I promise I won't do a lot of it, but this rather cheeky note in the NYPost makes me wonder.

By TODD VENEZIA

December 27, 2006 -- Prince Harry will soon be off to war in Iraq - and this time, he'll be wearing proper British military gear and not a Nazi uniform.
The young royal reportedly will head to Iraq with his unit in May.

Harry will be stationed near the southern port city of Basra, and will likely be assigned to patrol the border with Iran.
The Daily Telegraph said Harry is determined to go, despite reports of resistance from many in the military who fear the prince would be a fat prize for terrorists.

They're also worried that Harry - who had to apologize publicly for wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party in 2005 - would attract attention and put his fellow soldiers in greater danger.

The Telegraph said officials are trying to figure out how they can minimize the dangers, but not give Harry special treatment.

With a rank of cornet, which is like a second lieutenant, the 21-year-old will have a command of 11 men and four light tanks, the Telegraph said.

Good on Harry, in the sense that so long as British troops have the be a part of the imperialist war and pointless slaughter, he'll be right there with them. Or something. I'm sure the British military has a looooong tradition of keeping future princes and kings out of harm's way, so frankly I'm not that worried about him. It wouldn't surprise me if the 11 men under his "command" were crack special and battle hardened troops, each of whom was promised a fat purse from the Queen or a slow death over the coals depending on the success of Harry's missions there.

But it does raise a couple of questions in my mind. As always, I really can't believe (sigh, yes I can) that no one outside the progressive blogosphere has been asking the hard questions to the warmongers with military age kids. Webb's kid is in uniform, and our media somehow tried to turn that into a negative, when he made it a point in the campaign. There are other elected officials with family members in uniform in both parties, iirc more Dems than Repubs, but this is a fact that is either ignored altogether or belittled in the twisted rantings of the Heathers, the vast majority of whom never served.

Practically, I have other questions. At this point, it's hard to argue that the US has established anything approaching "security" in vast swaths of Iraq; indeed even the areas around the Green Zone isn't totally secure (Mark has more). So would it in fact make our troops less safe to have "high value" targets on the battlefield in Iraq and elsewhere? I've read a great deal about Iraqi forces being infiltrated by very smart and crafty seeming "insurgents," and given the cluelessness of the officer class in US intelligence over there, well.

It's a slow news day, so consider this post a long way of saying: bring them all home now. It will be a real shame if a British soldier dies protecting the son of an ultrawealthy family perpetuating antidemocratic ideals and mediaeval notions of class and governance just so he can 'look royal.' But every day we're losing people, and Iraqis are dying, and my post downstairs about the latest Republican to say "pull the plug" demonstrates that if there was ever a good time to rekindle the "bring 'em home" mantra, it is now. Think of all those heartbroken little teens reading Tiger Beat, if nothing else moves you.