Since the US launched their war in Iraq in 2003, there has been much debate stateside about the cost of the war.

The war was supposed to be short. Hell, it was supposed to be over (how can we forget Dubya’s “Mission Accomplished” declaration on an aircraft carrier). Given the length of the war and the horrible human cost, it was no surprise that the financial cost too would face greater and greater scrutiny by American citizens. And this put-it-under-the-microscope attitude has been transferred to Afghanistan and global US military spending in general. Some big numbers have been thrown about:

• In 2008, a military analyst reported that for both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, the US spends $12.3 billion per month, or $4,745 per second.
• To-date, over $1 trillion dollars has been spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. About two-thirds of the money has been spent on the conflict in Iraq since 2003, reports Reuters.
  
• Defence spending grew on average by 9% annually from fiscal year 2000—2009.
• It is argued that the U.S. military budget is as much as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined.

An item that has made the news recently says that the US military has been importing sand to Iraq. Yes, it is okay to want to read that again. Stephen Farrell in a NYTimes blog puts it this way: “This might seem strange for a country that is 10 parts sand to 1 part water, 1 part oil and 0.1 parts electricity.”

Yup.

But of course, the military can explain why importing sand is money well spent.

“Based on the specs that we have for blast walls, it takes a particular grain and quality of sand. That sand is not in Iraq, so you have to bring the sand in. So that sand actually has to get on barges down in U.A.E., down in Qatar, has to come all the way up here, gets processed through there. You can either do one of two things, you can make the concrete, or you can just bring the sand up into Iraq.”

No wonder US taxpayers have been critical about wastage in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consultants McKinsey and Co. found another way to look at waste in military spending and did so by comparing how different countries spend their defence budgets and what they receive for it. They found that “countries that make it a point to support their domestic defense industries have higher procurement costs than those that rely on imports. Countries that procure older equipment from the global market tend to have very capable fleets for less money.”

As such, they concluded that U.S. spending for military weapons is wasteful compared to other major military-spending countries. The United States tied with Australia for last spot in the March 2010 study that said the two nations “are the lowest performing countries with regard to equipment output for every dollar spent.” Brazil was deemed to get the most bang for their military buck while Russia ranked third.

Seven of the top ten ranked nations for efficient military spending were European nations.

Interestingly, the US thinks its NATO allies in Europe are not spending enough and they are weakening the alliance. (Watch the video below). Somehow, I don’t think the US is in any position of credibility to be preaching (“Buy more guns, newer planes and better sand!”) and scolding its friends on sound military money management.