Prince Harry

It seems Prince Harry’s planned deployment to Iraq is being “reviewed”.

The recent US “surge” has had no more effect than to redistribute the violence and possibly made the situation more volatile; the British who have served in the southern region around Basra have had 11 killed so far this month.

Sir John Nott, Conservative defence secretary during the Falklands War, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One that he was opposed to [The prince’s deployment ]
"The danger is that Prince Harry will be hazarding the lives of other soldiers and young officers and I think that's not right."

Sir John said the issue of Harry's deployment was different from his uncle's [Prince Andrew] because the war in Iraq was "much more fraught".
"There was complete public support for the Falklands campaign, there certainly isn't for Iraq," he said.
"It raises political and constitutional issues. The situation in Iraq is clearly extremely difficult, particularly with armoured cars."

Despite all its faults, the majority of the British public still holds the monarchy very dear—it is part of British identity, for better or worse.

As a political issue I’d estimate the British would be extremely pissed-off if Harry, who has consistently said he wants to serve with his fellow soldiers in Iraq, wasn’t allowed to go.
They majority is against the war but they can still support an individual’s service, just as so many do here in the US.

Indeed the Royal family is not supposed to be a political institution itself, that’s one major reason why it is maintained. Another major reason is that the Monarchy is supposed to serve the nation---and serving in the Army is a way for Harry to do that, and as a good soldier he wants to serve with his troops and his mates.

His status as a prince is frankly not as significant to the fabric of British society as Sir John Nott would like to think—he’s not the direct heir to the throne (he’s third in line). If he were killed or injured he would suffer no more than others who have served, and whose deployments were never tempered by political concerns for their well-being.

It would be altogether better if the British would end their participation in this illegal occupation and save Harry and everyone else from maintaining it.

But if Harry is a competent soldier then external politics should not prevent him from doing his duty, otherwise what’s the bloody point of Prince Harry’s military service in the first place?