Coalition of the not so willing any more

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by miloblithe, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    Has anyone seen a website or a good source that has kept track of the size of the coalition of the willing? I'm interested in countries participating, levels of troop deployments, etc. I know the coalition is shrinking, but I'm interested in exactly quantifying the amount.

    For example:
    UK started with 36,000 troops. Now has around 10,000?
    Spain, Phillipines, a couple of Central American countries have dropped out.
    Georgia, Japan, South Korea joined in.
    Netherlands, Bulgaria are due to drop out early next year.
    US presence has increased from 120,000? to 140,000+?

    Or more morbidly:
    Non-U.S troops accounted for
    19.2% of coalition casualties between 3/21/03 and 5/1/03 (end of major combat operations)
    10.6% of coalition casualties between 5/2/03 and 6/28/04 (Iraqi "soveriegnty")
    7.4% of coalition casualties from 6/29/04 to present*

    * http://icasualties.org/oif/
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  3. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #3
    Can anyone explain why the US has to bear the brunt of the casualties in "protecting" the safety of the world?
     
  4. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #4
    I thought we went into Iraq to protect the US, not the world, but one nice thing about the casualty listings is that it doesn't include the Iraqis that are working to get the terrorists out of Iraq.

    Include them, and we have about 50% of the casualties.
     
  5. miloblithe thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    Could you find some hard numbers on that? I assume you are just quoting Cheaney from the debates, which is not exactly the setting for unbiased, documented proof.

    Besides, this is also a limited, or even rediculous point. Iraqis are internal actors. The US and other coalition members are external actors. No one questions whether Iraqi forces belong in Iraq. They also have no choice _but_ to be in Iraq, whereas all the other countries can leave (or, theoretically, could have never gone).

    If we want to start including Iraqis, we'd also be obliged to talk about civilian deaths and even insurgent deaths. Civilian deaths are numbers the US wants to avoid. There are a lot of dead people over there.
     
  6. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #6
    Yeah, right. We now have created more "terrorists". Give a break from the Neo-Con agenda.
     
  7. miloblithe thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

    Success! OK. I found most of what I was looking for. 28 Countries now. UK with 8000+. Italy, South Korea, Poland, Ukraine, and the Netherlands as the other heavies (1,300-3,000). Then 15 countries with between 100-700. And 7 with less than 75. (What the hell is Tonga doing there?)

    8 Countries have dropped out from the original group. I think at least 5 have added in though. Losing Poland(#4) and the Netherlands (#6) will be tough, especially as Poland has a leadership role and the Netherlands is one of the few coalition members that has any logistical ability to project force on its own. In the case of Poland, however, they have left themselves some wiggle room. End of 2005 is a long way off--long enough to change their minds.
     
  8. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #8
    Thanks for the great link. Since you seem to be good at searches, is there a site with the $ that each country of the "coalition" being spent?
     
  9. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #9

    ha.. i wonder whos bearing the grunt of that burden.. since most of the deaths are ours.. someone else must be funding it all :rolleyes: coalition of the willing.. what a joke
     
  10. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #10
    i heard soem tiem ago that italy is also considering moving out as soon as the elections have been held..hungary and netherlands are defiantly moving out from january untill end of march (both parliaments have rejected that troops have to stay longer than that)

    i wouldn't be surprised if some other rather 'mid sized' coalition members will hop off the train next spring after the election...
     
  11. miloblithe thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    That would be much harder. For example, I know Georgia is increasing its contingent up to a planned 850, which is pretty large--and insanely large for a country that doesn't even have the military strength to preserve its OWN territorial integrity (Abkhazia, Adjaria, South Ossetia). But, I assume that the US is footing the bill for those troops--or at least arguably so--as Georgia's commitment to provide them was tied to increased US aid (not to mention increased US defense assurances--potentially far more costly in the long run in such an unstable region as the South Caucasus).

    I imagine this calculus applies to many of the countries in the coalition of the willing. Certainly the UK, Italy, and the Netherlands are footing their own bill (and perhaps more if they provide logistical support to other contingents). But the rest?
     
  12. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #12
    The "world" didn't want to go to war in the first place :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page