The Torch: Britain, war and Afstan--and Canada

How very different from Canada, yet now growing similar. Bagehot in The Economist:

...
Foreign war has become a fact of British life. The question is now where, not whether, British troops are waging it. The weekly tributes to the fallen at prime minister’s questions are a ritual as familiar as the speaker’s cry of “order, order”. Yet suddenly, as other orthodoxies are debunked and the government itself faces ejection, the consensus for war seems to be breaking too.

The long withdrawing roar

In Britain, Afghanistan has generally been regarded as the “good war”. The invasion of Iraq was sullied by manipulated intelligence, bad planning, human-rights abuses and, for Britain, the hurtful idea that its army underperformed in Basra. In contrast, the Afghan mission seemed unarguably virtuous. This moral confidence, and the lower rates of casualties (until two years ago), help to explain why, for a long time, Afghanistan was overshadowed by Iraq in British debate. But there are now very few British servicemen in Iraq, against 9,000 in Afghanistan. Attention has switched—and the “good war” is looking more complicated.

It is partly the summer spike in British fatalities (to well over 200 in total since 2001), their faces and tragically young ages instantly relayed across the country. It is partly that the deployment has lasted so long, and the fighting in Helmand province has been so much bloodier than was once expected. Meanwhile the war’s aims have become blurred—and few seem to have been achieved. The purpose emphasised by the government—the need to protect Britain from terrorism—looks questionable. Some of the most powerful arguments for staying the course, such as the consequences of quitting for relations with America, and for the morale of both the British army and Islamist terrorists [emphasis added, indeed--Osama bin Laden, November, 2001: "...when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse..."], are not made much in public. At the same time the economic climate has raised doubts over the wisdom of retaining such grandiose military ambitions. Afghanistan has for many come to seem a flawed war of choice rather than of necessity [see Update thoughts here].
Mr Brown’s own demeanour has contributed to the mood. Try as he may, as in a speech on Afghanistan last week [see "Brits" here], he can’t help conveying a sense that war is a distraction he has reluctantly inherited... [Almost the attitude of Prime Minister Harper to our Kandahar mission, which he too inherited and which at first he strongly advocated ("...cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way..."); then quite rapidly he lost his enthusiasm, more here.]

...it isn’t just the past ten years. A British soldier has died on active duty in virtually every year since 1945. As well as actual insurgencies, the empire bequeathed a yearning for greatness and a willingness to pay for it in blood. The Falklands conflict of 1982 and the struggle with Republican paramilitaries in Northern Ireland enjoyed overwhelming support. It is an item of faith among Britons that their armed forces—like their health service and assorted other household gods—are “the best in the world”...

...the end of Britain’s era of war may be approaching.