Prince Harry And Afghanistan

The press in Britain should not have agreed to any gentlemen's agreement (codename: self-censorship) over Harry Wales being deployed to Afghanistan.

"We did a lot of agonising over whether to enter into it," said Fran Unsworth, head of BBC news gathering . "We made our decision on the basis of safety, not on the basis of whether we were supporting the war effort or not."

Ah, but if had never gone to Afghanistan, there wouldn't be any endangerment of his fellow soldiers.

The BBC's 10 O'Clock news led with 14 minutes of Harry coverage when his cover was rumbled. How many times in the last 6 years of occupation have they focused on Afghanistan like that to lead their bulletin?

Harry is one man. That's all he is. That's all the royals are. They put their trousers on one leg at a time.

He's not a symbol. He's not an everyman. Why is one man's desire to be deployed to Afghanistan more important than freedom of the press for a country of 60 million people?

It would of course have been beastly for Harry to have had his hopes of seeing action dashed, but perhaps he could have seen that as a life lesson in itself, given that coping with disappointment is something that "normal" people do every day.