Whilst Barack Obama and many Americans continue to display their sickening anti-Britishness at a company that's about as British as Mount Rushmore following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it's sobering to learn that British soldiers are dying at FOUR times the rate American soldiers in America's war in Afghanistan. Perhaps we should send the figures to Obama.
Data from the Medical Research Council published in today's Observer also shows that the death rate of British soldiers is twice as high as in 2006 when military operations in Afghanistan were considered at their fiercest. At the moment, 299 British troops have lost their lives, including over 100 last year alone.
British troops losing their lives at four times the rate as US troops could mean that British soldiers, the best in the world, are operating in more dangerous areas than their US counterparts and/or taking the fight to the Taliban more than their US counterparts. After all, British soldiers are THE bravest on Earth.
It's also been revealed that the cost to the British taxpayer of fighting, diplomacy and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq since the 9/11 attacks has passed £20 billion - about the same as the GDP of North Korea.
But this total does not include troops' basic salaries or long-term care for the seriously wounded.
Cost of Afghan and Iraq wars rises above £20billion... while UK soldiers are dying at FOUR times the rate of American personnel
By Daily Mail Reporter
20th June 2010
Daily Mail
The cost to British taxpayers of fighting, diplomacy and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq since the 9/11 attacks passed £20 billion, official figures reveal.
This includes £18billion for military operations, on top of the normal defence budget, as well as hundreds of millions of pounds on aid and security for UK officials.
But the total does not cover expenses like troops' basic salaries or long-term care for the seriously wounded, and the final price is likely to be much higher.
Enlarge
Soldiers from the Yorkshire Regiment, known as the Green Howards, on patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan. British soldiers are dying at a rate FOUR times that of their US counterparts.
The news comes as it emerged that British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan at a rate four times that of their U.S. counterparts. Shocking data from the Medical Research Council published in today's Observer also shows that the death rate of British soldiers is twice as high as in 2006 when military operations in Afghanistan were considered at their fiercest.
The researchers from the council's unit at the University of Cambridge said Britain could expect 'at least as many military fatalities in 10 weeks in Afghanistan as in 20 weeks in 2006', according to the newspaper.
To date, 299 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.
Opponents of the wars condemned the 'obscene' cost and pointed out that Britain's involvement in Afghanistan remains very expensive at a time when the Government is slashing billions from public spending.
BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE SINCE 2001
All figures are in millions of pounds unless otherwise stated.
IRAQ
Total across all departments
2002-03 - £866.3
2003-04 - £1570.8
2004-05 - £1084.6
2005-06 - £1139.6
2006-07 - £1148.2
2007-08 - £1584.3
2008-09 - £1470.55
Ministry of Defence alone (from Treasury reserve)
2009-10 - £358 (estimated)
Department for International Development alone
2009-10 - £20
Total for Iraq: £9.24billion
AFGHANISTAN
Ministry of Defence (from Treasury reserve)
2001-02 - £221
2002-03 - £311
2003-04 - £46
2004-05 - £67
2005-06 - £199
2006-07 - £742
2007-08 - £1490
2008-09 - £2623
2009-10 - £4200 (estimated)
Total: £9899
Humanitarian, reconstruction and development assistance
2001-02 to 2009-10 - £1200
Total for Afghanistan: £11.1billion
TOTAL FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: £20.34billion
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone said the cost of the conflicts was the same as that of scrapping student tuition fees in England for 10 years.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, said ministers could not cut jobs and services while the "grotesque waste of money" in Iraq and Afghanistan was allowed to dominate spending priorities.
He said: "While new hospital schemes are scrapped, young people are consigned to the scrap heap of the dole and key transport projects are kicked into the long grass, billions are being poured into the death and destruction of wars many miles from home.
"The money that's been drained away on illegal war-mongering is only outstripped by the cash ripped off in the bankers bail-out."
Between April 2001 and March 2010, the UK's expenditure in the two war-torn countries was at least £20.34 billion, Whitehall figures show.
Some £9.24 billion of this was spent in Iraq and £11.1 billion in Afghanistan.
The Treasury provided £8.22 billion out of its reserve for the military mission in Iraq between 2002-03 and 2009-10, in addition to the core Ministry of Defence budget, which was £35 billion in 2009-10.
Operating in Iraq also cost the Department for International Development (Dfid) £557 million between 2002-03 and 2009-10 and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) £283 million between 2002-03 and 2008-09.
A further £147 million went on spending in Iraq through cross-Government programmes like the "global conflict prevention pool".
Funding the military in Afghanistan accounted for £9.9 billion from the Treasury reserve between 2001-02 and 2009-10.
The UK also spent £1.2 billion on humanitarian, reconstruction and development assistance for the country over the same period, according to the FCO.
With 10,000 British troops still deployed to Afghanistan and no immediate end to the bloody Taliban insurgency in sight, the total cost will continue to rise.
Former chancellor Alistair Darling said in March that more than £4 billion was being allocated from the 2010-11 Treasury reserve to pay for military operations in Afghanistan.
The FCO set aside £118 million towards its efforts in Afghanistan for this financial year.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, a defence analyst with the Royal United Services Institute, calculates that about 30 per cent of the UK's total defence budget is currently devoted to operations in Afghanistan.
"They have been long and sustained operations in difficult geographical locations with often quite determined enemies," he said.
"Simply maintaining thousands of people in such a location takes a lot of money on logistics before you have even started."
On top of the cost of the military mission, there will be extra expenditure over the decades to come to look after troops who have been badly wounded or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, he said.
"There are long-term costs, but we don't know how big they are," he said.
The analyst said the Treasury would be looking closely at expenditure on the British military mission in Afghanistan and predicted that it would probably become cheaper in the coming years.
The influx of 20,000 US Marines into Helmand Province allowed the UK to concentrate its forces in the centre of the province, reducing the cost of maintaining remote bases.
Prof Chalmers said: "I think questions are being asked about the scale of our commitment to Afghanistan and the timing of any withdrawal.
"It's not simply a case of whether we should be there or not, but how big our commitment should be."
As well as the huge expense of the wars, the cost in troops killed and badly injured was very high.
A total of 179 UK personnel died in the Iraq conflict between the March 2003 invasion and the end of combat operations in April last year.
The British death toll in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001 currently stands at 299.
Critics questioned why the UK was spending so much on the conflict when the public finances were in a dire state.
Mr Livingstone, who is bidding to be Labour's candidate in the next London mayoral election, said: "The true cost of our policy of international adventures is now being shown - £20 billion is 10 times the amount it would cost to scrap student fees in England and halt the debt burden that we impose on thousands of young people, for example.
"We could have had 10 years of free education for the next generation for the same cost as following George W Bush into war.
"What this shows is that there are alternatives to cuts in public services, higher fares, worse pensions, student fees and low pay, but that means braver answers, from ending our military adventures abroad, halting the drive to nuclear rearmament with the replacement for Trident, and more progressive taxation."
Lindsey German, convener of the Stop The War Coalition, also condemned the cost of Britain's involvement in the conflicts.
She said: "People will be astonished that the Government has the cheek to call for public spending cuts when such an obscene amount has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The anti-war group will hold a protest outside Downing Street on Tuesday, the day of Chancellor George Osborne's emergency Budget, to demand the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, said: "Health workers, firefighters, teachers, police officers and many other public service workers will now be paying for the legacy of this war with their jobs as services are cut to make up the cost of this disastrous mistake.
"These figures confirm that the decision to invade Iraq was a chronic failure of judgment on every front."
Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP for Islington North, added: "More than £20 billion, half a million dead, Britain's foreign policy besmirched all over the world - what have we achieved?
"This war was based on distortions and deceptions. The truth is now beginning to come out."
dailymail.co.uk
Data from the Medical Research Council published in today's Observer also shows that the death rate of British soldiers is twice as high as in 2006 when military operations in Afghanistan were considered at their fiercest. At the moment, 299 British troops have lost their lives, including over 100 last year alone.
British troops losing their lives at four times the rate as US troops could mean that British soldiers, the best in the world, are operating in more dangerous areas than their US counterparts and/or taking the fight to the Taliban more than their US counterparts. After all, British soldiers are THE bravest on Earth.
It's also been revealed that the cost to the British taxpayer of fighting, diplomacy and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq since the 9/11 attacks has passed £20 billion - about the same as the GDP of North Korea.
But this total does not include troops' basic salaries or long-term care for the seriously wounded.
Cost of Afghan and Iraq wars rises above £20billion... while UK soldiers are dying at FOUR times the rate of American personnel
By Daily Mail Reporter
20th June 2010
Daily Mail
The cost to British taxpayers of fighting, diplomacy and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq since the 9/11 attacks passed £20 billion, official figures reveal.
This includes £18billion for military operations, on top of the normal defence budget, as well as hundreds of millions of pounds on aid and security for UK officials.
But the total does not cover expenses like troops' basic salaries or long-term care for the seriously wounded, and the final price is likely to be much higher.
Enlarge
Soldiers from the Yorkshire Regiment, known as the Green Howards, on patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan. British soldiers are dying at a rate FOUR times that of their US counterparts.
The news comes as it emerged that British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan at a rate four times that of their U.S. counterparts. Shocking data from the Medical Research Council published in today's Observer also shows that the death rate of British soldiers is twice as high as in 2006 when military operations in Afghanistan were considered at their fiercest.
The researchers from the council's unit at the University of Cambridge said Britain could expect 'at least as many military fatalities in 10 weeks in Afghanistan as in 20 weeks in 2006', according to the newspaper.
To date, 299 British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.
Opponents of the wars condemned the 'obscene' cost and pointed out that Britain's involvement in Afghanistan remains very expensive at a time when the Government is slashing billions from public spending.
BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE SINCE 2001
All figures are in millions of pounds unless otherwise stated.
IRAQ
Total across all departments
2002-03 - £866.3
2003-04 - £1570.8
2004-05 - £1084.6
2005-06 - £1139.6
2006-07 - £1148.2
2007-08 - £1584.3
2008-09 - £1470.55
Ministry of Defence alone (from Treasury reserve)
2009-10 - £358 (estimated)
Department for International Development alone
2009-10 - £20
Total for Iraq: £9.24billion
AFGHANISTAN
Ministry of Defence (from Treasury reserve)
2001-02 - £221
2002-03 - £311
2003-04 - £46
2004-05 - £67
2005-06 - £199
2006-07 - £742
2007-08 - £1490
2008-09 - £2623
2009-10 - £4200 (estimated)
Total: £9899
Humanitarian, reconstruction and development assistance
2001-02 to 2009-10 - £1200
Total for Afghanistan: £11.1billion
TOTAL FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: £20.34billion
Former London mayor Ken Livingstone said the cost of the conflicts was the same as that of scrapping student tuition fees in England for 10 years.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, said ministers could not cut jobs and services while the "grotesque waste of money" in Iraq and Afghanistan was allowed to dominate spending priorities.
He said: "While new hospital schemes are scrapped, young people are consigned to the scrap heap of the dole and key transport projects are kicked into the long grass, billions are being poured into the death and destruction of wars many miles from home.
"The money that's been drained away on illegal war-mongering is only outstripped by the cash ripped off in the bankers bail-out."
Between April 2001 and March 2010, the UK's expenditure in the two war-torn countries was at least £20.34 billion, Whitehall figures show.
Some £9.24 billion of this was spent in Iraq and £11.1 billion in Afghanistan.
The Treasury provided £8.22 billion out of its reserve for the military mission in Iraq between 2002-03 and 2009-10, in addition to the core Ministry of Defence budget, which was £35 billion in 2009-10.
Operating in Iraq also cost the Department for International Development (Dfid) £557 million between 2002-03 and 2009-10 and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) £283 million between 2002-03 and 2008-09.
A further £147 million went on spending in Iraq through cross-Government programmes like the "global conflict prevention pool".
Funding the military in Afghanistan accounted for £9.9 billion from the Treasury reserve between 2001-02 and 2009-10.
The UK also spent £1.2 billion on humanitarian, reconstruction and development assistance for the country over the same period, according to the FCO.
With 10,000 British troops still deployed to Afghanistan and no immediate end to the bloody Taliban insurgency in sight, the total cost will continue to rise.
Former chancellor Alistair Darling said in March that more than £4 billion was being allocated from the 2010-11 Treasury reserve to pay for military operations in Afghanistan.
The FCO set aside £118 million towards its efforts in Afghanistan for this financial year.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, a defence analyst with the Royal United Services Institute, calculates that about 30 per cent of the UK's total defence budget is currently devoted to operations in Afghanistan.
"They have been long and sustained operations in difficult geographical locations with often quite determined enemies," he said.
"Simply maintaining thousands of people in such a location takes a lot of money on logistics before you have even started."
On top of the cost of the military mission, there will be extra expenditure over the decades to come to look after troops who have been badly wounded or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, he said.
"There are long-term costs, but we don't know how big they are," he said.
The analyst said the Treasury would be looking closely at expenditure on the British military mission in Afghanistan and predicted that it would probably become cheaper in the coming years.
The influx of 20,000 US Marines into Helmand Province allowed the UK to concentrate its forces in the centre of the province, reducing the cost of maintaining remote bases.
Prof Chalmers said: "I think questions are being asked about the scale of our commitment to Afghanistan and the timing of any withdrawal.
"It's not simply a case of whether we should be there or not, but how big our commitment should be."
As well as the huge expense of the wars, the cost in troops killed and badly injured was very high.
A total of 179 UK personnel died in the Iraq conflict between the March 2003 invasion and the end of combat operations in April last year.
The British death toll in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001 currently stands at 299.
Critics questioned why the UK was spending so much on the conflict when the public finances were in a dire state.
Mr Livingstone, who is bidding to be Labour's candidate in the next London mayoral election, said: "The true cost of our policy of international adventures is now being shown - £20 billion is 10 times the amount it would cost to scrap student fees in England and halt the debt burden that we impose on thousands of young people, for example.
"We could have had 10 years of free education for the next generation for the same cost as following George W Bush into war.
"What this shows is that there are alternatives to cuts in public services, higher fares, worse pensions, student fees and low pay, but that means braver answers, from ending our military adventures abroad, halting the drive to nuclear rearmament with the replacement for Trident, and more progressive taxation."
Lindsey German, convener of the Stop The War Coalition, also condemned the cost of Britain's involvement in the conflicts.
She said: "People will be astonished that the Government has the cheek to call for public spending cuts when such an obscene amount has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The anti-war group will hold a protest outside Downing Street on Tuesday, the day of Chancellor George Osborne's emergency Budget, to demand the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, said: "Health workers, firefighters, teachers, police officers and many other public service workers will now be paying for the legacy of this war with their jobs as services are cut to make up the cost of this disastrous mistake.
"These figures confirm that the decision to invade Iraq was a chronic failure of judgment on every front."
Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP for Islington North, added: "More than £20 billion, half a million dead, Britain's foreign policy besmirched all over the world - what have we achieved?
"This war was based on distortions and deceptions. The truth is now beginning to come out."
dailymail.co.uk
