While most passages from Prince Harry's autobiography reflect rather harmless family neuroses, the public-hungry royal may have caused long-term damage with a statement about his military service.

Jochen Buchsteiner

Political correspondent in London.

  • Follow I follow

According to experts, his statement, perceived by some as boastful, that he killed 25 Taliban during his operations in the Afghan war endangers his personal safety.

The anti-terrorist expert Peter Neumann, who teaches in London, put it particularly bluntly: "He has a target on his forehead because he is now a legitimate terrorist target for Islamists." TV that there are already reactions from Kabul, where the Taliban regime has returned to power.

"You just have to look at what happened to Salman Rushdie the other day," Wharfe said.

The British writer Rushdie, who had angered the Iranian mullahs and many other Muslims with his book The Satanic Verses, was attacked and seriously injured by an Islamist with a knife at an event in upstate New York in August.

Since the "Megxit" - the voluntary departure of Harry and his wife Meghan from the circle of "working members" of the royal family - the British state has no longer paid for the protection of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

With his income from interviews, documentaries and now also from his internationally marketed memoirs, there should be enough money to finance security guards privately.

But that's not all.

The consequences go further.

Colonel Richard Kemp, a well-known military commentator, warned in the Daily Telegraph that Harry's statement touched on the overall security situation: "His words feed jihadist propaganda to carry out further attacks against the UK."

The prince was "very stupid".

This could also affect Harry's main charity, the Invictus Games.

Former Navy Admiral Alan West anticipates "serious security problems" at the next games, which are due to take place in Dusseldorf in September.

The international sporting competition for war veterans, which Harry created during his time as a working royal, is now an established event.

"Measures will have to be taken to protect the veterans," West said.

The prince was "very stupid" to publish details about the killings, added the off-duty admiral.

With that, West joined the great chorus of critics within the armed forces.

Numerous officers had expressed their dismay at Harry's violation of military codes over the past few days.

The prince "betrayed" the armed forces just as much as he had his own family, former Colonel Tim Collins has said.

Boasting about the number of enemies killed is not the right thing to do in the army.

"That's not how we act, that's not how we think," Collins said.

"We don't cut notches in our rifle butts, we never did."

The nose was also turned up publicly in the British House of Commons.

Tobias Ellwood, Chairman of the Defense Committee and a former soldier himself, said: "From a security perspective, there is an unwritten assumption that nobody discusses the number of people killed, for the simple reason that it can have security implications." Pull scalps," Ellwood said.

In his book Spare, Harry calls the 25 Afghans he killed from his helicopter during his operations in Helmand province "pawns cleared from the field."

The Taliban, who returned to government in Kabul after NATO troops withdrew, reacted over the weekend in the form of regime representative Anas Haqqani: "Mr Harry," Haqqani wrote on Twitter, "those you killed were people

they had families waiting for their return.” Gallingly, he added that international courts and human rights activists were unlikely to take action against the prince because they were “blind and deaf” to it.