# DND's latest blood & treasure estimate for AFG mission ....



## johnny_boy (22 Feb 2005)

I am writing a paper for school, and I am wondering if anyone knows where I can find official figures of what it has cost Canada to be in Afghanistan? Specifically I am looking for the ISAF mission cost, but if older ones from when we initally went into Afghanistan I'll take those.. I'm not fussy 

Just so you know I did try on the DND site, but came up dry.


----------



## John Nayduk (22 Feb 2005)

Don't look only at the dollar amounts, calculate the benefits as well.


----------



## johnny_boy (22 Feb 2005)

I will be, this by no means a negative report... My paper is on the short comings of the defence spending.... But yeah, it would really be great if someone knew where to find these figures, even if it's Bosnia, or Haiti. I just need some official source showing how much an operation costs.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (22 Feb 2005)

I dont know how much this helps you but I think I found the figures of the 1800 troops (on two rotations) from Aug. 2003 to Aug 2004.

http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/MONITOR/mond03b.html
It gives the figures at $650 million.

Canadian troops in Afghanistan
By Ken Epps

The most recent deployment of Canadian armed forces to Afghanistan began in August when Canadian infantry troops arrived there as part of "Operation Athena," the Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). About 1,900 Canadian Forces personnel were deployed in the first of two six-month rotations to meet a one-year commitment made by the Canadian government in February. Defence Minister John McCallum announced in late September that the cost of the operation would total about $650-million, of which $445-million would be drawn from additional Treasury Board funding. The government also will provide about $300-million in aid to Afghanistan.

Under Operation Athena about 1,700 Canadian troops were sent to Kabul, with the remainder deployed elsewhere in the region around Afghanistan in support of the mission. The majority of the personnel in Kabul form a battalion group equipped with light-armoured infantry fighting vehicles (LAV-IIIs), howitzers, Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicles, and eventually an "unmanned air vehicle (UAV)" surveillance system. The battalion group is part of the Kabul Multi-National Brigade under the command of a Canadian brigadier-general. According to a Department of National Defence (DND) press release, the multi-national brigade "is a robust, tactical military organization designed to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority in its efforts to create a safer, more secure environment in Kabul" (DND 2003a). Other Canadian Kabul-based personnel include engineers, military police, and reconnaissance and medical support staff.

As DND background material makes clear, the International Security Assistance Force â â€œ and consequently Operation Athena â â€œ is not a UN operation. The Canadian Forces commitment to the civilian-led UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), identified as Operation ACCIUS when it was announced in November 2002, consists of one officer. ISAF, although authorized by a UN resolution (UNSCR 1386) in December 2001, was led by the UK, Turkey, and a shared German-Dutch Corps before it came under NATO command in August and became the first official NATO operation outside Europe. The UN mandated the ISAF to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority in the Kabul area. The Canadian government's goal for Operation Athena "is to prevent Afghanistan from relapsing into a failed state that provides a safe haven for terrorists and terrorist organizations" (DND 2003b). Operation Athena is thus Canada's latest contribution to the "War on Terror."

The previous deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan was announced by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in October 2001 as part of the Canadian commitment to an international force to "conduct a campaign against terrorism." Under "Operation Apollo," Canadian Forces personnel were quickly sent to the region, some directly to Afghanistan, but most as part of a Naval Task Group patrolling the north Arabian Sea. Since October 2001 Canadian patrol frigates and supply vessels have rotated in and out of the region, providing support to other multinational force ships or conducting interdiction actions, such as boarding vessels to apprehend suspected members of terrorist groups. At its peak in January 2002, the Canadian Naval Task Group comprised six warships and about 1,500 Navy personnel. Since early September 2003, the frigate HMCS Calgary has been the sole Canadian vessel on patrol.

As part of Operation Apollo, in January 2002 Canada also sent a battle group of about 750 soldiers to Kandahar in Afghanistan to assist US troops in roles ranging from reconnaissance to combat. The reconnaissance troops were equipped with Coyote vehicles specifically requested by US forces. During the six months of the battle group operations in Afghanistan, four Canadian soldiers on training exercises were killed by US "friendly fire" when fighter pilots dropped bombs during active patrol. The battle group troops returned from the Operation Apollo mission in July 2002. Operation Apollo also was supported by Canadian air force personnel and equipment. The air force airlifted personnel into the region between November 2001 and May 2002 using Polaris (Airbus A310) transport aircraft, and provided reconnaissance and surveillance operations using Aurora long-range patrol aircraft from January 2002 to June 2003.

Some previous Canadian missions in Afghanistan will be carried over to Operation Athena. The use of Hercules transport aircraft to move personnel and equipment within the region, and some logistical and communications support tasks of Operation Apollo will continue. According to the Defence Associations National Network (2003, p. 8), some personnel from the Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) also will be assigned to the Canadian ISAF contingent. The JTF2 is the secretive commando unit of the Canadian forces which has fought with US troops throughout Afghanistan, and was photographed taking captured prisoners to US forces in January 2002.


----------



## johnny_boy (22 Feb 2005)

Excellent, that article had reference links to the DND site with the same figures. Thanks a lot!


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (23 Feb 2005)

No problem! I love doing these kinds of things anyways


----------



## MG34 (23 Feb 2005)

The cost to Canada in Afghanistan: Cpl. Jamie Brendan Murphy, 26, Conception Harbour, Nfld. 
                                                 Sgt. Robert Alan Short, 42, Fredericton.
                                                 Cpl. Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger, 29, Ottawa
                                                 
                                                Sgt. Marc D. Leger Age 29, of Lancaster, Ontario
                                                Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer Age 24, of Montreal, Quebec             
                                                Pte. Richard Green Age 21, of Mill Cove, Nova Scotia
                                                Pte. Nathan Smith Age 27 of Porter's Lake, Nova Scotia


----------



## johnny_boy (24 Feb 2005)

MG34 said:
			
		

> The cost to Canada in Afghanistan: Cpl. Jamie Brendan Murphy, 26, Conception Harbour, Nfld.
> Sgt. Robert Alan Short, 42, Fredericton.
> Cpl. Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger, 29, Ottawa
> 
> ...



I have already factored in the loss of life into the total cost of deployments. Obviously, no dollar value can ever be placed on what their contributions were, which is why operations such as Afghanistan are so costly in the end. 

This is one of the points I do make in my paper, than when people think of the cost of a deployment, the merely think in dollars but I raise the issue of human life as well, thanks though MG34, it's important that people don't get tunnel vision when they think of matters like this.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2011)

> Canada’s aim is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a viable country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure. Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically-elected Afghan government and as part of a UN-mandated, NATO-led mission along with more than 60 other nations and international organizations. Canada is among the world’s top donors in Afghanistan.
> 
> *The incremental cost of the current mission in Afghanistan to the Government of Canada from 2001 to 2011 is currently estimated to be approximately $11.3 billion. *This includes estimates for mission close-out costs, but excludes post-2011 costs for veterans’ disability and health care. These incremental costs are calculated at approximately $8.8 billion for the Department of National Defence (DND) and approximately $2.5 billion for other departments – including $1.64 billion for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), $466 million for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), $250 million for Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) and $96 million for Public Safety, including costs for Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) ....


Source - Backgrounder:  Cost of the Afghanistan Mission 2001-2011 (also attached in case link doesn't work)


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Dec 2011)

This story, which to my unqualified eye is a vote of confidence in our medical system, appears in today's National Post. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

What killed our soldiers in Afghanistan: Only two deaths preventable, study finds

Tom Blackwell Dec 21, 2011 – 5:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 21, 2011 10:32 AM ET

Some bled to death from massive abdominal wounds, others suffered catastrophic brain injuries and many were thrown about so violently inside bomb-blasted armoured vehicles, their spinal cords were fatally severed.

The vast majority of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan never had a chance, concludes a grim but revealing analysis of autopsy reports on many of the deaths, a rare look at information previously kept confidential.

Only two of the fatalities examined were considered potentially preventable; the wounded troops might have lived had medics managed to cut holes in their throats to allow them to breath after shrapnel penetrated and blocked airways, said the study.

It is unclear, though, whether combat conditions would have let medics perform a procedure that is challenging even for highly trained doctors, said Col. Homer Tien, an army trauma surgeon.

“For a fourth-year surgical resident, a senior surgical resident, it’s a very daunting task to do in a well-lit trauma room,” said Col. Tien, who co-authored the research. “You’re cutting on someone’s throat. There’s a psychological barrier to get across.”

On the positive side, the death review underlines that Canadian medics performed extremely well, and injuries that killed routinely in earlier wars are now being effectively treated on the battlefield.

About 1,000 American GIs died in the Vietnam War because of bleeding from severed limbs, said Col. Tien, who doubles as head of the trauma unit at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. All Canadian soldiers in the field in Afghanistan carried multiple tourniquets — an age-old tool that had been abandoned until recently.

“Everyone’s got tourniquets, everyone’s very well trained, so they’re slapping them on,” said Col. Tien. “These people with traumatic amputations that would have died previously in conflicts, they’re all surviving.”

Meanwhile, a separate study published in the same journal shows that most of the patients operated on at a Canadian-run combat hospital in Kandahar — now the subject of a Canadian TV series — were not NATO troops, but Afghans, many of them civilians.

The death study looked at the 73 soldiers killed in Kandahar from January, 2006, to April, 2008, the first two years of the Canadian mission in the southern Afghan province. (Another 95 Canadians have died in Afghanistan.)

Most of the troops died from blast injuries — the majority caused by IED explosions and rocket-propelled grenades, the study found. Another six were killed by gunshot wounds and five in road accidents.

The researchers obtained autopsy reports on 63 of the soldiers, and believe them to be representative of the overall death toll. The autopsies revealed that 17 died from severe brain injuries and three from spinal cord damage, the latter all blunt-force wounds suffered while inside armoured vehicles that were tossed about by IED explosions.

Just over 20 troops bled to death, most from torso wounds. Though the body armour now worn by soldiers repels most gunshots to the abdomen, explosions that erupt from underneath can wreak lethal damage on the torso, said Col. Tien.

One soldier who bled out had been injured in the groin area of the thigh, but it appears the entry wound was so small, there is little medics could have done, the study found. It would have been all but impossible, for instance, to apply the blood-clotting powder that was developed after an American soldier died from a similar injury in Somalia, an incident depicted in the book and film Blackhawk Down.

The study authors suggest alternative methods to curb hemorrhaging in such injuries, including inserting a urinary catheter — a small tube, essentially — and inflating the attached balloon.

Other troops died from decapitation and other “gross mutilation,” airway obstructions, multiple causes and the effects of fire.

Those who made it out of the battlefield alive were helicoptered to the so-called role-3 multinational medical unit at Kandahar Air Filed, the trauma centre Canada led from early 2006 to October, 2009, now featured in the Global-TV program Combat Hospital.

An analysis of the hospital’s caseload over that period, though, showed that more than 70% of patients were Afghans, a third of them civilians and another third Afghan soldiers and police. And 208 of the surgical patients were detainees captured by NATO troops.

The foreign forces made no concerted effort to offer up the unit’s services to the surrounding Afghan population – whose main hospital is a spartan, under-equipped facility – but anyone brought to the base with serious problems was treated, said Col. Tien.

For surgeons, work at the hospital involved a challenging array of procedures, from Caesarian sections to brain operations, that no doctor would face in Canada’s highly specialized medical system, he said. Col. Tien recalls a teenage Afghan patient he treated for a subdural haematoma, bleeding on the brain caused by a shrapnel wound, which required him to cut away a part of the skull and drain the blood.

“That certainly got my adrenaline going,” he said.


----------



## brihard (21 Dec 2011)

Excellent read, thank you very much for posting it. It's nice to see so much of what we're told in combat first aid and on our TCCC course validated like this.

BZ to all the Starlights out there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2011)

Well done to all who helped when it was needed.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Dec 2011)

The following insightful commentary on the original story is posted on today's National Post website. It is reproduced under the Fiar Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Matt Gurney: Good and bad news for Canada’s fallen warriors

Dec 22, 2011 – 9:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 21, 2011 3:51 PM ET

A major survey of injuries suffered by Canadian soldiers during the war in Afghanistan has been completed. Sixty three autopsy reports for Canadians killed in Afghanistan (a sampling believed to be statistically sufficient to reflect the entire mission) were checked to see what lessons could be learned about battlefield medical care in the Canadian Forces. Though the loss of 63 of our soldiers is tragic, there was good news of a sort — in only two of the cases were the injuries deemed to have been “survivable.” While it’s cold comfort to the loved ones of those we’ve lost, for troops in the field, it at least sends the message that medical care in the military is good enough to all-but guarantee that if you can be saved, you will be saved.

Of the 63 deaths studied by the report, most of them were instant, non-survivable wounds. Ten cases involved “gross mutilation,” essentially meaning that the body was torn apart (the category also includes decapitation). Twenty additional cases involved catastrophic brain or spinal injuries. Twenty one of the soldiers bled to death from chest wounds, despite the widespread useage of armour vests.

And even the two injuries that were technically survivable really weren’t. A survivable injury in ideal conditions is not necessarily survivable when life-saving medical care must be given in a dark battlefield, outside, while under hostile fire, without advanced diagnostic tools or a support team. In both specific cases, the soldiers had taken shrapnel to their throats, and died of asphyxiation caused by bleeding into the airway. They could only have survived if a medic had been able to expertly cut into their throats and create a clear airway. That wasn’t possible.

While the improving medical care for our soldiers is obviously something to celebrate, it does create other problems. Advancements in battlefield medicine and the speed with which a soldier can be evacuated to a proper medical facility, such as the medical facility at Kandahar Airfield or even the full hospital operated by the U.S. military for NATO troops at Landstuhl, Germany, keep soldiers alive even if they have suffered horrific wounds. These wounds can include horrific burns, the loss of multiple limbs, catastrophic disfigurement and severe full-body injuries. It can also mean traumatic brain injuries that leave the soldier requiring constant care.

These major injuries would simply have killed the soldier in prior conflicts — the rate of surviving injured soldiers compared to fatalities has been increasingly steadily since the Second World War. That’s welcome news for the families of soldiers, but poses unique challenges to military health-care systems that must adapt to provide long-term, even permanent, care to soldiers with life-altering injuries. Even while Canadian medics were performing heroic deeds in Afghanistan, the health-care system in Canada has struggled to keep up with the surge in devastating war wounds after two generations of peace.

For soldiers who live in urban areas (or could relocate easily to them), the quality of care they received was generally good, according to reports conducted by the military. But for soldiers who live in more rural areas, where the nearest hospital might still be a long drive away and probably lacks the specialized tools and personnel necessary to treat battle wounds, getting necessarily physiotherapy or training with prosthetic limbs could mean a long commute, several times a week.

The military has moved to correct this, and has also poured resources into diagnosing brain injuries and psychological traumas that would have been overlooked in conflicts past. That’s good news. So is the excellent care our wounded warriors receive in the field. But Canadians must be mindful that supporting the troops will increasingly mean supporting them for the rest of their lives. That will be expensive, but it’s part of the cost of having both a first-class military and a population willing to support deploying it abroad.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 May 2012)

.... from this written response to an MP's question:





> .... From the beginning of the mission in Afghanistan in April 2002 to Decernber 31, 2011, 635 Canadian
> Forces members have been wounded in action. This includes injuries of military personnel directly
> atttibutable to combat action that required medical/dental intervention.  1,412 Canadian Forces members have suffered non-battle related injuries. This includes those injured as a result of traffic accidents, the accidentai discharge of a weapon, and any other accidental injuries not related to combat.  It also includes those members reported ill, repatriated for compassionate or for medical reasons, or returned to duty being assessed by a medical officer ....  The Government of Canada also reports regularly to Parliament and to Canadians on the costs of the mission.  The total incremental cost of the Department of National Defence's contribution to the Government of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan is currently estimated at approximately $8.8 billion.  Further costing for the post-2011 training mission will be made available once finalized ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2013)

The latest numbers ....


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jun 2013)

I'm curious to see a breakdown in the WIA stats.  How many were severely WIA (as in, probably never returned to the fight and/or released 3B) while how many were treated and returned to duty?


----------



## Teager (13 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm curious to see a breakdown in the WIA stats.  How many were severely WIA (as in, probably never returned to the fight and/or released 3B) while how many were treated and returned to duty?



Based on the WIA stats I'm sure they have criteria in order to be on that list. I would be guessing that those WIA were hurt to a point that they had to be sent back to Canada. As for how many are 3B released or managed to return to duty thats a good question.

What they are missing in those stats are those with PTSD/OSI I'd still consider that a wound.


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Jun 2013)

Teager said:
			
		

> What they are missing in those stats are those with PTSD/OSI I'd still consider that a wound.



I was curious about that as well. Given the nature of those injuries it may be years until we get a more accurate picture of total # of injured.


----------



## McG (13 Jun 2013)

Teager said:
			
		

> Based on the WIA stats I'm sure they have criteria in order to be on that list. I would be guessing that those WIA were hurt to a point that they had to be sent back to Canada.


Typically, I have seen the threshold set at requiring medical care that took them out of the fight.  So stats would include the guy who was med-evac'ed to KAF and returned to duty within the next day or two.


----------



## Cansky (13 Jun 2013)

Interesting stats but only the reported incidents in column one.  Having worked at the 3 PPCLI UMS in 2002 we saw way more than 1 individual non-battle injury during the 6 months.  It would seem that the medical staff didn't work all that hard.  Curious as to where they get the info from.


----------



## MikeL (13 Jun 2013)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3695


> Wounded in Action statistics include injuries of military personnel directly attributable to combat action that required medical or dental intervention, including:
> 
> injuries from improvised explosive devices, mines, rocket attacks, and direct combat with an enemy force or insurgent element;
> personnel injured in friendly fire incidents related to combat action; and
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2014)

The latest stats, attached ....


----------

