I wish Prince Harry wasn't going to Iraq. It's not just that it'll be a bit like having a distant relative out there in harm's way, although it will. It's that he's the spare, and a rather good one - I thought he came across really well in an admittedly PR-savvy documentary about his AIDS work in Lesotho. If anything happened to Prince William before he sires an heir - and William does have a thing about high-performance motorbikes, which is a somewhat risky hobby - I'd rather have Harry ascend to the throne than the Yorkies - Andrew, Fergie and the girls - who are next in line.
If, God forbid, William did have a fatal motorbike accident, and if Harry doesn't get killed in Iraq, then our future monarch would have been implicated in what, some would argue, is an unjust and illegal war, entirely of his own choosing. Such a monarch might find it difficult to act as a unifying figure for the people he would be supposed to represent.
If, on the other hand, Harry lost his life in Iraq, it might create a horrible, Blair-associated symmetry with his mother's death. Diana was killed four months after Tony Blair became PM - in some ways, her death made his premiership. It would be unfortunate if, as a result of Blair's decision to allow America's invasion of Iraq, Harry were to be killed at the end of his premiership.