Afghan-Iraq War, Millennium Dvpt Goals and Peace in Africa

from the Zimbabwe Guardian

THE cost of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have grown to a shocking US$3 trillion already exceeding the 12-year war in Vietnam, according to a new book to be published next week written by Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist, and Harvard University lecturer, Linda Bilmes.

The cost to the UK in the two wars is expected to rise to more than US$40 billion, including social costs, by 2010, compared to the estimated US$14 bn so far set aside in direct operating expenditures.

The US is also said to be $12.3 billion short in money for war, in spite of this huge funding.

U.S. assistance to Africa over the past four years was approximately $3.2 billion, according to the Brookes Institute.

The only other war in history to cost the US more in inflation adjusted terms was World War II, when 16.3 million of its troops were involved for four years.

Stiglitz and Bilmes calculated that the Iraq war alone was costing upward of US$ 400,000 per troop compared with less than US$100,000 in today's prices when the US committed virtually its entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese in World War II.

The costs in Afghanistan and Iraq are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the 1991 war to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and twice and twice that of the First World War some 90 years ago.

"The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war," said extracts of the book, quoted in the Times (UK) newspaper Saturday.

The price has been financed entirely by borrowing and most Americans have yet to feel the costs, having been deferred possibly to another generation. Considering the troubles bedevilling the US financial sector especially the housing market, many Americans will feel the pinch in a few years’ time.

Remember former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld saying the war would cost between US$50 to 60 billion. The speculation was also that the cost would be paid for through increased oil revenues ─ revenues anticipated. This was a gross miscalculation by the US.

The head of the US Economic Council, Larry Lindsay, had to bury her head in the sand when shamed by Rumsfeld after suggesting the Afghan-Iraq campaign could reach US$200 billion ─ which we now know was hugely understated. He dismissed this as "baloney,” ─ now he (Rumsfeld) is ‘baloney’.


The annual budget of the United Nations is US$16-20 billion, about $2.5-3 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is dwarfed by the budget of this ‘illegal war’. Yes it was illegal. It didn’t have the mandate of the UN Security Council. It's a tiny budget, much smaller than many countries' national budgets. The UN has been forced to cut back on important programs in all important areas: including HIV/AIDS and malaria eradication funding.

As of November 30, 2007, United Nations members' arrears to the Regular Budget reached a staggering US$735 million. The United States alone owed US$688 million (approximately 94% of the regular budget arrears).

The cost on the British taxpayer is also high. With the current credit crunch, the future for the British taxpayer might not be so rosy if the campaign continues. Coupled with huge operating costs and poor transparency that has hit the UK’s Ministry of Defence military spending, the future’s not so bright.

As champions of democracy and proponents of international development, these two countries, and their allies, leave a lot to be desired. No wonder why the Millennium Development Goals will not be achievable by 2015 ─ the funding commitment is elsewhere.

Africa in particular will have to look elsewhere for the much needed aid, help and support. They would have to look elsewhere for the wars bedevilling the continent to end. Peace in Sudan, Angola, DRC and elsewhere on the continent will have to be delivered by other organisations and nations if these two countries remain committed elsewhere. It's probably time to look for solutions within the confines of the African continent itself.

Africa should not only depend on foreign aid and foreign help, but should devise home-grown solutions to the 'African problem'.