Libya mission cost 7X more than advertised

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
True cost of Libya mission was seven times gov't. estimate: documents

OTTAWA — Amid allegations the Conservative government intentionally lowballed the price of the F-35 stealth fighter project, newly released National Defence documents indicate the full cost of last year's Libya mission was nearly $350 million — seven times what Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Canadians it cost.

The revelation is likely to raise further accusations of a systemic effort to hide the true cost of Canadian military operations and equipment purchases, and lead to fresh demands for accountability.

Last October, with Moammar Gadhafi dead and NATO wrapping up its seven-month air-and-sea campaign in Libya, MacKay said the mission had cost taxpayers $50 million — or about $10 million less than the Defence Department had predicted.

"As of Oct. 13, the figures that I've received have us well below ($60 million), somewhere under $50 million," MacKay told the CBC on Oct. 28, three days before the mission officially ended. "And that's the all-up costs of the equipment that we have in the theatre, the transportation to get there, those that have been carrying out this critical mission."

But buried in a report tabled in the House of Commons this week are Defence Department figures pegging the full cost of the mission at more than $347.5 million.

Even taking into account the Defence Department's controversial practice of only reporting "incremental costs" — those deemed to be above and beyond normal operating expenses — the mission still came in at $100 million, or almost twice what MacKay claimed.

Reached Thursday night, MacKay's spokesman, Jay Paxton, said only that the final "incremental costs" of the mission "were presented to Canadians, through Parliament, in the Department's Report on Plans and Priorities.

"The Canadian Forces were instrumental in protecting civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack by the Gadhafi regime," Paxton wrote in an email.

The Conservative government and Defence Department have been under fire in the past few weeks for using incremental costs instead of full costs when reporting the price Canada will pay for the F-35 stealth fighter — a difference of $10 billion.

By the same token, some observers were questioning the true cost of the Libya mission last year.

The Defence Department has admitted it dropped $25 million in bombs during the mission, and some found it difficult to understand how deploying 11 planes and a frigate to the Mediterranean for seven months cost roughly the same amount.

Steve Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, the Ottawa-based think tank that discovered the Defence Department figures, alleged that the discrepancy is yet another example of MacKay and the military trying to hide the truth.

"Just like the F-35, Minister MacKay has been caught lowballing costs and minimizing overspending in his department, to the point now where I think a lot of Canadians are questioning his credibility and whether we can continue to believe his funny numbers," Staples said.

The Rideau Institute actually had projected in June 2011 that the Libya mission would cost tens of millions more than the Defence Department was saying. MacKay publicly declared at the time that "the Rideau Institute, as so often is the case, is wrong." As it turns out, the Rideau Institute's prediction was much more closer.

MacKay also described Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's report in March 2011 — which said the F-35 would cost $30 billion — as "flawed," though many observers now believe that estimate was much more accurate than the figures provided to Parliament by National Defence.

University of Ottawa defence expert Philippe Lagasse said there is an underlying culture within the Defence Department of hiding full costs to Parliament and the public.

"This has been an ongoing problem," he said. "It's linked to departmental culture. We've seen this for a number of years and on a number of files. And it's linked up in the nature of what they do."

But Lagasse indicated MacKay and the government are not in the clear, and an explanation is required for why the real cost was hidden.

"The question becomes how come the defence minister has a clear, secure number, but that clear, secure number doesn't end up in the documents," he said. "Something doesn't match up there."

True cost of Libya mission was seven times gov't. estimate: documents
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
It cost 7 times more because now Libya has about 7 tribal dictators instead of one. They're not cheap to install. Another African country and authoritarianism continues, quelle shock. I hope no one is expecting much success in the way of democracy if Assad in Syria is turfed.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,621
14,563
113
Low Earth Orbit
You'd prefer it if the Maoists took the lead in Libya? The rest of Africa is slipping away into Maoism so why not Libya right?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Sure, Moaists might be better than al-Qeada, or whatever nonsense they use to perpetuate authoritarian rule. Oh,we're "losing" Africa to the Reds. Slip sliding away. Moaists means they want to stay peansants and we'll have to bail them out from a famine in a few years as civil war will contribute to hunger. You should go there and help.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Wars never cost what the government says it will cost going in. So this is no surprise.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Part of the propaganda, it'll be cheap and democracy will emerge. So, who plays us more, the govt, the media, or these crafty third world people? I blame us for expecting quick fixes and there aren't any.

Egypt seemed like a modest success, an old dictator is gone but the detentions continue. I suppose if they torture less, that is progress, sort of. They are getting elections too.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Does that mean the costs to other NATO members is also 7x their estimate and that is the bill that will be presented to the new Gov as the price of liberation? Starting with a nice fat loan so NATO can be reimbursed for their time and trouble and that leaves just enough to put most on the poverty line with a few elect that will most likely be 'replaced' before long.

I wonder which aquifers are emptied first the oil or the water?
What contracts do Canadians get?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Nato is looking for a job these days, and in Libya and Afghanistan they have fared quite poorly. It's tough to eliminate any govt org once created, especially that is an integral part of the military industrial complex. Losers with bombs in their underwear are dangerous, but they can't overthrow a govt, yet resources are thrown at them as if they could.