of the RN/RM capture the other month. The consequences of being faced suddenly with a choice of either starting something with Iran (impossible) or letting the killing/capture of a royal go unpunished (unthinkable) must be the reason behind this. In many ways that's worse than if an AQ franchise got him, since that would be easier to spin - after all they're the official bad guys.
[by al-Qaeda I mean Sunni groups with substantial external influence from Saudi, Chechen, Pakistani etc. radical Sunni groups - whether they're directly run by bin Laden (unlikely) or are largely autonomous (likely) is irrelevant here - the Iranians or their local proxies will shoot them on sight if they rock up in Basra. The real issue is the local militia groups who see us as getting in the way of control over the massive amounts of oil smuggling out of Basra and want us out of the way. The risk to UK troops is increasing all the time whether or not Harry goes out there. It's worth keeping an eye on shenanigans in the Basra government and the main Shia factions, just to keep your knowledge of who they all are up to date].