Cost of war in Afghanistan soars to £2.5bn for Britain
• Iraq total also up despite pull-out & middot
• Annual bill for conflicts hits £4.5bn
The cost of Britain's military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq this financial year has soared to more than £4.5bn, an annual increase of more than 50%, figures released yesterday reveal.
Operations in southern Afghanistan accounted for a little over half, nearly £2.6bn, compared with £1.5bn last year. Most of the money was spent on providing tougher armoured vehicles for soldiers who face a growing threat of roadside bombs.
Surprisingly, as the government prepares to withdraw from Basra, the cost of Britain's military presence in southern Iraq this year increased to nearly £2bn, compared with less than £1.5bn last year, according to the figures released by the Ministry of Defence.
Much of that increase was accounted for by what defence officials called "impairment" - writing off the value of equipment such as Warrior fighting vehicles which are judged not to be worth the expense of bringing back to Britain.
The Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Nick Harvey, said: "Every extra day British forces spend in Iraq costs millions of pounds and diverts much-needed helicopters and vehicles from Afghanistan. The government must make sure that this time it keeps true to its commitment to withdraw all forces from Basra airbase as soon as possible.
"Unfortunately, the military price tag will not in itself bring success in Afghanistan. We need to see all Nato allies pulling their weight, alongside greater involvement of regional partners, including Iran, to create a stable Afghanistan."
However, the Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, an adviser to the prime minister on security issues, said he was not surprised. "War is expensive and during the credit crunch everything to do with war has got more expensive, with the possible exception of fuel. In Iraq, though we have scaled down, the remote nature of the airports means everything is still expensive despite the fact there are now less men on the ground. And obviously extra troops in Afghanistan means more money there."
The latest figures came as the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, suggested that securing oil supplies had been a significant factor behind the decision of Britain and the US to invade Iraq. The US was concerned about energy security and supply when it went to war, he said, adding: "Casting its eye around the world - there was Iraq." In a lecture this week he said that it would come to be regarded as "the first of the resource wars", contradicting Tony Blair's repeated insistence that oil was not behind the decision.
The new figures mean that the total cost so far of Britain's military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 - not including civil aid money, which also runs into billions of pounds - is now about £14bn.
The money has come out of the Treasury's contingency reserve and not the defence budget. "This is new money over and above the core defence budget ... to ensure our forces are properly trained, equipped and supported for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," the MoD said.
The cost of military operations in Afghanistan is likely to increase further as the government comes under pressure from the US to deploy more troops there. Some 8,000 British troops are now fighting the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Helmand province in Afghanistan.
British defence staff are drawing up contingency plans to send between 1,500 and 3,000 more troops to southern Afghanistan later this year. Some reinforcements may be deployed temporarily during the period leading to presidential elections in Afghanistan, due in August.
Gordon Brown warned senior backbench MPs yesterday that western forces were facing a "new type of threat" in Afghanistan. He said the Taliban had changed tactics in recent months to fight a guerrilla war with suicide attacks and roadside bombs. He added that there was a renewed focus on stemming the flow of fighters across the border from Pakistan.
Britain's garrison of 4,100 troops based at Basra airport will be run down in the coming months, with all but about 300, who will continue to train Iraqi forces, leaving by the end of July.
The MoD has asked for more than £600m for "urgent operational requirements" for the next financial year, 2009-10. Any expenditure above that will initially come out of the Treasury reserve, but the MoD will have to repay it after two years.
The arrangement reflects overall pressures on public finances. The defence budget is already under severe pressure as a result of belated investment in such basic needs as accommodation for troops and their families and the procurement of expensive new weapons systems including aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines and fast jets.
The defence budget will be increased by more than £500m to reach a total of just over £38bn this year, the MoD said yesterday.
• Richard Norton-Taylor
• The Guardian,
• Friday 13 February 2009
• Annual bill for conflicts hits £4.5bn
The cost of Britain's military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq this financial year has soared to more than £4.5bn, an annual increase of more than 50%, figures released yesterday reveal.
Operations in southern Afghanistan accounted for a little over half, nearly £2.6bn, compared with £1.5bn last year. Most of the money was spent on providing tougher armoured vehicles for soldiers who face a growing threat of roadside bombs.
Surprisingly, as the government prepares to withdraw from Basra, the cost of Britain's military presence in southern Iraq this year increased to nearly £2bn, compared with less than £1.5bn last year, according to the figures released by the Ministry of Defence.
Much of that increase was accounted for by what defence officials called "impairment" - writing off the value of equipment such as Warrior fighting vehicles which are judged not to be worth the expense of bringing back to Britain.
The Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Nick Harvey, said: "Every extra day British forces spend in Iraq costs millions of pounds and diverts much-needed helicopters and vehicles from Afghanistan. The government must make sure that this time it keeps true to its commitment to withdraw all forces from Basra airbase as soon as possible.
"Unfortunately, the military price tag will not in itself bring success in Afghanistan. We need to see all Nato allies pulling their weight, alongside greater involvement of regional partners, including Iran, to create a stable Afghanistan."
However, the Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, an adviser to the prime minister on security issues, said he was not surprised. "War is expensive and during the credit crunch everything to do with war has got more expensive, with the possible exception of fuel. In Iraq, though we have scaled down, the remote nature of the airports means everything is still expensive despite the fact there are now less men on the ground. And obviously extra troops in Afghanistan means more money there."
The latest figures came as the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, suggested that securing oil supplies had been a significant factor behind the decision of Britain and the US to invade Iraq. The US was concerned about energy security and supply when it went to war, he said, adding: "Casting its eye around the world - there was Iraq." In a lecture this week he said that it would come to be regarded as "the first of the resource wars", contradicting Tony Blair's repeated insistence that oil was not behind the decision.
The new figures mean that the total cost so far of Britain's military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 - not including civil aid money, which also runs into billions of pounds - is now about £14bn.
The money has come out of the Treasury's contingency reserve and not the defence budget. "This is new money over and above the core defence budget ... to ensure our forces are properly trained, equipped and supported for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan," the MoD said.
The cost of military operations in Afghanistan is likely to increase further as the government comes under pressure from the US to deploy more troops there. Some 8,000 British troops are now fighting the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Helmand province in Afghanistan.
British defence staff are drawing up contingency plans to send between 1,500 and 3,000 more troops to southern Afghanistan later this year. Some reinforcements may be deployed temporarily during the period leading to presidential elections in Afghanistan, due in August.
Gordon Brown warned senior backbench MPs yesterday that western forces were facing a "new type of threat" in Afghanistan. He said the Taliban had changed tactics in recent months to fight a guerrilla war with suicide attacks and roadside bombs. He added that there was a renewed focus on stemming the flow of fighters across the border from Pakistan.
Britain's garrison of 4,100 troops based at Basra airport will be run down in the coming months, with all but about 300, who will continue to train Iraqi forces, leaving by the end of July.
The MoD has asked for more than £600m for "urgent operational requirements" for the next financial year, 2009-10. Any expenditure above that will initially come out of the Treasury reserve, but the MoD will have to repay it after two years.
The arrangement reflects overall pressures on public finances. The defence budget is already under severe pressure as a result of belated investment in such basic needs as accommodation for troops and their families and the procurement of expensive new weapons systems including aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines and fast jets.
The defence budget will be increased by more than £500m to reach a total of just over £38bn this year, the MoD said yesterday.
• Richard Norton-Taylor
• The Guardian,
• Friday 13 February 2009
Comments