Afternoon:
9°c
Bill for fight in Iraq and Afghanistan rises 50 per cent to £4.5bn
Paul Waugh13 Feb 2009
The cost of Britain's military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq has soared to more than £4.5billion, according to new figures.
The bill, a 50 per cent rise on last year, stems largely from providing tougher armoured vehicles for soldiers facing a growing threat of roadside bombs in the fight against the Taliban.
But it also includes extra costs for Iraq, where equipment such as Warrior fighting vehicles is being written off and left behind.
The ballooning bill for the UK's overseas military deployments came as it emerged that Barack Obama is expecting Britain to play a smaller frontline role in Afghanistan.
The new US President is reviewing policy and is expected to put in place an extra 7,000 troops as part of a "surge" against the Taliban in the southern province of Helmand.
Although the US had hoped for at least 1,500 more British troops in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence's contribution could be limited to as few as an extra 300.
Latest figures from the MoD show that operations in southern Afghanistan accounted for a little over half of the total overseas costs, nearly £2.6billion, compared with £1.5billion last year.
As the Government prepares to withdraw from Basra, the cost of Britain's military presence in southern Iraq this year rose to nearly £2billion, compared with less than £1.5billion last year.
Much of that was accounted for by what defence officials called "impairment", writing off the value of equipment such as Warrior fighting vehicles - judged not to be worth bringing back to Britain.
The figures mean the 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 £14billion.
The money has come out of the Treasury's contingency reserve and not the defence budget. Lib-Dem 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."
Many of Britain's troops are serving in Helmand, but their performance has been criticised privately by the Pentagon for failing to deal with the insurgents.
The latest figures came as the Government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, suggested in a lecture this week that securing oil supplies had been a significant factor behind the decision of Britain and the US to invade Iraq.
Reader views (5)
And it appears THEY want us out of there, with our service personel lives and limbs lost, apart from the cost, what ARE we doing ?
- Brian Hughes, wales, 14/02/2009 14:52
Report abuse
And the benefit to Britain is?
- Francis Salvesen, London UK, 13/02/2009 17:41
Report abuse
A drop in the ocean when Gordon has just given the banks 20billion to ensure they get their bonus's
- Dave, Expat Spain, 13/02/2009 17:27
Report abuse
I don't want to be taxed to pay for this. I think I shall withhold my taxes.
- Neil M., london uk,, 13/02/2009 15:31
Report abuse
So, if I have got this right, it is cheaper for the taxpayer who paid for the Warrior vehicles in the first place to either pay for compensation to the relatives of servicemen killed in battle, or to pay for their rehabilitation when they are maimed by roadside bombs because they don't have the Warriors to protect them in Afghanistan as they have been left to rot in Iraq, than it is to ship them from Iraq to Afghanistan where they could be put to good use. It is a wonder anyone wants to serve for this country!
- The Londoner, London, 13/02/2009 11:58
Report abuse
