Talk:Multinational force in Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multinational force in Iraq article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Canada

The part about the involvent of Canada in the conflict is misleading. It says "Canada, which was heavily critisized for abstaining from the conflict by citizens on both sides of the Canada/US border". Actually, the government of Canada intended to participate in the War, but overwhelming protests and public opinion led the governement to change his mind and abstain from sending soldiers. So, it's the other way around: the governent was eavily critisized in Canada when it was found out canadian soldiers were in fact embedded in US forces.

Above statement is also incorrect. There is no evidence that the government of Canada intended to participate in the war. Paul Heinbecker, Canadian Permanent Representative to the UN (00-03), worked very hard to obtain more time for weapons inspectors. Europe was willing (UK, Fr., Germany, Russia), but US had not interest. There were NEVER protests against the Government of Canada. Protests occurred after Canada decided to stay out of the war, and were centred on the US. Canada was criticised by opposition parties for the participation of less than ten navy personnel participating in Iraq on a NATO exchange. However, Canada's participation in the Coalition and now NATO operations in Afghanistan frees 2300 US troops to fight in Iraq, and the New Democratic Party is correct in stating that this is de facto aid to the US operation, since it would be Americans in Kandahar if Canada wasn't there.

[edit] NZ Casualty

The referance to New Zealand suffering a casualty in iraq appears to be wrong, I can't find any referance on the NZDF website and it doesn't google.

--Alec

[edit] Hondurian withdraw

I think that the Hondurian governement said it's decision was justified by the nomination of the former US ambassador in Honduras John Negroponte as US ambassador in Iraq. But it has to be checked.

[edit] Dutch section

  • Netherlands - Independent contingent of 1,400 troops in Samawah (Southern Iraq). On June 1st, government renewed troop stay through 2005. Netherlands has lost two soldiers in a separate insurgent attacks. In addition, one Danish civilian engineer was killed in March 2004 in an attack.

one Danish civilian engineer.. -> Souldn't this be: -> one Dutch civilian engineer.. - Golf

    • I reinserted this fact with Danish changed into Dutch... - Golf 17:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi soldiers

So when do we start including "Iraqi soldiers" as part of the multi-national coalition?

Are US-UK forces the only military operating inside Iraq now? (September 2004)

Is the new sovereign Iraqi government using foreign armies to prop itself up, or does it have forces of its own?

If Iraq does have an army again, is it only "keeping order" in quiet, peaceful places? Or does this new Iraqi army have a role in putting down the anti-democratic insurgency? --Uncle Ed 19:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Look, the entire warfare that is being waged in Iraq is tribal. This simply means that local Warlord/Clerics are using there influence in trying to get more power. It is an old way of rule that we can see all over history and currently in counties like Afghanistan. There is nothing to be done about this by any other country/army. Basically if we would have wanted a stable Iraq we would have wanted Sadam Housein in power. And than gradually transformed the country into an Democracy by putting money in the pockets of the people... Golf 18:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] UK

The text says, Blair is planning an expansion. But according to the latest news [1], a reduction is more likely. How old/accurate is the "expansion" info? This needs to be updated -- Chris 73 Talk 04:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Italy

it saysIn March 2004, four Italian mercenaries were taken hostage in Iraq. no italian newspaper thinks they were mercenaries

No Nazi newspapers called Nazi soldiers 'monsters' or 'war criminals'.

...and in fact many Italian sources called them mercenari, including the particularly authoritative judgement of judge Giuseppe De Benedictis, who was in charge of investigations regarding the kidnapping [2]. Judge De Benedictis meant this as a technical, not derogatory term: he said it was a "question of grammar" [3].

Italy is erroneously coloured purple as having formerly had forces in Iraq. However, even with the new decision from Prodi, the Italian forces remain in Italy and no fixed date has been set for their withdrawal. Rune X2 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation & Resistance

Cut from article:

Many cities and villages across Iraq have been encircled by occupation forces; and thousands of Iraqis having been arrested and killed to crush popular resistance in order to occupation.

"Many" means more than a few. Please list thes cities and villages somewhere further down in the article -- preferably in the same or next paragraph.

"Thousands ... killed" fails to distinguish between unarmed civilian non-combatants and armed insurgents (such as guerrillas or terrorists).

Dozens of 'American civilians' killed fails to distinguish between murderers & theives such as 'civil engineers' & mercenaries and innocents such as aid workers & missionaries.'

"Popular resistance" is POV. Please cite opinion polls or other sources, if you think "resistance" to "occupation" has popular support. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Liberation', 'nation-building' are also POVs, which you mostly hear from the side of the US public.

[edit] Norway,Tonga and Singapore

Are these troops still there?Because the official MNFI website does not list them as participants and if they include 12 Moldovans,they'd certainly include 45 Tongans? Also I think as long as Norwegians are still there (even if only ten) I'd still count them as participating.

The 45 Tongan marines are still there. Norway has 10 liasion officers in Iraq. Singapore has some kind of a ship in the Gulf with 180 crewmembers, but no soldiers on the ground.

[edit] Ruling of Ukraine's "Verkhovna Rada"

Does this mean all Ukrainian troops will be withdrawn from Iraq? If so, what kind of time frame are we looking at?

[edit] Hungarians are gone

News today said the Hungarians completed their withdrawal,so I'll change their status.


[edit] Quick Victory

I removed the following text from the introduction:

After a quick military victory (attributed by some to "shock and awe") the Coalition -- primarily an initiative of the United States with major support from the United Kingdom -- hunkered down to a long period of occupation.

The military is not yet victorious. There are as many coalition casualties now as there were in the first few months[4].

Ben Arnold 13:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction among forces: coalition vs. reconstruction

It is not clear what role each nation played in Iraq. Not all were part of the invading coalition, but only there for reconstruction purposes (eg. NZ). The opening paragraphs paint quite a different picture. Daniel Collins 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)\

[edit] Insurgents Section not relevant to the topic

And also biased.

[edit] Reference

If anyone's interested, this article is used as a source in Niall Ferguson's Colossus:The Rise and Fall of the American Empire as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq#Invasion_coalition in chapter 4 notes. Sjjb 09:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finding consensus on images

On 11th December, User:Pisslub-S removed the image Polish_soldiers_iraq.jpg from this article and replaced it with six other images. I would like to apologise for reverting this edit as most of the pictures were reasonable. However, the violent images at the head of the article did not relate directly to the focus of the article (the composition of the multinational force) and in this way were biased. I in no way want the censorship of any of these incredibly important (historic, and internationally infamous) images which are verified and have been published by the Washington Times, e.t.c. but these images should be placed in relevant articles such as Human_rights_in_post-Saddam_Iraq. I will happily support any attempt to place such images in the relevant articles.

For this article I propose that the images Ro_apc.jpg, and Ied_alert2.jpg, 10845_danish-troops-3-8-2004.jpg and the original Polish_soldiers_iraq.jpg are replaced in the article. Some will need a crown copyright tag. I would like to hear other opinions on this. Sjjb 14:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I removed the photo of the Polish soldiers because I believe that both the neutral and the bad sides of the coalition need to be publicised. I think that images of dead Iraqi civilians and guerillas are relevant because the majority are caused by the occupying forces. Instead, they are displayed as if they are defending their country, and the Iraqis are the invaders.

I have no problem with keeping images of the soldiers, as long as their victims are also included. This is the case with almost any article on war or conflict in Wikipedia, and the current events in Iraq are no different.

[edit] source/context

The first American President known to have publicly mentioned acting with a "Coalition of the Willing" in place of a UN Mandate was Bill Clinton. Source it, put it in context Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 13:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No source after almost a year; it's been removed, along with the following sentence.--Planetary 05:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

A general comment, has anyone noticed that most of the most visible leaders of the Iraqi war/coalition of the willing Bush, Blair and that Italian guy are all in deep trouble for one reason or another now? I wonder if Howard will be next... Nil Einne 12:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a simplistic comment you make. Who were the 2 main guys against the war? Schroeder (of Germany) & Chirac (of France). What's happened to Schroeder? He was turfed out because he ran an inefficient government who's timidity, in terms of economic reform, undermined his authority - whilst Chirac, who initially wanted to run for another term as President next year, is a lame-duck President who's authority is leeching away to Sarkozy & De Villepin in lieu of next year's election. Seems they're certainly not doing any better than Blair, Bush or Howard (Mr. 70% Approval Rating!) Don't think Howard will be next Nil, no matter your wishful thinking. jkm 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of Title: to "Coalition of the Willing"

The term "Coalition of the Willing" is used predominatly in the article and the talk, and the term "Multinational force in Iraq" is not.

My 2 cents. --P-Chan 18:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I propopse a move below. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contractors

What's with the use of apostrophes on the word contractor? It's a term for any private personell contributing to the reconstruction, which could be both security measures and, for example, building a bridge. The way some of you use this term, one would think it's a synonym to private military contractor. I'm sorry sensationalists, the structural engineers aren't armed with machine guns. Joffeloff 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Most contractors, regardless of whether they are truck drivers, engineers, or armed mercenaries are in essence working for the occupying troops, and even those who don't carry guns often pay other PMC firms to guard them. But I agree, the distinction between their roles should be made clearer.

[edit] Possible Italian withdrawal

The Union appears to have won the elections in Italy. Part of their platform is immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Since Italy has over 2,000 troops in Iraq, this could be a fairly big deal. We'll have to see what happens. --Descendall 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conscription a non-issue

From the article:

Some of the countries in the coalition (Poland, Romania, South Korea) still practice conscription, which raises the issue of whether some of the military forces might not be part of the coalition voluntarily.

But of course there are a fair number of professional British and American soldiers opposed to the intervention as well; the coalition is one of national militaries, not of individual soldiers. I'll remove this bit if noone objects.--Pharos 07:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I believe that the original and only reason for this section was to emphasize the "unwillingness" in the Coalition of the "Willing", which I think is a point worth mentioning. Also, removing the piece on conscription would make this section entirely on Costa Rica's exit, and I am not sure that deserves a whole section. I guess we need more comments on what to do with this material. TheMrE 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Although South Korea does practice conscription, it appears that the Zaytun Division is an all-volunteer force. See this Korea Times article. Perhaps the same is true for Poland and Romania?-- Visviva 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Denmark also has conscription, but only sends volunteers to Iraq. But even if it wasn’t so, the whole issue would remain quite irrelevant, since it’s not a coalition of individuals but a coalition of countries. Rune X2 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

More common title, used by international and U.S. media. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection. This seems like a grossly POV title to me. WP:NPOV trumps Wikipedia:Use common names. -- Visviva 05:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I object. Especially since the current forces are not the original coaltion. In fact, there used to be a seperate article called 'coalition of the willing' but it was merged into this one. Czolgolz 05:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection. Polish soldiers are a part of the Multinational force in Iraq yet polish media never use the polish equivalent of the term "coalition of the willing". Maybe the the term "coalition of the willing" is only frequently used in the US? Mieciu K 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 10:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I object What about Afghanistan??? it was a member of the "coalition of the willing" lol. Furthermore there is no mention of what has happened to its troops. It is coloured in blue in the first image but not the second. In my opinion the term is Bush propaganda and should not be given much credit. What is the translation to spanish? "la coalicion de los deseosos" ? It makes it sound as a bunch of gays who want it up their arses. 88.15.59.243 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split instead?

My bad. Now that I think back on it a split would have been more appropriate than a move. "Coalition of the Willing" is worthy of its own article, just perhaps not this one. Would having a daughter article for the original members of the MNF called Coalition of the Willing be unreasonable or should that be an article about the ter

[edit] Afghanistan

What happened with its troops? There is no mention of it role in the coalition, except that it is coloured blue in the first image.88.15.59.243 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania

Someone moved Romania to the withdrawn countries section. I knew they were planning on pulling out by now, but does anyone have a source? Also, how do you edit that template? Czolgolz 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Romania has NOT withdrawn from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/09/content_5306736.htm How do you edit that template that shows them as withdrawn? Czolgolz 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] +100 states to 1 state...

  • is there a similar article with the deads by country?
  • does anyone know why Israel didn't sent any men? same for the Taiwanese. thanks.
  • a "+10,000" "+100,000" separated chart cells would be more neutral (or fair) as it would show the real face of this "multinational" force. To send 3,000 men is not really like sending 250,000... don't you agree?
  • Amazing! why Mongolia is involved with this? it was a sovietic country and the people in the capital are starving as much as those in North Korea. purely unbelievable! must be some economical support deal with the US behind this isn't it? Shame On You 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MNF objectives

objectives as of May 2006

   * Iraq is at peace with its neighbors
   * Iraq is an ally in the War on Terror
   * To teach Democracy
   * Iraq has a representative government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis
   * Iraq has a security force that can maintain domestic order and deny Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists

The government of Iraq enjoys broad international support, including from nations of the Arab League. Jordan is assisting in training of the Iraqi Security Forces, United Arab Emirates have donated military equipment (bought from Switzerland) and Egypt are actively helping in the reconciliation process, for example.

Iraq is a pluralistic democracy. Iraq's constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, assembly and religion, private ownership of property, privacy and equality before the law. The December 2005 parliamentary election had a 75% voter turnout.

As of September 2006, 302,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped. By the end of 2006, MNF-I believes that all 325,000 planned ISF members will be trained and equipped. ISF may be fully capable of maintaining domestic order sometime in 2007, perhaps with coalition help in logistics, close-air support and medical assistance.[2]


This entire section bothers me. It makes it sound as if Iraq is doing pretty well, and it looks as if it's almost 'mission accomplished'. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to make it clear that the Iraqi security forces are still having immense difficulty maintaining order, and that sectarian violence is spiralling.

ManicParroT 22:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DIagreement within the article

Under the list of nations, the map shows Canada has troops there while the article says there are no longer Canadian troops there. Also would it not make more sense to have the map legend read 1-100? say1988 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

A lot of this material references August 23rd as a date when troop levels were known. This is because GlobalSecurity.org's page is current as of that date. GlobalSecurity.org is not listed as a source for this article but should be listed in numerous places. 72.75.71.234 13:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco and Coalition Monkeys

Why isn't Morocco's contribution of monkeys mentioned anywhere in the article?

Amanojyaku 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage

The absolute number of troops per country is fine, but it doesn't really say much about the investment from the perspective of the individual countries. An issue that frequently brought up by smaller countries – and latest by Australia in regard to the Australian PM's spat with Barack Obama. I think the numbers ought be accompanied by a number detailing the number of troops as a percentage of the population of the nations. Rune X2 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article content bloat

The title of the article states that the subject is the "Multinational force in Iraq" – much of the article moves way beyond this narrow subject. Except for a short introduction in the header, the article should be pruned of all comments to do with rational of invasion or of the rationale of guerrillas and "terrorists", mission objectives etc. These subjects are addressed in the article proper to do with the Iraq War. Rune X2 10:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) This article is seriously bloated because the primary writer/editor is using it to make political arguments rather than attempt to state basic, documented statements.

What the Multinational force is should be the subject. We don'[t need long winded Bush Adkministration rhetoric about how it came to be a coalition of the willing -- not do we need to state the truth that this force was limited by the Bush peopl deciding to take unilateral action and walking off from its allies. Thanks to all those who helped, but this was primarily an American war. The British took their part and mostly got it done. Now they're smat enough to get out before the bottom falls out.

Iraq is no a represetntative government, democracy etc. It doesn't belong here in any event. Iraq is a nation in a full blown civil war (that is the conclusion of all 16 intelligence agencies that come under a Bush appointee as Director of National Intelligence). See the news release on the National Intelligence estimate, but don't cherry pick it. NIEs traditionally nod to the president in the process of statting the truth.

Iraq is falling apart. Why. Read Hugh Hewitt;s interview with General William E. Odom, NSA director under Reagan, say that everything the United States has done has amde thing worse. We can hope that it gets better. But the history of the discussion of this idssue demonstrates that the assembler of non-facts has been clueless about what was actually going on. It's time to stop making Wikipedia articles in certain areas nothing more than radical revisionism for NeoCon Republicans. The President defined victory as being a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. That isn't going to happen with American troops in Iraq.

Alll this article needs is a basic statement of what the Multi-national force was. It does not need a stateent of purpose. That belongs elsewhere. State the number of toops, the countries involved, where they servced and when they left. Leave the political commentation, rationalizations and justifications out. It will be a much more concise, useful article. And it will not be offense in non-factuality to anyone.

[edit] Editing the chart

How do you do that? Buttockhat 12:45, 23rd February 2007 (GMT+1)

[edit] Vandalism: The occupation of Iraq

Pointing out in that section...

"Crystal Stefanik was fired from her job for killing civilians with her fat arms that flew off of her shoulder blades while dancing to Funkytown. Also, she sat on a little Iraqi boy as a punnshment for sitting in her hourly meal of a pund of Spam. Crystals mom had no comment."

W.T.F. I don't know what correct information was there before, so I'll let someone more informed take care of it. Lord GS-41 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted back several edits from the unregistered user at IP 205.235.59.98. This IP has already been blocked several times for vandalism (User talk:205.235.59.98)... I don't know how to do that or warn him or nominate him or whatever... but I'm putting this here so it's on record. Midnightdreary 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dutch

I'm slightly confused that theyre down as currently having "less than 100 soldiers", yet at the same time "more than 1000". 1 is wrong does anyone know whitch?

The latter one is wrong and I've corrected it- they have 15 soldiers in Iraq at the moment. Buttockhat 13:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I got a little confused at first when I loked at the numbers of soldiers each country had contributed with, when i readed it could say in large text "300 soldiers" or "1000 soldiers" and later futher down in the text I see that they rather had mabye "1,200 soldiers" or "7,000 soldiers", thought it mabye was some funny vandalising or something. Then i finaly realized that it was actully the current number of soldiers stationed the now, but then mabye it should say so to. --Nabo0o 10:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Member States

The articles introduction begins noting that "the official White House list of the coalition shows 48 member states, excluding Costa Rica" (which requested to be removed from the list). Yet it seems a number of those coalition countries have withdrawn their troop committments. Do they still remain on the list if troops are withdrawn - it seems so, unless they request to have their names removed, as did Costa Rica, which had no troops anyway? The situation should be made clear in the intro. - Matthew238 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angola

What's the deal with Angola? It's shown on the map as being a part of the original coalition, but there's nothing about it's every having troops there. Did it? If not there should be a section noting countries that were listed as part of the coalition but didn't actually commit any troops. Also, if true, the citation of Michael Moore that several countries had no army should be explained (I seem to recall hearing about this at the time, but don't remember what they were). KarlM 08:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Angola, nor any other African country, had troops deployed to Iraq at any point. This article is not about countries that simply issued statements 'supporting' the war, and indeed, many of those were simply added to the list of 'Willing' nations by the Americans without their knowledge or approval. Buttockhat 11:20, 30 March 2007 (GMT+2)

[edit] Slovenia is not part of the multinational forces in Iraq!

Slovenia is not a member of multinational forces in Iraq. It has instructurs in Nato Training Mission in Iraq. I would propose to make another article about NATO involvement in Iraq.

It's plainly wrong to add Slovenia to the list of multinational forces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.165.99.204 (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Palau

Palau might be a member of the coalition of the willing.[5]--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the numbers of foreign troops in Iraq: past, present and future. It is not about countries that 'supported' the invasion by encouraging others to go off to war. Buttockhat

[edit] Whole article needs thorough review

I've been reading through some of the opening paragraphs, and one easily gets the impression that much of it is biased in support of the invasion and occupation. Some parts could literally have come from the desks of American commanders. Official U.S. statements are the basis of many of the opening paragraphs and are repeated multiple times, while the massive anti-war sentiment in both the West and the Middle East is blatantly downplayed and almost ridiculed. The many controversies and fabrications regarding their case for war are totally ignored. President Bush's quotes and Coalition military objectives are given authority, while any 'critcism' is mentioned in passing within the last couple of lines...

This is Wikipedia, not the CENTCOM Public Relations Department. Come on people, we can do better than this. --Buttockhat 09:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 'Troop deployment in Iraq 2003-present Chart

Can somebody please explain how to edit this, as some entries are out of date. --Buttockhat 09:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added OR template

The intro and everything down to the hard details really are lacking in attributions to verifiable sources and are as of today, making claims without presenting any sort of source to back those claims up. Drawing conclusions without sourcing the material is against policy. Tagged to give Buttockhat a chance to repair his work. Kyaa the Catlord 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'Repair my work'? It's more like I've repaired your work. If you've been following events in Iraq, which I suspect you have, then you know as well as I do that all of the corrections I have made are true. With all due respect I think you should shoulder some of the responsibility that I've taken in fixing up a virulently biased article. Whining about 'citing sources' is no excuse for removing information just because it doesn't fit into your own PoV. --Buttockhat 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not add information to the article that is not properly sourced. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 22:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/l/Talk%7EMultinational_force_in_Iraq_1659.html"