Afghanistan war has cost Britain more than £37bn

[Pete]

Frank Ledwidge, author of damning study Investment in Blood, says failing, bloody campaign has cost £37bn - £2,000 per UK household.

Since 2006, on a conservative estimate, it has cost £15m a day to maintain Britain's military presence in Helmand province. The equivalent of £25,000 will have been spent for every one of Helmand's 1.5 million inhabitants, more than most of them will earn in a lifetime.

And when we leave...

I could think of a few things that money could have been spent on...

[Old Cruser]

Quite right Pete, it's a high price to pay for the lost lives. Our country needs all the money it can generate right now - but hey - take it off the poor to pay for Afganistan.

[Fly]

Can anyone remind me why we are in Afghanistan, was it after Bin Laden and the Taliban attack on the twin towers.

It's one hell of a lot of money to try and train a population that would sooner blow us up for being in 'their' country.


Found this website on the BBC, 'Newsround'. Love this quote. Yes I know it's supposed to be news for kids.

When the Taliban leaders were in control last time they banned many things, including education for girls, make-up, kite-flying and films.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/15214375

[therealjr]

I think some of these numbers have to be taken either in context or at the least with a hefty bit of sodium chloride.
Yes there are a lot of soldiers and equipment in Afghanistan and it may well be costing us £15m a day. But those soldiers have to be paid, fed and housed regardless of where they are. The tanks and trucks have to be run and serviced. Those are fixed costs which we would be incurring regardless of whether those soldiers were in Afghanistan, Iraq, N Ireland, Bosnia or sat in Woolwich barracks.
There are presumably some variable costs like supply lines and the munitions being fired which will be contributing to that £15m but it's not all spent just because thats where we happen to be.

[Slacker]

Not sure where the figures come from but I've seen claims that we (as in Western countries) could feed the needy in the world for much less than we spend in warfare

[Pete]

Here you go - http://bit.ly/11bolkk

[therealjr]

we probably can
It will be the same people (well to be fair probably their successors)  who said that we could put the money used on the Space race to better use here on Earth.
Of course we possibly wouldnt have things like Smoke detectors, MRI and CAT scanners, solar panels or prosthetic limbs.

But fine, lets scrap all wars and feed the world.
Oh by the way you just made a minimum of 600,000 people unemployed and put a £7.2bn hole in our balance of payments.

[Pete]

>> Oh by the way you just made a minimum of 600,000 people unemployed and put a £7.2bn hole in our balance of payments.

So, not as much damage as the current/last party in power. I feel quite proud.

[therealjr]

If you want to look at it that way but you've added to rather than replace their problems.

[Pete]

TBH Jon - as a general overview of current politics my position on the current and recent events is this:

We (America and US) want to topple nasty despot/evil/leaders for whatever reasons

We succeed in some countries

The "Arab Spring" also creates a similar effect

The population then feels free to resume the age-old Shia v Sunni war

More people die

As do our troops

It wastes a huge amount of money

Nobody's lot improves

All these events end up with a discussion about religion - "It's in the Book"

I think a rethink of the whole situation is needed.