Cost to US of Iraq and Afghan wars could hit $6 trillion

Now cue the politicians all racing to defend these figures of madness telling us what good value it was.
"...$75,000 for every household in America..."

JJH spends more than that on .45 ACP in a month.


Book Reviewer
presuming we as a species make it that far and we avoid nuking each other to bits, I wonder how history will view bush/blair and their cronies?
presuming we as a species make it that far and we avoid nuking each other to bits, I wonder how history will view bush/blair and their cronies?
As insignificant bumblers.

You'd have to bear in mind these were fairly small wars in terms of impact, at least that is my feeling at this distance. Iraq was a smaller disaster than it might have been and unleashed Iran somewhat but actually the entirely unrealated Arab Spring is probably more pivotal in strategic terms. If you compare Blair's misguided missionary urge to charge into Iraq with the period of Sykes-Picot and Balfour declaration and the highly mendacious (and often even more idiotic) British role in those affairs it does not even look that bad.

Afghanistan is a backwater, that has unintentionally made Pakistan more unstable but otherwise it is an irrelevance. I never really saw a way round going into Afghanistan but both were a great waste of tax dollars, limbs and lives.

These wars do have an upside.

DC and the American people have shaken off the delusions of the uni-polar moment. Powells aid Wilkerson has comment that elements in Team Cheney were actually busting for a big war over the Taiwan strait when they came into office. 9-11 at least distracted them into less dangerous theaters. America is a wiser country and six trillion bucks and a little strategic embarrassment is a small price to pay for that, after all Wall St can easily lose that sort of meny down the back of the sofa. They were domestically divisive but nothing compared to the silly culture war that Vietnam created.

For the never very enthusiastic UK these wars were aways to a large extent alliance commitments. They were relatively cheap compared with maintaining the sort of forces the country would need if it had not chosen to be dependent on Uncle Sam for serious defense. They've supported every deeper cuts in military spending as expensive capabilities were reduced. And the parsimonious British tax payer would be hypocritical to see them otherwise.

They've been a long wearying experience for the British Army, they exposed limitations as well as strengths. It would be an even smaller force without these wars and the Army's leaders often seemed too focused on that fact.
6 trillion is that all?

they were spending 250 million a year on air con units in afghan since the afghan war started in 01 and slowly built up as Iraq diluted in numbers, the cost of cross shipping the gear from Iraq to Afghan was cheaper than the cost of shipping it home first.

i'm actually surprised that the number wasn't larger given how many hundred of millions of dollars was given out each year in bribing local warlords, lets also not forget the USA spends 10 billion a year purely on PMC's so there definitely not going to have low cost endeavours, and really it was cheap in terms of proving your force projection and sustainment capabilities to the world, after all its been a few years and some corners of the world were starting to doubt the ability existed any more resulting in a harder bargaining position for trade deals etc, politically it was a safe and relatively cheap option, particularly when you realise it would of cost them 1 trillion to have just disposed and replaced some of the ordnance that was coming to the end of its shelf life ......

Latest Threads