Talk About Bad Timing

A couple of days ago, Tony Blair announced that Britain would be withdrawing more than 20 percent of the British troops currently on duty in Iraq (yes, the actual numbers are 1,600 out of 7,100 troops, but it's the principle that counts). Blair says that he can do it because things are going so well in the British sector, and the White House has been quick to agree. (Why things are going well enough that the Brits can withdraw but poorly enough that the U.S. has to up its presence is a whole other issue that I'm not going to get into here.)

But the day after the withdrawal was announced, the British Defense Ministry had another little statement to make. It turns out that Prince Harry's unit is being transferred into Iraq just as the troop reduction goes into place. For his part, Harry is reportedly thrilled. He threatened to leave the armed forces if his unit went into combat without him. This is not unprecedented--Prince Andrew flew helicopters during the Falklands War twenty-some years ago. For its part, the palace is concerned that the prince may be an enticing target, so they're trying to keep the details of his location and his specific duties under wraps. If all goes according to plan, Harry and his troops are scheduled to rotate out after they've completed six months.

This is an interesting precedent, though. Were the two British announcements at all related? Instead of escalating the U.S. presence, what if the Pentagon (or its bosses at the White House) started bringing more troops home and dropped the U.S. military presence in Iraq? Would that mean Jenna or Barbara might join up to serve? Somehow I've got a feeling they'd rather enjoy partying with Prince Harry.