Tigs2,
I think Phil's point is a march through the middle of London, by a military complaining of poor treatment, will have as much resonance with the city's population as the countryside alliance march did - little or none. This is especially the case when there is such opposition to the war, Joe tax-payer is being asked to foot the bill, and compounded by visible multi-billion pound procurements (Typhoon, Trident replacement, Astute, etc) amongst general wastage in the MoD....I hope you can see why Joe Public might be less than sympathetic to claims of underfunding, or confident that added expenditure will be spent where it is needed.
The public itself isn't innately indifferent to the military I don't think, but the military and the public have had a wedge driven between them by a government decision to go into an unpopular and unnecessary war. It should also be noted that any indifference that does exist is, as always, pretty well reciprocated by the military towards the public - the nature of this particular conflict is utterly divisive.
Likewise, the claim that Iraq is occurring on "the behalf" of Joe Public is simply not true. Democracy is more than a vote every four years - it is the ability to oppose and influence government at any point during those fours years. It is undoubtedly the case that a massive proportion of the population, particularly in places like London, stridently opposed our entry in to the Iraq war and were forthright in vocalising that opposition - to deaf ears. Now that we're are engaged in the war they opposed, it becomes somewhat difficult to switch from vehement opposition to pro-actively supporting increased expenditure on such a conflict. From a slightly cynical perspective, this is likely to be seen by the public as a thin end of the wedge - war justifies increased expenditure, increasing the military budget and influence at a time when the military is seen to be acting against the wishes of the public. The military itself can only be muted in the run-up to war which further entrenches this perspective.
The correct (but impractical) course of action would be a blank cheque, one written by those who supported the war in the first place as I suspect they were the ones who though they would either profit from or suffer little from the decision to go to war.
Out of interest, where would you best propose any increased funding come from? Increased taxation? Cutbacks? Or the MoD getting its priorities right with the resources it currently holds?
Nav Attacking,
The rationale you give for the war, whether valid or not, does not make the war in the interests of of Joe Public, for the very reason that much of the public opposition was to the very reasons you use as justifications.