This estimate is actually below another estimate that was over 18 billion or 1500 dollars per Canadian household. This present estimate does not include long term medical expenses. The long term health care costs are not included in this estimate because they are difficult to account for. This is an interesting excuse. Obviously if you want to have a lower estimate leave out whatever is difficult to account for!
Added to the monetary costs are the lives lost as well as the loss of quality of life for the wounded. However on the plus side one has a great stimulus package for the military-industrial complex.
Cost of Afghanistan mission could reach $11.3B, government says
Last Updated: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:15 PM ET CBC News
The Canadian combat mission in Afghanistan could cost taxpayers around $11.3 billion by the time it ends in 2011, according to a new government estimate.
But the report, posted on the government website Canada’s Engagement in Afghanistan, suggests that the 10-year cost estimate for the mission could change, depending on the circumstances.
“Afghanistan is an enormously complex and challenging mission. Operations are constantly changing and adapting to the security situation on the ground,” the report states. “As such, cost estimates are constantly refined and adjusted to reflect this changing reality.”
Around $9 billion of the costs are Defence Department-related and include expenses for personnel, equipment, supplies, maintaining bases and medical needs.
The report also lays out $2.3 billion of mission expenses in other departments, including $1.7 billion for the Canadian International Development Agency, $400 million for the Foreign Affairs Department and $150 million for Veterans Affairs Canada.
Long-term health-care costs are not included because they are more difficult to account for, as health-care issues can be the consequence of cumulative mission experiences, the report says.
In October, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page offered different estimates, saying the mission costs could reach as high as $18.1 billion, or $1,500 per Canadian household.
Page reported that Canada had spent $7.7 billion to $10.5 billion on costs related to the mission in the past six years, and could spend $13.9 billion to $18.1 billion by the end of the 2010-11 budget year.
Page's report also said a lack of government consistency and transparency made it difficult to come up with estimates, and the figures likely understate the full costs of the mission.
Canadian special forces troops were on the ground in Afghanistan in late 2001 and the country has maintained a full battle group in Kandahar since early 2006.
Currently 2,850 soldiers, aircrew and support staff are officially in the war theatre, but temporary-duty assignments add to that total.
Since the mission began, 108 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died as part of the mission, while roughly 375 troops have been wounded.With files from the Canadian Press
Showing posts with label Cost of Canadian Afghan mission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cost of Canadian Afghan mission. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Canada defends rising Afghan costs as crisis bites.
This is from Reuters.
As usual anything is justified if it can be brought within the rubric of the war against terror. This is of course a smokescreen used to justify being a junior partner in the Project for a New American Century. Obama is continuing and even expanding the mission in Afghanistan and is hoping to recruit more help from Canada and other NATO members.
The Taliban did harbour Al Qaeda operatives and there were training camps there but these had been eliminated prior to the US sponsored invasion. The Taliban certainly did not themselves export terrorism, they were too busy fighting the northern alliance. They also had agreements with the US to stop the production of opium poppies for which they were rewarded by the US.
Canada defends rising Afghan costs as crisis bites
Mon Feb 9, 2009 6:03pm EST
By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay said on Monday that the rising cost of the country's military mission in Afghanistan was worth the expense, even though the economic crisis is starting to bite hard.
Skeptical opposition legislators grilled MacKay over why, at a time of big budget deficits and soaring unemployment, Ottawa was pouring billions of dollars into a combat mission that critics say shows few signs of success.
Last October, Parliament's budgetary officer said the mission could cost C$18 billion ($15 billion) if Canada's 2,700 troops stayed until the end of 2011 as planned.
"Afghanistan was the largest exporter of terror in our lifetime so our efforts there to bring about some semblance of security and democracy continue to be a very worthy cause," MacKay told reporters.
"Now that's costly. A military mission by its very nature is expensive ... but we are making gains," he said after testifying to Parliament's defense committee.
So far, 108 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents are making gains. Senior western officials openly admit the NATO mission is in trouble.
Late last month Canada's Conservative government, under pressure to tackle the deepening economic crisis, unveiled a stimulus laden budget that will rack up a deficit of C$64 billion over the next two fiscal years.
MacKay, who went to the committee to explain why he was requesting an extra C$441 million for the Afghan mission, faced some tough questions from opposition parliamentarians.
Claude Bachand of the Bloc Quebecois complained that successive defense ministers had requested a total of C$8.9 billion in extra spending on the mission since Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002. He also asked why so little money was being spent on reconstruction and development.
"It's not going very well in Afghanistan, we don't control the territory ... it's a kind of bottomless pit that Canada is pouring money into," he told MacKay. "As defenders of the taxpayer, we want to know where we're going with this."
Dawn Black of the left-leaning New Democrats said the escalating cost "was a huge issue for Canadians, particularly at a time of financial uncertainty across the country."
MacKay said the additional money was needed to protect soldiers carrying out an increasingly complex mission.
"We are succeeding. (Is it) at the rate we'd like? Perhaps not," he told Bachand, saying it was crucial to establish security before proper reconstruction could take place.
"Our preference would be to put all the money into reconstruction and development but if the Taliban are going to burn schools down as quickly as we build them ... we can't do those things until we get the security and peace in place," MacKay said.
($1=$1.22 Canadian)
(Reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Rob Wilson)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only.
As usual anything is justified if it can be brought within the rubric of the war against terror. This is of course a smokescreen used to justify being a junior partner in the Project for a New American Century. Obama is continuing and even expanding the mission in Afghanistan and is hoping to recruit more help from Canada and other NATO members.
The Taliban did harbour Al Qaeda operatives and there were training camps there but these had been eliminated prior to the US sponsored invasion. The Taliban certainly did not themselves export terrorism, they were too busy fighting the northern alliance. They also had agreements with the US to stop the production of opium poppies for which they were rewarded by the US.
Canada defends rising Afghan costs as crisis bites
Mon Feb 9, 2009 6:03pm EST
By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay said on Monday that the rising cost of the country's military mission in Afghanistan was worth the expense, even though the economic crisis is starting to bite hard.
Skeptical opposition legislators grilled MacKay over why, at a time of big budget deficits and soaring unemployment, Ottawa was pouring billions of dollars into a combat mission that critics say shows few signs of success.
Last October, Parliament's budgetary officer said the mission could cost C$18 billion ($15 billion) if Canada's 2,700 troops stayed until the end of 2011 as planned.
"Afghanistan was the largest exporter of terror in our lifetime so our efforts there to bring about some semblance of security and democracy continue to be a very worthy cause," MacKay told reporters.
"Now that's costly. A military mission by its very nature is expensive ... but we are making gains," he said after testifying to Parliament's defense committee.
So far, 108 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents are making gains. Senior western officials openly admit the NATO mission is in trouble.
Late last month Canada's Conservative government, under pressure to tackle the deepening economic crisis, unveiled a stimulus laden budget that will rack up a deficit of C$64 billion over the next two fiscal years.
MacKay, who went to the committee to explain why he was requesting an extra C$441 million for the Afghan mission, faced some tough questions from opposition parliamentarians.
Claude Bachand of the Bloc Quebecois complained that successive defense ministers had requested a total of C$8.9 billion in extra spending on the mission since Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002. He also asked why so little money was being spent on reconstruction and development.
"It's not going very well in Afghanistan, we don't control the territory ... it's a kind of bottomless pit that Canada is pouring money into," he told MacKay. "As defenders of the taxpayer, we want to know where we're going with this."
Dawn Black of the left-leaning New Democrats said the escalating cost "was a huge issue for Canadians, particularly at a time of financial uncertainty across the country."
MacKay said the additional money was needed to protect soldiers carrying out an increasingly complex mission.
"We are succeeding. (Is it) at the rate we'd like? Perhaps not," he told Bachand, saying it was crucial to establish security before proper reconstruction could take place.
"Our preference would be to put all the money into reconstruction and development but if the Taliban are going to burn schools down as quickly as we build them ... we can't do those things until we get the security and peace in place," MacKay said.
($1=$1.22 Canadian)
(Reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Rob Wilson)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)