Despite mounting death toll, Afghan war barely an issue (Feature)

By Anna Tomforde Apr 27, 2010, 6:02 GMT

London - As a single church bell tolls, total silence falls on the market town of Wootton Bassett, punctuated only by the sobbing of young widows, relatives and friends mourning the death of a British soldier in Afghanistan.

The corteges carrying coffins draped in the Union Jack pass slowly through the town as shopkeepers hurry to join mourners and standard bearers dip their flags in salute - signalling the moment when the bereaved will place flowers on the passing cars.

The chilling ritual has turned Wootton Bassett, a small town of 10,000 near Swindon, in south-west Britain, into a symbol for the silent recognition of Britain's sacrifice in Afghanistan.

Although not a prominent election issue, the spontaneous tribute paid almost weekly to soldiers repatriated to the nearby Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Lyneham, has become an uncomfortable reminder for the government that it is involved in a largely unpopular war.

'Afghanistan - unlike the Falklands conflict of 1982 - is not a vote-winning war, it is a vote-losing war,' said a defence analyst.

But Anne Bevis, of the British Legion veterans' association in Wootton Bassett, says the ceremonies have nothing to do with politics.

'We like to keep these occasions as a simple tribute - no military orders, no discussion on politics,' she told the German Press Agency dpa.

'It is a simple tribute when time stands still for a few moments giving us all a chance to pay our respects hoping that their families, relatives, friends and comrades find comfort in knowing that there are people who care,' said Bevis.

'It's the British way of life to support the troops. We don't question that,' she adds.

The town's mayor, Steve Bucknell, agrees. 'We want to show sacrifice for the troops. It's not about politics here,' he says, laughing off media suggestions that Wootton Bassett is 'the most patriotic town in Britain.'

As British casualty figures in Afghanistan head towards the 300 mark - counted from the start of the conflict in 2001 - opinion polls show that a growing number of Britons question the human price paid for British involvement.

'I have stopped counting,' said Shirley Brewer, who regularly travels from nearby Salisbury to the repatriation ceremonies, and whose grandson is fighting in Afghanistan.

'It's horrible. I'm so afraid that he could be next. Why don't we get out of Afghanistan?' she asked.

Britain's 10,000 troops form the second-largest contingent after the US in Afghanistan - and its death toll of around 280 is proportionate to the more than 1,000 fatalities recorded by the US.

Despite the unpopularity of the conflict, however, the war is backed by all three of Britain's main political parties - Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Instead the politcal debate is about the logistics, equipment and military spending - rather than the war itself.

The growing number of soldiers maimed and injured by Taliban roadside bombs - or improvised explosives devices (IEDs) - has moved to the centre of public debate.

According to government figures, 508 soldiers were wounded in action in 2009, more than double the number for the previous year. This January alone, 47 troops suffered injuries from IEDs.

The devices account for for 80 per cent of injuries and fatalities suffered by British troops.

Soldiers returning with lost limbs, blinded or paralyzed were stretching specialist medical facilities in Britain 'to the limit,' the public accounts committee of the British parliament warned last month.

The surge in the number of wounded troops has also alarmed the military top brass.

The pressure on troops was 'compounded by the impact of undermanning, injury and wounding,' a report commissioned by the former head of the Army, Richard Dannatt, showed in August, 2009.