# How Much Are The British Spending On Iraq?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [September 4, 2003, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466 "2003-09-04T04:28:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 17
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/1 "2003-09-04T04:28:00Z")
We know the US is shelling out $1 billion a week on Iraq, I presume that the British must be spending a considerable chunk of change as well, but the US-centric media here hasn’t made any mention of it that I’ve seen.
---
### Author:  [@kris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kris)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/2 "2003-09-04T09:46:18Z")
I believe BBC news said that the US was currently footing 95% of the total “bill” for Iraq.
There is something about the cost to keep troops in Iraq in this site but can’t see how much it is costing the UK.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle\_east/3076976.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3076976.stm)
hope this helps in some way.
---
### Author:  [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/3 "2003-09-04T10:05:14Z")
This _Guardian_ [report]([politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/) story/0,12956,999720,00.html) (although the _Guardian_ site is down at the moment) reports estimates ranging from £120-£150 million a month.
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/4 "2003-09-04T10:32:46Z")
Government estimates of this kind generally impress only fools, journalists and government employees who imagine that they actually pay taxes.
Governments respond to questions about how much something costs - a war, a sea rescue, whatever - simply by adding up the:
1/ Salaries of all personnel involved -which would have been paid, war or no war.
2/ Cost of all provisions consumed or used - food, clothing, ammunition, fuel - which would have been used and paid for, war or no war.
These details are then printed up by some government clerk who supplies the information to a person with a degree in journalism who has managed to get onto the payroll of a paper or TV network.
Said paper or TV network then regurgitates the whole misleading load of garbage about the cost of a government enterprise (for want of a better term) and tries to convince its reader or viewership that this is really significant.
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/5 "2003-09-04T10:48:12Z")
As a clarification to my previous post, the amount of money provided to aid agencies, including those that are being helped by the military, would provide a better idea of the extra financial burden now being shared by a number of countries, including agencies and officials of the UN.
These are genuine extras and it is sometimes difficult to separate those figures out from the totals that would have been spent anyway.
---
### Author:  [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/6 "2003-09-04T11:03:58Z")
You seem to assume that governments are incapable of understanding the difference between ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. Military actions involve real additional expenditure and that additional expenditure is just as easy to estimate as the irrelevant items you mention.
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/7 "2003-09-04T11:33:49Z")
Governments and officials are perfectly capable of understanding the difference.
Journalists (with very few exceptions) are not.
Governments always provide the media with the cost that would have been paid even if nothing had happened and the media are always happy to accept this. Let’s face it, they love big figures, even in those rare cases where the journalist suspects that perhaps things are not quite kosher, they’ll use them.
You’ve seen this yourself, where the media report that the rescue of some tomfool yacht crew from a hurricane costs some ridiculously high figure, say $10 million.
For a week long drama like this, the government officials add up the salaries of all the government personnel involved, police, navy, civil defence, air force, the fuel consumed by rescue vessals, the cost of the provisions consumed by all of the personnel involved.
You might say that the fuel consumed by rescue ships is extra, but that would be false. A week of extremely high activity would be compensated by three weeks of lower than normal activity to stay within the annual budget.
The only extra costs that may occur, from an accounting point of view, are those involving the destruction of a lifeboat or helicopter if their cost price had not been fully amortised.
(For the purpose of this exercise I left out issues like loss of life of rescuers).
---
### Author:  [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/8 "2003-09-04T12:00:22Z")
So do they intentionaly leave out the cost of bombs and bullets and stuff (extraordinanceary expenditure) when costing a war?
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/9 "2003-09-04T12:28:51Z")
Of course not. Why would they. For short wars like Iraq 2 it’s like the fuel used on the ships involved in rescuing the crew of the yacht I mentioned in a previous post. High expenditure in one month can be compenated by low expenditure the following month.
I don’t believe bomb and bullet usage is classed as extraordinary expenditure by any military on this planet. Only very large scale wars of long duration cause that. I see no evidence that Iraq caused a noticeable blowout in this kind of expenditure by either the US or UK for the last war, such as it was.
Most ordnance, once produced, has a limited useful life span. If it is not used in exercises and training, a wise use of the stuff, incidentally, then it would have to be disposed of by other, more costly means.
The only extra financial burden is the money now actually being spent in Iraq proper (to revert to the original topic). This would now include foreign aid money from a number of countries other than the US and UK. But not a significant amount from the pockets of the troops themselves.
---
### Author:  [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/10 "2003-09-04T13:42:11Z")
We used so much materiel etc in Iraq that we are now not able to fight another major war for about two years.
We pay for this out of the Contingency Fund ie money put by for precisely this reason, so there is no opportunity cost. That money would not otherwise be spent on hospitals, schools etc. It would have sat in the Treasury.
So we are _very_ nervous about the French at the moment - they have a track record.
---
### Author:  [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/11 "2003-09-04T13:54:23Z")
Er, no, **Alan** , you still don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
This is the official written answer given by Adam Ingram, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, on 16 June to a question about the cost of the Iraq campaign which had been submitted by the MP for Worcestershire West, Sir Michael Spicer.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs, which the MOD would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation.
>
> Calculating all the costs of military action will take some time to determine since it will include the cost of ammunition, bombs and guided weapons consumed in excess of peacetime levels and the cost of equipment destroyed and damaged. These sums are likely to be significant. However excluding those costs, the latest estimate is that the net additional cost of Operations in Iraq for 2002–03 will not exceed £1 billion; the amount set aside at spring Supplementary Estimates 2002–03.
>
> It is too early to estimate the costs in 2003–04.\*\*
> **[Page cannot be found](https://publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=iraq%2Bcost%2B&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=%2Fpa%2Fcm200203%2Fcmhansrd%2Fcm030616%2Ftext%2F30616w15.htm)**
>
> The page you are trying to access is not available.Please return to the homepage to navigate through to our main content sections.
> ...
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/12 "2003-09-04T14:18:25Z")
APB,
Actually, I do know whereof I speak.
I work for a government and have engaged in these practices at an operational level.
Higher than normal expenditure in one period is ALWAYS compensated for by a lower expenditure in the following period, whether that period is one month, three months or six.
Provided the higher expenditure period is not too prolonged, then there no significant higher expenditure involved for a given fiscal year.
You will notice that the public service stooge mentions that the “net additional cost of operations… will not exceed blah blah”
He totally neglects to state the amount of lessened activity for the next few months that will reduce this amount to a level that will bring expenditure for the full year close to the original budget. No reporter is capable of understanding this.
---
### Author:  [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/13 "2003-09-04T16:03:49Z")
There are two distinct points here. There are those savings which are made as a direct result of military action and, as ‘the public service stooge’ points out, the UK Government takes those into account when calculating the cost of individual military actions. Government accountancy rules in the UK require the MoD to state such offsetting savings when accounting to Parliament.
It of course possible for the MoD then to make other unrelated savings over the course of the fiscal year in order to reduce any overshoot in its budget. That however only reduces their total expenditure, not the cost of the individual action.
---
### Author:  [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/14 "2003-09-04T16:59:11Z")
**Alan**
> [@](#):
>
> Most ordnance, once produced, has a limited useful life span.
Depends upon what you call limited lifespan, I have fired anti-submarine mortar bombs dating back over 20 years age.They were perfectly serviceable but were slowly being replaced by a more modern variant, and firing them off was as good a way of disposal as any and also made for very effective training.
If you mean that equipment is replaced as it becomes outdated, then fair enough however your comment implies to me that there is effectively a ‘use this shell by XXXX date’ or it will spoil.
There are stores of all kinds of outdated ammunition, from .303 rounds right up to elderly missiles which are serviceable and some of which may be sold off to other governments.
As for more recent ordance being already paid for, well true, but the vast majority will be replaced and instead of being kept in a magazine for 10 years or so, if the rate of consumption increases beyond peactime operations, it must still be paid for, quite often in the case of sophisticated systems, the replacement will be a more recent variant with a considerably higher cost.
Hopefully these additional costs can be spread over a a period of several years, commonly by increased government borrowings.
Interesting that you assert that I, as a government employee, think I pay tax.
Please explain this.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/15 "2003-09-04T17:05:16Z")
Wait a minute, **Alan**. With the humanitarian aid, as well, there will be times when that costs less, too. Shouldn’t those times be considered to offset the higher-use times? By this argument, we can conclude that everything is free: The average cost of anything is never higher than average.
The flaw here is that times of higher spending raise the average. If we weren’t currently at war, then this would be one of those times of lower spending, and what would the other times of lower spending be balancing out then? They wouldn’t be: The total spending would just plain be lower.
You are right, of course, that some costs would have been borne regardless. But salaries will be higher in wartime (hazard pay), and there’s a lot more shooting going on in war than in peace, so munitions will indeed cost more when we’re fighting.
Finally, what’s the motivation for a government to make a war sound expensive? It’s in the government’s best interest for the citizenry to consider the war inexpensive. Why would they deliberately undermine that?
---
### Author:  [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/16 "2003-09-05T12:51:51Z")
I was looking forward to **Alan** ’s reply to this,
> [@](#):
>
> Interesting that you assert that I, as a government employee, imagine I pay tax.
>
> Please explain this.
I’m still waiting dude, it looks very nearly a slur on the intelligence of government employees, or that maybe we don’t live in the real world, or perhaps we delude ourselves, I dunno what you are really saying, perhaps you can clear this up for me.
---
### Author:  [@rodmunch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rodmunch)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-are-the-british-spending-on-iraq/199466/17 "2003-09-05T14:10:31Z")
i was listening to radio 2 today and some one phoned in the same question. radio 2 phoned the MOD and they apparently gave them straight answer of £1b (£1000m)