Ross Weingarten Columnist

Imagine receiving the order that within weeks, you will be sent to Iraq to join the war. Imagine knowing that you and your friends will soon be involved in an an incredibly unpopular war, and that in a short time you will be surrounded by heavily-armed enemies who want to make your life as hard as possible. Imagine being surrounded by death and destruction, and facing the constant threat of ambush or finding yourself next to a suicide bomber. Now imagine doing all of that as a possible target for every insurgent in the country.

This is the situation facing Prince Harry of England, third in line to the British throne. He has just received word that as commander of his regiment, he will be leading his troops into Iraq, probably by the beginning of summer. Remarkably, Harry demanded that he be sent into combat. He reportedly told CNN reporters last year that “There is no way I am going to put myself through Sandhurst [a British military academy] and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.”

Regardless of your views on the war, Harry’s conviction to fight should be commended. He does not want special treatment just because of his royal birth, and wants to follow tradition by fulfilling his military commitment. The prince could have easily opted out of combat, choosing instead to assume a post back home, far from the chaos that engulfs Iraq right now. What makes his decision even more remarkable is the likelihood of publicity because of his position . Harry will become the prime target for insurgent groups looking to make a statement to the world. What better way to prove that American and British forces do not control the country than by killing a member of British royalty? Taliban forces recently bombed a military base in Afghanistan targeting American Vice President Dick Cheney, and it is virtually certain that Iraqis will attempt to do the same to the British Royal. Harry must be praised for his desire to fight for what he believes in, regardless of the target that he will become while he is in Iraq.

The prince’s decision to fight also raises an interesting point about American politics. One British reporter called Harry’s decision monumental, and compared it to one of President Bush’s children deciding to go and fight. Yet we all know that our president’s daughters are not on their way to Iraq, nor are most of the children of our nation’s politicians (although a few Congressmen do have children in the war). A question must be raised: If a politician supports a war, does he or she have an obligation to send their own children to war? The recent troop surge, which proposes to send 21,000 new troops to Iraq, is backed by a number of influential members of Congress, although that number is decreasing. Yet how many of the senators and representatives that support the surge actually have children or other close family members who will be sent to the battleground?

I do not suggest that the children of politicians join the army simply because of their parent’s beliefs. But it does seem that for the past four years—five if you count the war in Afghanistan—American politicians have been ready and willing to send other people’s children to fight and possibly die, but few send their own. Furthermore, a surprisingly low number of congressmen have actually seen combat in person. Senators John McCain and John Kerry are notable exceptions. The fact remains that the majority of our politicians do not know what war is like, yet they did not hesitate to send American troops into Iraq four years ago. After a long, bloody campaign in which few victories have been won, many politicians want to send more of our troops to the same fate.

To many Americans the Iraq war is a travesty, but one that remains far away. Other than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Americans have not had to deal with the horror of the war unless they personally know someone who is fighting. Politicians are no different. They agreed to go to war to fight terrorism and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And while they may have believed that this was the right decision at the time, evidence has shown the error in their choice. Yet many still will not openly criticize the war or try to bring it to an end. Not all politicians are heartless men and women devoid of compassion, but it is much easier to support and fund a war when your loved ones are not involved in it. Those Congressmen that support the war and have children in the line of fire must be incredibly conflicted between their politics and their desire to see their sons or daughters come home safely. I’m sure Prince Charles, Harry’s father and a former military veteran himself, is feeling that way right now.