The Brits have fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the Americans in Afghanistan since 2001. But now there seems to be a real shift in the way the war is being perceived -- and presented by the media -- in Britain. So far, politicians from both main parties have stayed committed to keeping British troops in Afghanistan for as long as it takes. But this is an election year. And a recent Guardian/ICM poll found that support for the war was running at 46%, opposition at 47%; a full 56% want to see troops withdrawn by the end of the year. What's driving the debate in the U.K.? And why is Afghanistan seen so differently here? Five issues are at the core:
Casualties: The most obvious factor is the sharp rise in casualties. British deaths in Afghanistan now exceed the deaths in Iraq, with the total currently standing at 187, compared to 179 in Iraq. (667 Americans have died in Afghanistan.)
There have been 17 deaths in July, so far. This has led to an unusual displays of solidarity; on July 14th, thousands of people turned out to pay their respects when the bodies of eight soldiers killed in a 24-hour period were driven through the town of Wootton Bassett. The event had saturation media coverage; the death of Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, also raised the profile of casualties in Afghanistan.
Britain is famously steadfast in times of war. This is, after all, the nation that lost over 19,000 men on the first day of the Battle of the Somme; losing 0.1% of that number over a period of several years pales in comparison. But the effect on public morale of a steady drip of casualty reports, day after day, should not be underestimated.
Equipment Shortages: The lack of gear for British forces has been a familiar theme for the British media for decades. The current row is over helicopters, which play an outsized role in infrastructure-deprived Afghanistan. In a recent interview, Foreign Office Minister Lord Maloch Brown stated, "We definitely don't have enough helicopters." Then he issued a "clarification," saying that there are "without doubt sufficient resources" for current operations.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown also claims that Britain has enough helos. But at least some of those copters are Frankensteins, of a sort. One Chinook being used in Afghanistan was a "cut and shut" made from parts of two other helicopters -- a RAF helicopter which crashed in 1999, and an Argentinean Chinook, captured in 1982. The army is pushing for more helicopters. But this is a long-term goal, and the government is talking about a cut in defense spending. All this impacts perceptions of the war.
No British 9/11: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in response to a terrorist attack. But to some in Britain, the war is seen as increasing the risk of terrorism.
As long ago as 2001, John Pilger (not the most impartial observer) was claiming that military action would encourage more suicide bombers. One of the suicide bombers involved in the 7/7 attacks on London left a video in which he stated, "What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become strongeruntil you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq."
Obviously, the connection is open to doubt. But the argument that keeping troops in Afghanistan decreases security rather than increasing it carries more weight in the U.K. than in America.
__The "Graveyard of Empires": __another factor at work is history and that Britain's previous wars (1839, 1879 and 1919) in Afghanistan have all ended badly. That doesn't make defeat inevitable, and military historian Dr Huw Davies, writing for the BBC, says that the greater appreciation of Afghan culture could make a vital difference. However, that "Graveyard of Empires" tag is a tenacious one.
Lack of NATO/European commitment: Finally, when the Brits look around them in Afghanistan, they might wonder where everyone else is. There are around 9,000 British troops there, but less than 3,500 Germans, 3,300 French, 2,850 Italians and just 780 Spanish troops.
The U.K. is clearly doing a lot more than its fair share, and the lack of commitment from other nations will eventually have an effect. Will the British allow this situation to continue and maintain the current level of effort?
[Photo: MOD]
