Britain's neglected wars

Aug 16th 2007
From The Economist print edition

The strange quiescence of Britain's anti-war movement

ON THE Ministry of Defence's website is a growing list of the young men and women who have died fighting for Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their photographs, which show tanned soldiers smiling into the camera against clear skies and dust, give little indication that Britain is fighting some of its fiercest battles since the Korean War. But the frequency of their posting points to the rising price that is being paid for an honourable exit from Iraq, and to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

British casualties in both conflicts have jumped from a monthly average of five between 2004 and 2006 to eight so far this year. More servicemen and women have already died in 2007 than in all of 2003, when Iraq was invaded (see chart).

But rising casualties have not been translated into the public displays of discontent that might have been expected. The most vocal campaigns have been mounted by soldiers' organisations, which, though they do not oppose the wars, argue that Britain is letting its soldiers down. On August 15th the Royal British Legion, a venerable veterans' charity, spoke of a "growing sense of disillusionment among service personnel and veterans about their treatment by the state".

Strangely, Britain's once-vociferous anti-war movement has become more muted as ever more flag-draped coffins return home. While the troops were preparing to invade Iraq, between 750,000 and 2m protesters gathered in London for Britain's biggest demonstration against anything ever. But by 2005 organisers were struggling to mass more than 10,000, according to police estimates (organisers claim more), and their most recent big event, in February 2007, drew no more.

So why has anti-war sentiment been relatively muffled in Britain when in America it is defining the presidential elections, and in Canada, Italy and Germany it has prompted heart-searching national debates about whether to bring the troops home? The wars are no more popular in Britain than they are among its allies: far fewer Britons than Americans have ever thought the war in Iraq a good idea. Support in Britain peaked at 60% right after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, and at 73% in America. It has since dwindled to 30%, against around 40% in America.

One difference between the two countries is the scale of the involvement. As America has built up its forces in Baghdad to about 160,000 soldiers, Britain has cut its troops back to around 5,500 (from a peak of 46,000 in 2003). Fewer soldiers in harm's way has meant fewer anxious families back home and kept British casualties much lower than America's.

The war feels distant for most Britons for another reason too. Pollsters at the Pew Research Centre discovered that 27% of Americans have a close family member or friend who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan, whereas a recent YouGov poll found that only 18% of Britons have friends or relatives doing anything at all in the military. That may reflect not just Britain's smaller army but also its recruiting. Almost a tenth of the British Army is composed of soldiers from 57 different countries, with some 3,500 Nepalese Ghurkas, 2,000 Fijians and 975 Jamaicans filling the ranks.

Britain's steady withdrawal from Iraq has also played a role in dampening active dissent. Why march to bring the boys home when Gordon Brown, the prime minister, is already expected to cut the forces in the field?

Fewer Britons oppose the involvement in Afghanistan, where British forces have more than doubled in the past 18 months, to 7,700, and casualties are also rising. This may be because a plurality (at least of those who talk to pollsters) think Afghanistan can still be won, compared with an outright majority who think the effort is failing in Iraq. Public support, it seems, hinges less on whether soldiers are dying than on whether they are winning.