The political cost of Afghanistan.

As predicted by groups such as the Rideau Institute the cost of the Afghan mission is much larger than Harper had earlier estimated, almost twice as much. These billions of dollars are being spent simply to advance the campaign of the US hegemonists. In return we make get some defence contracts. The taxpayer will get a bill of about 1500 per person. Harper certainly deserves criticism for misleading people about the costs but the Liberals also must bear some of the blame as well. They have continued to support the mission and its extension. Support our taxpayers! Bring the troops home.


The political cost of Afghanistan
CAMPBELL CLARK AND STEVEN CHASE
Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press
October 9, 2008 at 2:41 PM EDT
OTTAWA — The military mission in Afghanistan and the global economic crunch are both adding up to a potentially high political cost for Stephen Harper's Conservatives just days away from the federal election.
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page today released a long-awaited study laying out his assessment of how much the military mission is costing taxpayers.
Ottawa has so far reported that the extra “incremental” cost for the military mission — over and above what would have been spent for the upkeep of the military anyway — was about $3.8-billion to the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year. Mr. Page says it has been somewhere between $5.85-billion and $7.45-billion.
The total price tag would be $14-billion to $18-billion by the time troops are withdrawn in 2011, about $1,500 extra for every Canadian household, Mr. Page said.
Enlarge Image
Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page speaks during a news conference in Ottawa on Oct. 9, 2008. The cost of Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan is far higher than the government has publicly said and the price tag could eventually hit $18-billion, officials estimated on Thursday. (Christopher Pike/Reuters)
Speaking later Thursday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the mission was clearly an expensive one, but the expense was necessary.
“We've been clear that the cost of this is high,” Mr. Harper said. “We are doing important work there as part of an international effort. We are certainly not alone in spending money.
“When we have men and women in uniform, diplomats and development workers who are putting their lives on the line, the government will spend what is necessary to make sure they are safe and successful.”
But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion told press in Halifax that the report showed there was a “false transparency” over Afghanistan.
“Stephen Harper again failed to be transparent and accountable to Canadians," Mr. Dion said in a scrum after speaking to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce.
NDP Leader Jack Layton blasted both Liberals and Conservative for the projected cost of the Afghans mission and accused both his political opponents of hiding the truth.
“The costs of the war are dramatically higher than the Harper government has been telling Canadians,” Mr. Layton said of the Conservative government during a campaign stop in Sudbury, Ont.
"The costs are billions of dollars more. And whether it was the Liberals who took us into the war, the Conservatives who extended the war with the help of the Liberals, they haven't been straight up with Canadians about the costs.”
The NDP leader said after a speech to about 150 supporters in a local science centre that he would not attribute motives to any attempt to play down the costs of the Afghanistan mission.
“I just simply think it's wrong that a government would not be truthful about the costs of a war. And we're not talking about a few dollars here, we're talking about billions,” he told reporters.
“The Conservative government hasn't been truthful about the cost of the war, just like they haven't been truthful about a great many other things.”
Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe said Mr. Harper knowingly misled voters on the real cost of the mission, adding that it would be foolish to give the Conservatives a majority government to pursue their course of action.
Speaking at Longueuil, Mr. Duceppe said Quebeckers will be appalled to learn that so much of their hard earned tax dollars was being spent on a mission which most oppose.
“I think Quebeckers fundamentally disagree with it. What this means is that it is costing them $1,500 per household. And when you factor in the total amount projected in military spending the cost is $28,000 per taxpayer,” he added.
The report could spell trouble for Mr. Harper, who has been sliding steadily in opinion polls for the last week on the back of the global financial crisis.
That economic situation still has more in store for the Canadian economy, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty — trying to reassure voters in the face of falling stock prices and dire predictions of recession — warned Thursday.
“These are extraordinary times in global financial markets,” Mr. Flaherty told a briefing in advance of a G7 conference of international finance ministers in Washington. “While Canada is better placed than other major economies, we are not immune.”
Mr. Harper continued to stress his faith in the national economy, saying Canada's banks are the strongest in the world and need no help from Ottawa.
A new report by the World Economic Forum gave Canada's banking system a gold star in the face of the crumbling global financial system, rating them the soundest in the world, followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia.
Citing that rating, Mr. Harper ruled out any form of bailout package for Canadian banks.
Mr. Harper also expressed disappointment that banks are only reducing lending rates by a quarter of a percentage point, rather than the full half-point cut imposed by the Bank of Canada.
He says he expects the full benefits of the rate cut will eventually be passed along to Canadian consumers.
Mr. Layton, however, accused the Conservative government of cowing to the banks.
“Yesterday, the banks were given a reduction in their interest rates charged by the Bank of Canada. And guess what? They decided to pass only half of that along to Canadians and they are going to keep the rest for themselves,” Mr. Layton said.
“Mr. Flaherty, the Harper government's Finance Minister, this morning had an opportunity to set things right and he didn't do it. He didn't stand with the average Canadian. He should have told those banks that they should have passed on all of that interest savings to Canadians.”

Cost of Afghan Mission to be released Oct. 9.

It seems that the Afghan cost report will be released after all, this Thursday morning. Perhaps this might cause a few people to vote other than Liberal or Conservative but that is about all. I am assuming the cost will be quite large. If the cost is a great deal larger than the 8 billion projected by the Conservatives there may be some negative effect on Conservative fortunes. There will be an impact on taxpayer fortunes as well!



Cost of Afghan mission to be released Thursday
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:37 PM ETA report detailing the cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan will be released on Thursday.
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page was tasked with tallying the cost of the Afghan war since it began six years ago.
Page will table his report, entitled The Fiscal Impact of the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, on Thursday at about 11 a.m.
The Conservative government has previously estimated the total cost to date of Canada's mission is under $8 billion.
All party leaders had agreed to allow the release of the report, despite concerns it could sway how Canadians cast their ballots on Oct. 14.
Canada has about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan's volatile province of Kandahar.
The mission started in early 2002, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban government, although some Canadian soldiers on exchange with the American military were in Afghanistan months earlier.
To date, 98 Canadians, including one diplomat, have lost their lives serving in the conflict.
The Conservative government has pledged to withdraw most of Canada's military forces from combat duties in Afghanistan by 2011.

Costs of Canadian Afghan Mission

This is over a year old so the expenditure by now will be far greater. However, the amount is quite substantial. It would be good if some economist could list some of the opportunity costs of the mission listing some of the things that could have been achieved by spending that amount of money on other projects.

Cost of Afghan mission
$2B and rising: Tally includes only a fraction of new costs in Kandahar; Forces could be there for years

David Pugliese
The Ottawa Citizen


Friday, March 03, 2006



CREDIT: Chris Mikula, The Ottawa Citizen
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his son, Ben, were at the Canadian Forces Appreciation Night at the Ottawa Senators game last night, along with about 1,500 Canadian Forces staff and their families.

Canadian taxpayers have spent more than $2 billion on the country's ongoing military mission to Afghanistan, with the cost of the latest deployment to Kandahar largely still to come.

So far, the Canadian Forces commitment to Afghanistan, which started ramping up in late 2001, has cost $1.7 billion, according to figures provided by the Department of National Defence. But that overall figure, which represents what the department calls "incremental costs," does not include the wages of military personnel or wear and tear on aging equipment used overseas.

It also doesn't include the purchase of major new equipment for the mission. So far the Canadian Forces has spent or set aside another $330 million for emergency equipment purchases for Afghanistan, ranging from new armoured vehicles to surveillance drones.

In addition, Afghanistan has also become Canada's single largest recipient of bilateral aid. According to figures provided by the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada will have provided $616 million in aid to Afghanistan by 2009. In the years immediately preceding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., Canada had given about $10 million in annual aid to Afghanistan.

Over the last four years, Afghanistan has become the major focus of Canadian defence and foreign affairs policy. More than 7,000 military personnel have served in that country so far.

Details of the costs come as Canadian casualties mount in Afghanistan. But Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated his strong support for the mission yesterday, saying it is important to global security.

The $2-billion-plus pricetag, however, could only be the tip of the iceberg on the actual cost of the Afghanistan mission.

The full costs of the deployments won't be released by the Defence Department until this fall. Estimates of the cost of keeping 2,300 troops in Afghanistan over the next year are also not being released at this time.

The Foreign Affairs Department would not provide the amount it has spent on Afghanistan, but an official noted that a large number of resources and personnel are involved in the file.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said the Canadian public deserves to be fully informed as to what the Afghan mission is expected to ultimately cost, both financially and in the number of casualties to troops. He also questioned the effectiveness of the money being spent on aid to Afghanistan.

"You can't get figures from CIDA for the current year," said Mr. Kenny, the former chairman of the Senate defence committee.

"More than that, you can't get figures that break it out on what we're spending in terms of aid in Kandahar."

Mr. Kenny noted that most of the aid is being funnelled through United Nations organizations. "There's no way on God's green earth we'll be able to measure if those programs are worth a damn," he added.

CIDA said that its officials who deal with Afghanistan were tied up in meetings yesterday and could not immediately respond to the senator's concerns.

The $1.7 billion the Canadian Forces has spent so far includes estimates of the cost of the latest Afghan mission to Kandahar, Operation Archer, but only up until the end of the month, because the government's fiscal year ends March 31. So far that operation has cost $286 million.

Canadian troops will be operating in Kandahar until at least next February but military officials have suggested in the past that the commitment to Afghanistan will continue for years. On Tuesday, Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser assumed command of the multinational brigade responsible for southern Afghanistan. The brigade includes 6,000 soldiers from Canada, Britain, the United States, the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Romania and Estonia.

The new equipment purchased by the military for Afghanistan could be of use in other missions. Some of it had already been on the military's wish list but not planned for acquisition until after 2010. Because of the Afghan mission, the purchase of that gear was fast-tracked.

The figures provided by the Defence Department also do not account for the wear and tear on Forces equipment.

But in the U.S., congressional budget experts have determined that the war in Iraq is using military equipment at five to 10 times the peacetime training rate. Pentagon officials have asked for billions of dollars in emergency funds to replace wornout gear.

While Canada's military effort is nowhere near that of the U.S. in Iraq, it is considerable nonetheless. For example, by last March, Canadian Hercules transport planes had flown 5,000 hours in support of Operation Athena, an earlier mission to Afghanistan.

The office of the Auditor General, the watchdog of the government purse, has never done an audit of the Afghan mission. A spokeswoman for the Auditor General's office declined to say whether there were any plans to do so.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006








Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.