Fortunate Son

The Drudge Report today broke the news that British Royal Prince Harry has been on the front lines in Afghanistan since December (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashph.htm). I say, right-o, chum!

I think this is fantastic. Of course, there's the possibility that publicizing this makes bonnie Prince Harry a target for the Taliban, and the Royal Family was right to keep it under wraps for as long as they did. But it's fantastic that he's right in there with honest-to-God soldiers, doing
honest-to-God fighting (reportedly). It's a lot more than the Bush twins can say, along with most of the sons and daughters of our Congressional officials and presidential candidates.

Granted, according to the article, he's only on a three-month tour, but given the fact that the British Regular Forces (including the Army, the Naval Service, and the RAF) have 20,000 fewer enlisted men and women than they did five years ago, perhaps he'll serve more (see http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp1/gender.html). We'll have to keep an eye on what the Royal Family and British government have to say about that.

Whether you disagree with the greater War on Terror or not, I think most would say having Prince Harry, who's third in line for the crown, is a great morale boost and gives a little more integrity and credibility to the British war effort. Rather than say a Royal life is worth more than that of a regular Tommy in the trenches, Prince Harry is sending a message that he feels no more important than any one else his government sent to fight. It gives the phrase, "a government of laws, not of men," a greater ring of truth in the UK. Could this be a new trend? That would be a fantastic turnaround from the days of Vietnam and Creedence Clearwater Revival protest songs. But it will be a long time before we get there.