Talk:Multinational force in Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
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.
Article policies
Archives: 1

/Archive 1

Contents

[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)

Good point Amanojyaku about the over sight of the monkeys being not being included in the Coalition of the willing article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fffforest (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 September 2007 (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.[1]--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)

[edit] Last edit by 160.39.244.12

I reverted your edit because, frankly, it's incorrect. Those countries haven't played 'pivotal combat roles' at all, especially the spanish, italians and polish who were confined to their bases most of the time and had orders to avoid engagements. The Australians are patrolling, but that cannot be described as a 'combat' operation, as they are in the south of the country where there is little hostility towards the coalition. The British are engaged in occasional raids, patrols, and responding to bombings...but again- i don't honestly see how that equates to combat. The Americans are the only nation engaged in fighting.

[edit] WHY WHY WHY

Why are we even still in Iraq? Are we the US's pups or something. Someone respond please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steelykid.master (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Who's 'we'? --Buttockhat 10:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this at all relevant?

[edit] Improving cites

I noticed that most of the cites in this article aren't styled very well. Take the first three for example -- assertion1[1], assertion2[2], assertion3[3]. IMHO it would be much more useful if the corresponding cites instead of appearing as something like:

References

  1. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/
  2. ^ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html
  3. ^ http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/breuropera/74.php?nid=&id=&pnt=74&lb=breu

... they appeared as something like (using cite.php tags)

References

  1. ^ "Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'", CNN, 20 November 2002. Retrieved on 2007-05-14. 
  2. ^ The White House (27 March 2003). "Operation Iraqui freedom: Coalition Members". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-05-14.
  3. ^ Among Key Iraq Partners, Weak Public Support for Troop Presence. WorldPublicOpinion.org (14 October 2005). Retrieved on 2007-05-14.


or (using ref_label/note_label templates to hook the links and backlinks together) if assertion1[CNN 20 Nov 2002], assertion2[WH.gov 27 Mar 2003], assertion3[WPO.org 14 Oct 2005] appeared as something like:

References (note the manually-maintained alphabetical ordering of cited sources)

The cite.php method is more common in the wikipedia articles I've read; the ref/note templates produce more useful inline cite labels (IMHO), but editors are less likely to be familar with these than with cite.php tags. Can we have a discussion or a straw poll about:

  1. should the cites in this article be beautified?
  2. if so, beautified in what style?

There are currently about 50 cites in the article; at the rate of 10 per day, beautifying them would take 5 days of part-time work. I'm willing to work on that (alone if need be, in combination with others if possible). How about it? -- Boracay Bill 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC) re-edited Boracay Bill 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the citation in this article should be better organised. I think your first suggestion looks the best and I'm ready to start overhauling the cites as soon as we get a reasonable consensus. --Buttockhat 08:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Level of Australian participation in the coalition

There seems to be some question about this, which affects whether Australia is "... in the coalition" at a level of "More than 1,000 soldiers" or "More than 100 soldiers". The answer to this question seems to depend on the answer to a Clintonesque question asking: "What is the meaning of the term in".

The Australian Government, at http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/, says, "Operation Catalyst is the Australian Defence Force (ADF) contribution to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq. [...] Operation Catalyst currently comprises up to 1575 Australian Defence Force personnel."

In his edit of 16:20, May 22, 2007, User:Buttockhat said: "kept the 'More than 100 soldiers' one, because 518 troops + 100 embassy guards + 20 advisors doesn't total more than 1000". I have not moved the Australia entry up to "More than 1,000 soldiers", but I do question its placement under "More than 100 soldiers". -- Boracay Bill 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

> The title of this article, 'Multinational force in Iraq', clearly implies that the listings of Coalition members should include forces 'on the ground' in Iraq, not air units on bases in countries around Iraq, and not naval forces in the Persian Gulf, although they definitely deserve to be mentioned. If we were to include troops involved in 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' that were not deployed to Iraq as such, then we might as well add Canada as a member of the Coalition because it sent a number of ships during the initial invasion phase. Obviously, this would be inappropriate...

The remainder of the 1575 Australian (out of the 618 that are involved in ground operations) are deployed as follows: 400 soldiers in the Persian Gulf region (which I assume means Kuwait), around 200-300 manning Hercules transport and Orion reconaissance aircraft presumably in Qatar, Kuwait, or Bahrain (how frequently they actually travel to Iraq might need to be ascertained), and almost 200 on a naval frigate patrolling the sea south of Iraq.

These deployments fulfil a support role, are not involved in combat, and have little or no effect on the tactical situation in Iraq. --Buttockhat 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

The map depicting the original members of the "coalition of the willing" found (Coalition of the willing original.PNG) include Turkey. In addition, Image:Country positions Iraq war.png shows Turkey as one of those that participated in the initial invasion. I cannot find any sources or references for these claims. Please point me to the right citations, otherwise I will nominate both images to be change to remove Turkey. Javit 22:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=turkey+iraq+%22coalition+of+the+willing%22 turned up a bunch of hits, including
  • Steve Schifferes. "" US names 'coalition of the willing'", BBC News, 18 March 2003. Retrieved on 2007-05-26. "Full list of coalition countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Source: US State Department" 

and

  • Paolo Pasicolan and Carrie Satterlee (19 March 2003). "Coalition of the Willing" Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf War coalition. The heritage Fooundation. Retrieved on 2007-05-26. “Turkey: Hosts U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. Parliament has rejected a resolution to allow use of airspace and deployment of American troops for an attack on Iraq but the cabinet was to debate the resolution again on Tuesday with a possible parliamentary vote on Wednesday. (Update: 3/19 Turkey has granted the United States the use of its airspace.)”

I haven't tried to run down a source to support this, but I vaguely recall hearing accounts that the initial invasion plans included entry of a blocking force sortied from Turkey and moving southwards through western Iraq to seal off the Syrian and Jordanian borders, and that this never happened because Turkey withdrew their approval for it. -- Boracay Bill 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC) (corrected Boracay Bill 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Latvia

Latvia withdrew its troops in the second half of June, alas I do not remember the exact date. By the way, does anybody know about the current status of Mongolian peacekeepers (their mandate expired in April).Dimts 05:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia

I cannot access the table Iraq War Coalition troop deployment. There is a minor correction that should be made. Namely, Macedonian troops are deployed from June 2003 (6/03), not from July 2003 (7/03). Please make that correction (Zdravko mk 08:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Troop number sources?

Does anyone have verification for the number soldiers various countries have sent (and withdrawn). Most sources I see quote the number of Nicaraguan soldiers at 115, though here the number withdrawn is listed at 230, exactly twice that. Seems strange. The New York Times[2] quotes 115, as do a variety of other sources.Sammermpc 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And what about the "United Kingdom - 4,000,000 troops in Southern Iraq as of April 2008"? Walkabout86 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UNAMI

Anyone else think that United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq should be moved back to its own page, rather than as a subsection here? Most UN mandates have their own pages, and I don't think this one is less deserving. There are many resolutions and reports out of the UN concerning only it. Having its own page makes it much more easy to reference to wikipedia from outside webpages and to mark-up the word UNAMI wherever it occurs in a document. This is one of the many utilizations of wikipedia from the rest of the net.Goatchurch 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private Security Contractors

PSCs do not fall under MNF-I organizational structure, and do not belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.52 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've noticed one error on this page-the number of Albanian soldiers is wrong. There are still 120 troops with the coalition. The reference that is being used to give a count of 70 was misread. That paragraph states, and I quote: "in the months after toppling saddam...Forces ranged from 2000 Australians to 70 albanians." So that's the old number, from before the reinforcement. The present number is in fact 120 servicemen. Please fix.192.30.202.29 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC) From the Balkans

[edit] South Korea

Unless I'm mistaken, all 200 remaining South Korean forces were withdrawn following the Korean hostage crisis earlier this year. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.13.202 (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 Right news, but wrong country-those troops where withdrawn form afghanistian, not Iraq( Part of the release of Korean missionary hostages by the talibian). Hope this helps.216.208.38.26 00:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Trainman 2

[edit] EstPla 11

Where does it come from that EstPla 11 is special forces? 71.102.74.156 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine

Ukraine has withdrawn all of the soldiers, but 26 officers and 8 ncos are still deployed there. How and where would it be to best note this? ref on Ukrainian MOD website - http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?part=peacekeeping&lang=ua&sub=iraq Ceriy (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)