The cost of war: a rare opportunity to reflect

[Guest]

Here we are in UK, one of of the wealthiest nations on the planet, gripped still by Government-applied austerity, and our Prime Minister is in the country for a change, talking with his chums in the G8.

One of the things on top of their agenda is what to do about Syria, particularly with the lessons of co-operative intervention so fresh in their minds after intervening in Libya, and its aftermath. I think most people think that something should be done to spare Syrian (and Turkish and Lebanese) civilians further trauma and bloodshed but after that opinions about what to do diverge.

One of the criticisms of modern warfare is that nations individually and en bloc have gone to war without giving too much thought about what will happen once the peace has been won. This is certainly the case in Iraq and as we enter possibly the last phase in our current involvement in Afghanistan.

Frank Ledwidge, author of Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, has now published Investment in Blood: The True Cost of Britain’s Afghan War, in which he claims that the Afghanistan war has cost Britain more than £37bn, or £2,000 per UK household.

Here, Richard Norton-Taylor and Ledwidge explore some of the mistakes and the true costs of war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/30/afghanistan-war-cost-britain-37bn-book

[Beef Oven]

Here we are in UK, one of of the wealthiest nations on the planet, gripped still by Government-applied austerity, and our Prime Minister is in the country for a change, talking with his chums in the G8.

One of the things on top of their agenda is what to do about Syria, particularly with the lessons of co-operative intervention so fresh in their minds after intervening in Libya, and its aftermath. I think most people think that something should be done to spare Syrian (and Turkish and Lebanese) civilians further trauma and bloodshed but after that opinions about what to do diverge.

One of the criticisms of modern warfare is that nations individually and en bloc have gone to war without giving too much thought about what will happen once the peace has been won. This is certainly the case in Iraq and as we enter possibly the last phase in our current involvement in Afghanistan.

Frank Ledwidge, author of Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, has now published Investment in Blood: The True Cost of Britain’s Afghan War, in which he claims that the Afghanistan war has cost Britain more than £37bn, or £2,000 per UK household.

Here, Richard Norton-Taylor and Ledwidge explore some of the mistakes and the true costs of war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...tain-37bn-book

Shocking stuff. The only good news is that the super rich 1% of the population's households have paid nearly 30% of the cost while the lower paid households have only paid a fraction of that £2,000, with the lowest paid households having contributed little or nothing.

If the power-elite and super-rich want to have unjust wars, they should bloody well pay for them, and stop grumbling about how much tax they pay

Edit: Sadly, it's not even as rosy as I would have it. When you take into account VAT and other tax receipts, we (not rich) are contributing more than I suggest!!!

[Frances_iom]

the review points out that the widely held Whitehall view is that the UK involvement was solely to keep in good stead with the USA - as Ike foresaw the US governmental system fell into the control of the US military/industrial complex - George Bush junr + 9/11 finally cemented that take over which Obama has pushed even more into a surveillance society - our rightwing press (often controlled by Americans) ensures that little or no criticism of the USA empire reaches the mainstream media - the cost is as pointed out very significant in totally wasted lives (military and civilian) + a now barely affordable financial cost.
My own take on the corrupt state we expended so much on is akin to the apochryphal Russian soldier when asked what Afghanistan was like suggested they merely had to ask the locals what year it was (Hijri Calendar year 1434 is western 2013.)

[vinteuil]

... the older I get, the more impressed I become at Harold Wilson's success at resisting American pressure for the UK to become involved in the Vietnam war. If only Mr Blair had had the cojones...

[amateur51]

... the older I get, the more impressed I become at Harold Wilson's success at resisting American pressure for the UK to become involved in the Vietnam war. If only Mr Blair had had the cojones...

Too true, vints

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

..oh Mr Blair had the necessaries ... but neither the preference nor orientation of Harold eh?

[Frances_iom]

Bush was the cipher - a 'reformed' drunkard playboy who draft dodged Vietnam - it was Dick Cheney (another Vietnam draft dodger) who pushed for the Iraq war etc (his company Halliburton made billions) who was the real power and in my opinion a malign influence over much of American policy.

[amateur51]

Bush was the cipher - a 'reformed' drunkard playboy who draft dodged Vietnam - it was Dick Cheney (another Vietnam draft dodger) who pushed for the Iraq war etc (his company Halliburton made billions) who was the real power and in my opinion a malign influence over much of American policy.

I'm sure you're right, frances_iom.

There is the added element of folie à deux between Blair and Bush. The shy and modest Lord Owen has penned a slim volume on the subject that he entitles wonderfully The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair & the Intoxication of Power

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hubris-Syndrome-Blair-Intoxication/dp/0413777278/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top