Story Highlights• Britain's Prince Harry will not be sent to Iraq, says the Ministry of Defence
• Top UK general says "specific threats" on prince are behind decision
• Risk to prince and those around him too great, says general
• Harry, third in line to throne, has said he is serious about an army career
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq as a troop commander because of "a number of specific threats" against him, the UK's top general says.
CNN.com asked users whether they thought the British Army's decision was the right one. Below is a selection of the responses we received, some of which have been edited for length and clarity.
Mark of Montpellier, France
Let's get real. Imagine the disaster if Harry is captured and held for ransom, or executed Taliban-style. They are right to keep him out of Iraq -- he can serve elsewhere.
Romeo C. Buenaflor Jr. from the Philippines
It would have been a mistake not to send him to a war waged directly against his country, such as the Falklands War before. Certainly not this one in Iraq! He does not have a responsibility fighting a war in which the Crown/Britain is not the main party.
Adegoke Sofumade from Nigeria (living in the Netherlands)
The inability of Prince Harry to go to Iraq shows that "animals are not equal." He knows the consequences of being soldier. All we can assume is that Prince Harry is a "ceremonial soldier."
Patrick from India
Prince Harry should have definitely been deployed in Iraq as occasional visits from the Blairs and Bushes of the world are just not enough to bring about the much needed boost in the morale of the troops serving in Iraq. A British prince's presence right there at the forefront would have ensured just that.
Lesley Gene Agams from Abuja, Nigeria
Historically princes and kings have gone into battle with their troops. It has always been risky. It is the price of leadership. Despite the risks, the decision not to deploy Harry is a victory for the terrorists. I hope it does not have a lasting and negative impact on the young prince himself.
Linda Lewellen from Carmichael, CA
I applaud Prince Harry's perseverance in attempting to serve along with his fellow soldiers in Iraq. However, I think the appropriate decision was made for him not to serve. Had he been deployed to Iraq, he would be a political and military target that would attract fire and unnecessarily further endanger the lives of other British soldiers as well as his own life. I also think his integrity and honor are well demonstrated by his decision to accept the decision of higher ranking officers and continue to serve in the British Army in a manner that would benefit his troops and his country while pursuing his career in the military. He has accepted the decision, however contrary to his personal wishes, as a true soldier.
Jason from Washington DC
What kind of "leader" puts his own career, vanity, or stupidity, ahead of the welfare of his soldiers? Prince Harry's motives should be questioned as should his commission.
Jim Clayton from New Mexico
It seems to me that Harry in Iraq not only endangers his life but the lives of anyone around him. He would be a specific target of those planting bombs and such bombs would endanger any British troops in the same area.
Eddie from Tokyo, Japan
Isn't it the knights who do the fighting? Anyone who plays chess should know this. The prince and king are usually the last in line -- so why not send Sir Paul McCartney or Rudy Giuliani in his place?
Ali from Najafabad, Iran
I think the British Army has taken the right decision, because the presence of Harry in Iraq would be a big responsibility for British troops in Iraq to prevent any possible disaster (like the one that occurred with 15 British soldiers in the Persian Gulf).