If case you were curious as to who else is in Iraq besides those naughty naughty Americans.
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2003_08_07.html#001031
A little older, but it matches with your figures, and nothing has really changed. There have been no other commitments of foreign troops to Iraq.
3 (UK) Division will now be at least a third to a half drawn from other countries (over 5,000) mostly from Western Europe… the greatest value from the multinational assistance so far has been in aiding Britain in drawing down its huge wartime commitment rapidly, although it will still have a brigade-plus of its own army in Iraq indefinitely, as well.
The Polish-led “division,” that will connect the British and American sectors is still severely understrength, with under 10,000 soldiers, but it presumably has been put in the quietest sector (the Samawah area, south of Baghdad and northwest of Basra), too. It is replacing all of 1 Marine Division, which has had a fairly quiet postwar, allowing the Marines to finally get out and rebuild. It will have little effect on U.S. Army rotations, though.
The US Army, meanwhile is planning to quietly ratchet down its own presence in the centre and north of the country, week by week and month by month. It is already planning to go from 15 brigades to 13 with the withdrawal of the remainder of the 3rd Infantry Division in September (that’s being replaced by only one brigade of the 82nd Airborne). The overall plan is to be down to no more than 10 brigades total by April (90-100,000 personnel with support troops), with only the 1st Infantry, 1st Cavalry, and two other regular brigades in country after that point (two National Guard brigades are also augmenting this force for its first six months).
The big drop-off right now comes around February, from about 150,000 to 130,000 soldiers from all countries combined, when the 101st Airborne pulls out of its sector en masse, with nothing at this point on deck to replace it. This may not be a huge problem if things are quieting down, as the other formations can then stretch to fill. But it was a third multinational division (and specifically an Indian contribution), even an understrength, polyglot one like the Polish one, that the Americans had hoped for to slot in in the Airborne’s place, and that’s almost certainly not materializing now without a new UN resolution.
The only nation that is receptive to committing combat troops to fill this February gap without UN involvement is, of course, Turkey, which has its own agenda in the region. Its offer of up to 5,000 troops is being regarded cautiously by Washington. If things haven’t settled down as hoped for by September, and a replacement for the 101st appears to be prudent, the only options left to the U.S. now are going hat-in-hand to the Security Council, or to Ankara.
That was the most comprehensive list I have seen. It is not complete.
There have indeed been other commitments of foreign troops to Iraq.
I hope they know what they’re doing. No disrespect towards the Mongolian army, but being put in a potentially “hot” situation is risky business, obviously. I hope the operation is well organized and that all the troops are well equipped.
I see now that Serbia and Montenegro will only provide 100 troops/police to the effort in Afghanistan. Too bad, I was wondering how a Yugoslavian troop could handle situations one might meet in Afghanistan but with that few that question most certainly won’t be answered.
The point isn’t whether we can get token commitments for Iraq; it’s whether we can get international legitimacy. But if you want to compare the troop makeup this time to the last Gulf War…
The 171 Mongolian troops - a single infantry company - are part of the 17-country Multinational Division which, earlier this month, took over responsibility from the US marines for five provinces south of Baghdad.
Like I said – token forces.
There are only a few countries that have substantial numbers of troops in Iraq right now. From the same link:
- Italy (sending 2,800 troops): A mechanized brigade-minus, serving with the British division.
- Poland (2,300): Sent its troops without any vehicles (don’t laugh, Canada did the same thing in Kandahar), which the US is providing for them. About 200 Poles were part of the original Iraq invasion force, making it the fourth-largest combat contingent. Providing a brigade-minus and a divisional headquarters this time.
- Ukraine (1,800): A brigade-minus for the Polish-led division.
- Spain (1,300): The U.S. recently rewarded Spain for its support by shifting a contract to build submarines for Taiwan from a German shipyard to a Spanish one. Providing the third brigade-minus for the Polish-led division.
- Netherlands (1,100): A battalion of marines, augmented with engineers. A sizable contribution for this country. Will fill out the British division continuing on in the Basra area.
- Fiji (700): Fiji, which had been a major UN peacekeeping contributor for decades, largely in Lebanon, wound up its role there recently when the Israelis withdrew and has been looking for a new way to get international military visibility since. It is currently under financial pressure from unpaid peacekeeping fees from the UN, though, and a parallel need to support the Australian operation in the Solomon Islands. If they go to Iraq, the US will likely be footing a significant bill for them. Would serve somewhere in the Polish structure if they do.
- South Korea (670): South Korea’s contribution is one of the largest on paper, but it’s less than it seems, comprising medical and engineering units that are barred from serving in a combat role. Likely folded into the American rear area somewhere.
- Bulgaria (500): Another early volunteer, Bulgaria is sending an infantry battalion to join the Polish-led division.
- Romania (405): An infantry battalion, filling out the Italian brigade, above.
- Denmark (380): One infantry battalion-minus, serving with the British.
- Honduras (370): Engineers and doctors only. May be of some limited use for the Spanish brigade.
- El Salvador (360): Unlike other Latin American offers of assistance, these are actually infantry, and will slot in with the Spanish.
And compare that to the forces that liberated Kuwait in 1991, which, inaddition to a French division, had a division or so of troops from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states.
You mean states that were next on Saddam’s hit-list? I wonder why they would have helped in Kuwait…
But I think we have a better understanding of the requirements now. Only “significant” troop contributions count (I’m guessing this means thousands, get off your ass Luxemborg!). And it has to contribute to “international legitimacy”, a deliciously nebulous term, the definition of which Jason can change on a dime! Unanimous UN Security resolutions be damned, come back when 90% of the world’s population is on a plane to lend a helping hand in Iraq!
Are you being willfully obtuse?
Yeah, because Iraq was going to take over Saudi Arabia, then make a hard right and drive into Syria, go straight through Israel, and take on Egypt. :roll:
But I think we have a better understanding of the requirements now. Only “significant” troop contributions count (I’m guessing this means thousands, get off your ass Luxemborg!).
I’m talking battalion level commitments of combat troops. You know, people with guns that can police a large country. Very simply metric there.
10 countries outside the US and UK are doing that, enough to put together one small Polish-led division and fill out a UK division.
The US was counting on more – like an entire division from India. Bush’s utter incompetence in foreign affairs and building a coalition means
-
The US military, the world’s strongest military and one that could be used other places to fight terrorism, is tied down in large numbers doing peacekeeping. This has the other effect of lowering morale and letting combat skills atrophy because the primary mission is policing.
-
We’re paying for the entire affair. Gulf War I was bankrolled to a huge amount by the Saudis, the Japanese, and the Germans. No such luck here, as we’re pretty much the ones stuck with the check. And oh yeah, Afghanistan, all that money we promised? Well, its going to Iraq. Sorry that your country is sliding back into hell!
(side note: My roomate just got a job in Afghanistan and is moving).
I wish I could trade George Bush 43 for George Bush 41. The older model knew what he was doing and actually deserved to land on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit.
Yeah, because Iraq was going to take over Saudi Arabia, then make a hard right and drive into Syria, go straight through Israel, and take on Egypt.
Never heard about Saddam’s vision of an Islamic super-state? Who’s being willfully obtuse now?
Did you really even need to ask that question?
So you’re saying that Syria and Egypt contributed troops in 1991 because they were afraid they were next?
I’m also amused by the wordage. Saddam’s Islamic superstate. Yeah, cuz Saddam is/was a religious fanatic. :roll:
Actually yes. That’s what they said at the time anyway. Syria hated Saddam until the old guy died and his son started making overatures to him.
Remember, Saddam attacked Iran (if he’d taken it he would have controlled about 60% of the world’s oil). He took Kuwait (while he had that he had about 40% of the world’s oil. During the sanctions he moved troops toward Kuwait once and got bombed by Clinton, and then he moved troops and arms to threaten Syria in '98 and got bombed by Clinton (Desert Fox). Turns out he didn’t have the weapons he was claiming but nobody is arguing he wasn’t damn good at bluffing and damn aggressive.
Brad didn’t come up with that “wordage”. Saddam did. He also had paintings made with him as Saladin II and had stories commissioned telling how he would lead Iraq’s armies on their war of conquest to create the Islamic Superpower that would destroy America. Read The Threatening Storm, Bowden’s Atlantic article, or that new(ish) Saddam biography in stores now.
Yeah, Saddam was about as Muslim as I am, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know how to talk the talk.
Saddam wanted a superstate, but you shouldn’t oversell his religious attachments. He was about as religious as…say…George Wallace. It was entirely an occasional thing for politics.
Edit: shit.
Look at the last line of my post Jason.
[quote=“Bub_Andrew”]
Actually yes. That’s what they said at the time anyway. Syria hated Saddam until the old guy died and his son started making overatures to him.[/quote]
Egypt sent troops because they were afraid they were next? You do realize that there’s another country between this hypothetical Iraqi Superstate and Egypt that’s got a rather good track record with Arab invasions, right?
Remember, Saddam attacked Iran (if he’d taken it he would have controlled about 60% of the world’s oil). He took Kuwait (while he had that he had about 40% of the world’s oil.
Your figures are off by about half, and not in the direction that makes your argument better.
During the sanctions he moved troops toward Kuwait once and got bombed by Clinton
The troop movements to the Kuwaiti border were in 1994. There was no bombing in 1994. There were strikes in 1993 (one attacking a nuclear program, on in retaliation for the assasination attempt on George Bush 41) and one in 1996 against air defense installations.
and then he moved troops and arms to threaten Syria in '98 and got bombed by Clinton (Desert Fox).
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/desert_fox.htm
I’m having trouble finding anything that backs up your assertion that Desert Fox was launched because of troops movements to Syria. Everyone else seems to agree it was an attack on Iraqi WMD sites.
…
Bub, you have your facts confused on a variety of issues. Its kinda hard to argue with you when you’re using a different set of facts than everyone else.
But the fact remains that Saddam’s underlying desire and plan was to unite the arab world under his control. Fact is, he invaded his southern neighbor (from whom he had borrowed 8 billion dollars), and fought a long war with his eastern neighbor. And that country between him and egypt is also a major thorn or insult to the islamic ‘superstate’ which is on the short list for elimination. Please tell me you don’t believe he would have left Israel alone? You’re not arguing xpav, you’re nitpicking…
Saddam desired many many things. Most of the things he wanted were completely out of his grasp. Wishful thinking on the part of dictators isn’t a reason to invade.
Getting back to the original point – Bush I did a good job of putting together a coalition of various countries because he pointed out that it was all in their best interests to see the sovereignty of Kuwait restored. I mean, come on here… Syrian & French troops under US command? Heck, I don’t think most of the Arab forces really did much, but the point is that their presence pretty much squelched any sort of “US crusaders trying to colonize the world” crap that we’ve got this time around.
Xpav, clearly you are wrong, at arguing an obviously incorrect point is not helping you at all.
Wishful thinking on the part of dictators isn’t a reason to invade.
He invaded his neighbors on two separate occasions, if he had more success you don’t think he would have kept going? You’re not this stupid, though you’re trying very hard. There’s no getting around the fact that many of the nations in the region helped because they were afraid of suffering the same fate as Kuwait. So stop pretending like I made that up, because I didn’t.
And everyone knows Saddam wasn’t a zealot, but he did like to build humongous masques as part of his PR front.
Christ, you guys need to pick your battles. Start with ones you might have a chance of winning.
[quote=“Brad Grenz”]
He invaded his neighbors on two separate occasions, if he had more success you don’t think he would have kept going? You’re not this stupid, though you’re trying very hard. There’s no getting around the fact that many of the nations in the region helped because they were afraid of suffering the same fate as Kuwait. So stop pretending like I made that up, because I didn’t.
I’m pointing out that its stupid to think that Egypt contributed troops because they were going to be invaded. The GCC countries wanted to see Saddam in check, but again, they put their troops under US Command. They didn’t do their own thing, they didn’t make the US do the work (even though we didn’t need their troops at all), they got in line, got in the coalition, and fought with us.
There were many things that they could have done – and Bush 1 managed to take all these countries and form a coalition that did its job. No one complained. Did France complain? No, they sent troops. Did Germany complain? No, they sent money. Did Japan complain? No, they sent piles and piles of money.
The war wasn’t painted by the world as a “US goes to save its oil supply”, except by the usual crazies. It was, because of the coalition, held up as a model of international cooperation, blessed by the UN and lead by Bush 1.
Its really hard, after all, for various arab leaders to demonize the US for invading Iraq when they send their own troops to fight alongside.
So: Desert Storm – example of multilaterism at its finest from start to finish.
Invasion of Iraq – 3 countries invaded Iraq, and we can’t get enough troops and international aid to deflect the “this is a US only operation” and to help us with the $87 billion+ that’ll be needed to put the country back together.