Iraq & Afghan Wars Cost UK £20 billion and US 3 Trillion $

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Feb 23, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From The TimesFebruary 23, 2008

    The three trillion dollar war
    The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have grown to staggering proportionsJoseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
    The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.

    The cost of direct US military operations - not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans - already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.

    And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion (that's $5 million million, or £2.5 million million). With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

    Most Americans have yet to feel these costs. The price in blood has been paid by our voluntary military and by hired contractors. The price in treasure has, in a sense, been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for it - in fact, taxes on the rich have actually fallen. Deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed, that we can have both guns and butter. But of course the laws are not repealed. The costs of the war are real even if they have been deferred, possibly to another generation.
    More on the link
  2. And of course if we had used this ti reequip the forces we would have been in pretty good shape now!
  3. Fuck the money.

  4. Quite right DP the real cost is human, not financial. How many people have died or been injured (Iraqi/Afgan civilians as well as coalition forces).
  5. are you being sarcastic?
  6. £20Bn over 7 years in 2 countries.

    £110Bn to one bank in 2 weeks.

  7. Imagine the shape the Armed Forces would be in by now if we hadn't been in Iraq and Afghanistan.....

    It might seem expensive in blood and treasure, but the wars have probably actually saved/postponed UK defence from sliding into complete oblivion.
  8. Thing is someone high up will take notice of the financial figure and will try to eke more ways to save money thus ensuring, sadly, that the physical cost is more.
  9. The point I was making is that an extra £20bn, whilst not ideal, doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

    What does make a difference are the sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, boyfriends, girlfriends and mates who've been killed and the families which have been torn apart. That's the real cost of war, and that's what we should take into account when deciding whether it's "worth it".
  10. Deleted.
    Repeated point.
  11. Our US colleges did everything they could to help dismantle the British Empire, their actions over Suez being the more nortourious example.
    I had trouble believing that Oil was the cause for Gulf War II, to my way of thinking their had to be more then that.
    Now we see a New Strategic US Army Command set up not only for the Gulf but the whole of South East Asia.
    Does King George II or more to the point THEY that control this disgraceful puppet see this as their final Great Gift to the World ?
  12. Just shows we are smarter with our money.
  13. Nope, it just shows the americans overpay to get stuff quick while we'll be waiting around for more mastiffs untill 2009 at the soonest