Political Confusion

I heard this last night:

Britain to cut Iraq troop levels to around 5,000

LONDON - Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq in the coming months and aims to further cut its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer if Iraqi forces can secure the country’s south, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday.

The announcement, on the same day Denmark said it would withdraw its 460 troops and Lithuania said it was considering pulling out its small contingent, comes as the U.S. is implementing an increase of 21,000 more troops for Iraq — putting Washington on an opposite track as its main coalition allies.

But then I saw this tidbit this morning:

Prince Harry to serve in Iraq

Prince Harry and his regiment are to be sent to Iraq despite the security risk his deployment will pose, the government confirmed today.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, outlined the posting to Iraq of Harry's regiment, the Blues and Royals, in a written statement to the Commons.

To protect the prince's safety, Clarence House appealed to the media not to speculate about where he would serve.

The prince, who is third in line to the throne, will become the first royal to serve a tour of duty in a war zone since his uncle Prince Andrew flew helicopters in the Falklands conflict 25 years ago.

Now don't get me wrong here. I agree with the UK decision that we need to start working out how we're going to withdraw from Iraq. I also think it's admirable that Prince Harry is going to serve his country, although the fact that the article quotes him as "over the moon" about going to war leads me to believe that this isn't a sign of maturity per se. However, I do think it's a strange domestic policy to aim to pull out and then send in the royals. What I really want to know is if this means that we can send our American royalty (Bushie and Cheney) in as well.

*Photo credit: Ian Holding/AFP/Getty Images