So many axes being ground at the same time in this thread.

Gigi is using one of her oldest tactics. She is completely opposed to the use of the military, finds any justification for it to be reprehensible, finds any glorification of the soldiers to be repugnant and a tool used by the ruling class/elite/royalty to control people. Intellectually she believes she has the high ground. I don't necessarily disagree with much of her purely philosophical arguments, as to the intent of those who continue to throw the fodder of workers and less fortunate on the fire of their own ambitions. I do, however, part with her on several distinctive points.

I do believe there are just causes worth fighting for. I also believe there are causes that are not as clear a choice, but that we sometimes are pushed into. These are always examined in hindsight, and we can learn much from them. Due to the imperfect human condition, and different interests being at odds with each other, we will always have armed conflict. Would that it were not so, but there it is.

Another of her tactics that I disagree with is the attacking of the young men and women who follow what they believe to be their duty. I have been one of these young warriors. I have fought along side of, and against, young men and women who truly believed in what they were doing. The fact that history has either proved their sacrifice as justified and worthwhile, or unjustified and not, should not lessen our admiration for, and support of them when they come home. The rule of law is what we live by, and we should not castigate young folks for doing what they believe to be the right thing to do. I understand clearly that many are forced into this by economic and social conditions, but this ought strengthen our resolve to honor these young people, not castigate them, and the memory of those who did not come home.

There is also an argument happening about the worth of the royals. I don't have a dog in that fight, other than a historical one in that I am an American, and that I am of Irish Republican stock. Hence, the value of the royals is for the Brits to debate.

Finally, the issue of this young prince. I must admit that I admire him a great deal. Sure he has advantages, but that is not of his doing. In fact, he has often decried these, wishing he could live a more normal life. If what I am understanding of his deployment is true, the High Command denied his requests repeatedly, and then relented to him, but only on the condition that he could cut the deal with the press that would allow him not to put his squad in danger for simply serving with him. He did this. Without regard to whatever else one wants to say about royals, this is a young man of character who wanted to have the costume that he is forced to wear to mean something. He did not want his squad to sacrifice more than he had to. As much as was possible, he forced this to happen. I suspect that if he could stay, he would. Good for him, he is different and has values I admire. He is a credit to the British, to his family, and specifically, a credit to his Mother's memory.

As to Matt Drudge, or whomever leaked this, you are scum. I guess it is too much to expect journalists these days to resist the story, but it would be wonderful to see integrity and honor in journalism once again. Did you give no thought to the fact that your reporting could have gotten someone killed? Could you not put aside your ambitions in the interests of not putting someones family member at risk? Sadly, I think that day has come and gone when there is much deep thought given to much other than the sensational and self interest.

All the best,

Mick