
FRICTION ACCOMPLISHED When Tony Blair reluctantly steps down as prime minister later this month, he'll join a long list of political casualties of war. To show support for America's Iraq debacle is a radioactive position for most heads of state these days. To offer support is downright lethal. Yet, whether borne out of loyalty or opportunism, we still have a few friends around the world willing to get our back
Remember the "Coalition of the Willing?" Those countries that trailed right behind us like a rapper's entourage as we rolled into Baghdad to give Saddam a little taste of American freedom? In all, there are still about 12,000 foreign troops fighting for our president in Iraq, plucked seemingly at random from a battle-ready Epcot Center of 27 different nationalities. (Mongolia sent 160 infantrymen. Mongolia!) Some offered succor in a symbolic gesture of solidarity, others in a blatant bid for NATO recognition.
Given the vastly disproportionate number of American boots on the ground (150,000), it's hard to argue that the "coalition" is anything more than international garnish on a U.S. venture. But it should be recognized that many thousands of non-American soldiers have gone to Iraq since 2003, and nearly 300 of them have died. Many still remain despite the catastrophic strategy failures and raging chaos, but significant withdrawals have taken their toll on the dream team. Spain pulled out after the March 2004 terrorist bombings in Madrid, and more than a dozen others have followed suit. Of those who packed it in, Italy suffered the most casualties, with 33 soldiers killed.
So, as Bush's base of support disintegrates at home, who's still holding his hand in Baghdad? And who's inching toward the door? Below, Radar's comprehensive, country-by-country State of the Coalition Report, from A to Z.
ALBANIA 120 troops
Albania's defense minister has stated that his armed forces "will stay on the side of the American armed forces in Iraq until the mission will be over." And there's no reason to doubt his sincerity. Albania has been one of America's staunchest allies in Iraq. It was one of the few countries to contribute troops to the initial invasion, and currently has 120 troops patrolling the Mosul airport.
Unlike most U.S. partners, the Albanian government has not been buffeted by the domestic political unrest which generally accompanies Iraq involvement. There were grumblings over its parliament's decision to strip Albanian security forces of their weapons during President Bush's recent visit, but support for the U.S. remains high. Clad in a T-shirt bearing the United States' official seal, the mayor of Albania's largest city assured a New York Times reporter that "Albania is for sure the most pro-American country in Europe, maybe even in the world." It should come as no surprise that the U.S. is also backing Albania's NATO bid.
ARMENIA 46 troops
Armenia's 46-man delegation is comprised mostly of truck drivers. And to make sure that the depth of Armenia's commitment to the mission was fully grasped, the prime minister advised that his country's presence in Iraq is "primarily symbolic and for political purposes." While this probably did not boost the morale of the Armenians currently risking their lives in Karbala and nearby town al-Hila, it appears to aptly characterize the views of a country that was probably forced into participating by its desire to keep up with their neighbors—Georgia and Azerbaijan (Armenia's hated rival)—who have been more enthusiastic in vying for U.S. support and gratitude.
AUSTRALIA 1,300 troops, 1 fatality
Australian troops were among the very first to invade Iraq, having been assigned with taking out Saddam's scud missiles a day before the initial U.S. bombing campaign began in March 2003. And while Australian Prime Minster John Howard has suffered politically for his outspoken support of the mission, he recently reaffirmed Australia's commitment to keeping troops there until the Iraqi government can defend itself.
Azerbaijan is one of three Muslim countries with troops in Iraq. Having sent about 900 soldiers in since 2003, Azerbaijani forces currently number about 150—many of whom are protecting an electricity-generating dam in Iraq's violent Al-Anbar province. Azerbaijan is contemplating the desirability of NATO membership, and, far more importantly, wants U.S. support of their grievance with Armenia's occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory (which is in Azerbaijan but populated mostly by Armenians). Earlier this year, Azerbaijani officials angrily implied that their country's involvement in Iraq was about to end after wording in a U.S. State Department report about the dispute was construed to favor the Armenian perspective. U.S. officials, who may value Azerbaijan's oil reserves and strategic location more than its contribution to Iraq, quickly cleared up the misunderstanding.
Shortly after the 2003 invasion, a top Bosnian Serb leader resigned in the wake of allegations that he had condoned illegal arms sales to Saddam Hussein. But Bosnia-Herzegovina now has 36 de-mining experts in Iraq; the small force includes members from each of the three ethnic groups that fought the bloody civil war that tore the country apart in the early 1990s.
Britain's full-bore support for the mission in Iraq is well-known. Less-discussed is the fate of the vital city of Basra, where Britain is now reducing its troop commitment by 2,100.
Basra is where most of Iraq's oil is, and therefore the country's future hinges in many ways on who controls Basra's local government institutions and oil facilities. The Iranians seem to recognize this, as the top contenders for control of Basra include several militias that are falling increasingly under Iran's sway.
As the British withdraw, the power struggle between warring militias is certain to escalate, with a distinct advantage going to those who have access to a steady supply of weapons and resources. According to a local intelligence official, "In Basra, Iran has more influence than the government in Baghdad. It is providing the militias with everything from socks to rockets."
Departing Prime Minister Tony Blair explained the idea behind the troop reduction thusly: "There is real progress there and we don't want to get in the way of that progress." But Britain's last-minute decision to pull the plug on Prince Harry's Basra tour suggests the true British assessment may be more in line with the views of an Iraqi law professor, who said, "If the Prophet Muhammad would come to Basra today, he would be killed, because he doesn't have a militia. There is no state of law, the only law is the militia law."
In 2003, Bulgaria strongly supported U.S aims in Iraq. Then, in 2004, Bulgaria achieved the NATO membership it coveted, and in December 2005, pulled its contingent of nearly 500 troops out of Iraq. Support for the war had plummeted after nearly 20 Bulgarian soldiers and civilians were killed, including two who were beheaded and a soldier who was accidentally killed by U.S. forces.
But in 2006, 120 Bulgarian troops returned to Iraq to guard Camp Ashraf. The facility is officially characterized as a "refugee camp," but could be more accurately described as the "holding tank for the military arm of the National Council of Resistance of Iran." While the Mujahideen e-Khalq, or MEK, did a lot of Saddam Hussein's dirty work—and is officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S.—the combination of its militaristic tendencies with a virulent hatred of the Iranian leadership has piqued the interest of many top U.S. officials, who have ensured that these 4,000 "refugees" have their own special Bulgarian-protected playground in Iraq.
The 360 El Salvadoran soldiers in southern Iraq are all that remains from a Spanish-speaking coalition that once included soldiers from Spain, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. By most accounts, the Salvadorans are putting on an impressive performance.
In 2004, a Salvadoran battled fiercely through an ambush set by members of Muqtada Al-Sadr's militia, fighting off insurgents with a knife after running out of ammunition. "We never considered surrender," said one of the soldiers. "I was trained to fight until the end." According to one U.S. official, "You hear this snotty phrase, 'Coalition of the Billing' for some of the smaller contingents. The El Sals? No way. These guys are punching way above their weight. They're probably the bravest and most professional troops I've ever worked with."
El Salvador's work in Iraq may be paying off back home. The country was the first country to be recommended for trade with the U.S. under a new Central American free trade agreement. And late last year, the U.S. gave El Salvador an economic development package worth nearly $500 million.
When it comes to Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is widely regarded as the Dwight Schrute to President Bush's Michael Scott. But that's probably because people haven't paid much attention to the aggressive toadyism of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
At a time when even the staunchest U.S. allies are preparing to withdraw from Iraq, Georgia is doubling down. Its recent decision to increase troop levels from 850 to 2,000 can be attributed in a large measure to the country's strong interest in having U.S.-trained troops capable of crushing separatist movements within Georgia, and also to rising tensions with neighboring Russia. The rocky relationship—which once involved Russia cutting off Georgia's natural gas supply in the middle of the winter—has made NATO membership a top priority. And Shalva Pichkhadzehas, head of the organization in charge of getting Georgia into NATO, has not been shy in linking the country's support in Iraq to NATO membership: "We are showing them [the U.S.] that if we are admitted to NATO, they will have a really faithful ally. We say, 'We will be your ally and will do whatever we can for you, and you, in your turn, help us join NATO.'"
Like other Eastern European countries on the cusp of NATO membership, Latvia was extremely supportive of U.S. objectives prior to the start of the war. Close ties with the U.S. were likely seen as especially important to the Latvians right before the war commenced, as Russia had just stopped oil shipments through the country in an effort to bully them into selling a major port facility. President Bush voiced support for Latvia's position on the Russian cut-off a month before the war began. Arguing in favor of sending troops to Iraq, the Latvian prime minister noted that the country's "symbolic support will have great significance if Latvia later needs international support." Latvia gained NATO membership in 2004, and plans to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq this month but has pledged to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.
Another Eastern European country that places a high value on NATO membership and U.S. friendship, Lithuania first sent boots to Iraq in June 2003.
While a steadfast U.S. ally, Lithuania did cut its troop commitment in half in 2006, and internal rifts regarding a full withdrawal have recently risen to the surface. On the same day that England and Denmark announced major troop reductions earlier this year, the Lithuanian defense ministry advised the media it was seriously considering withdrawal as well. The defense minister was promptly rebuked by Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus: "We should not now run away from a complicated situation at the first opportunity.... If Lithuania today withdrew from Iraq without waiting for a joint decision, I would not be proud of it."
The Greeks of course have their own Macedonia, and strongly oppose recognizing the young country simply as the "Republic of Macedonia" for territorial and cultural reasons. Particularly maddening to the Greeks are the country's efforts to claim Alexander the Great as one of its own.
A year after Macedonia sent troops to Iraq—and several months after Secretary of State Colin Powell had to cancel a visit because of massive Greek anti-war protests—the Bush Administration infuriated the Greeks by announcing that it would be recognizing Macedonia by its preferred name. The president of Macedonia called it the biggest diplomatic victory in the country's short history.
Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, a place where people resort to things like prostitution and selling bodily organs to survive. But they have sent about 75 troops to Iraq since 2003, something the Communist Moldovan president has called "making a contribution to international security." Moldova is generally not known for such contributions, as it has long been a useful conduit for international arms-traffickers and other nefarious types. This can be attributed in part to the government's powerlessness over the Transnistria breakaway province that is aligned with Russia and has been suspected of being used to ship weapons to insurgent forces in Iraq. The U.S. has joined Moldova in protesting the presence of Russian troops in the disputed region. Eleven Moldovan de-mining experts returned home earlier this year, and it's unclear how many remain, but another set of Moldovan troops in Iraq would not be surprising given their keen interest in modernizing their military with U.S. and NATO assistance.
Mongolian participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom was a surprise to everyone, including the U.S. That's because U.S. officials didn't even think to ask the former Soviet satellite in East Asia if they wanted tickets to the big gun show. But they did, and an infantry company of Mongolian troops has been in Iraq since 2003.
For many Iraqis, this is something of an unwanted encore performance by the Mongolians, who last came to Iraq in the 13th century under the leadership of Genghis Khan's grandson Hulagu Khan. The Mongol invaders leveled Baghdad so completely—killing by some estimates as many as a million people—that many Sunnis still hold a bitter grudge with the Shi'a over it, believing that a Shi'a opened the city gates for the Mongols.
But the Mongolian commander in Iraq says that their intentions are honorable this time: "Then, we went to invade. This time, we are going to build Iraq." Mongolia's eager coziness with the U.S. has been noticed with disfavor by some of its neighbors, particularly those who will probably be spied on by U.S. listening posts that may or may not be under construction in Mongolia. (Hello, China and Russia!)
Mongolia seems satisfied with the return on their Iraq investment. They've gained valuable U.S. assistance in modernizing their military, scored a U.S. trade deal, and were even paid a visit by President Bush in 2005, the first-ever visit by a U.S. president. As one Mongolian official proudly described the fruits of their labor, "Now everyone will know where Mongolia is." (FYI, it's here.)
Dutch troops may not have been that enthusiastic about the mission either, as they were rumored to have threatened to go on strike while in Iraq over low pay. After the Iraqi elections in January 2005, the Dutch quickly called the mission a success and withdrew all but 15 of their troops. "There are no reasons, no security reasons, to stay any longer," said one Dutch official.
At the war's outset, it was suggested that Polish involvement stemmed from its people's solidarity with the oppressed people of Iraq. But the Polish foreign minister threw cold water on that vibe when he said that access to Iraqi oil fields "is our ultimate objective" in Iraq. (This is an understandable desire given Poland's reliance on Russian oil imports.) Another likely factor is a general Polish interest in establishing close ties with the U.S. to buttress its second-rate status in the European Union.
In Iraq, the country's been a strong but at times disgruntled ally. The Polish president complained in 2004 about being "misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction." And the left-wing government which initially led Poland into the war was ousted a year later, some say because of a perception that it wasn't getting enough out of the U.S. in return for their Iraq efforts. The new government has kept pushing back plans for withdrawal, but say now that its troops will be out of Iraq by the end of this year.
But the country's involvement in Iraq still sparked a highly publicized falling-out in the Romanian political leadership last year, after the prime minister and defense chief unexpectedly announced that plans for expedited troop withdrawal were being drawn up. A furious president squashed these plans the very next day, ensuring that troops would remain in Iraq for at least a while longer. The president, who later survived an impeachment bid (mostly unrelated to the Iraq controversy), maintains his support for troops in Iraq, while the prime minister stands behind his belief that having troops in Iraq is "unpopular and no longer useful."
President Bush had a strong ally in Slovakian Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda, who supported the mission in Iraq with encouraging words and more than 100 Slovakian troops. After a visit from Bush in 2005, Dzurinda blasted the media's portrayal of the situation in Iraq and predicted that it was "only a question of time when people in Slovakia, in Germany, in European countries, will understand more that this activity [the invasion of Iraq] was necessary." But the Slovakian people tossed him from office in a 2006 election, replacing him with a leftist named Robert Fico who called the war "unjust and wrong" and promptly withdrew all but 11 of the country's troops.
There is a long list of nations that sent troops to Iraq when it looked like it could be a winning proposition, but pulled out when things started going sour. Slovenia is on the much shorter list of countries that waited until the war was massively unpopular before sending troops. But the Slovenian defense minister made sure that the country's big commitment of four troops through NATO (which it joined in 2004) will be as low-risk as possible, promising reporters that it would be stationed at a "specially protected" training center.
Shortly after South Korea announced it was increasing its troop commitment by 3,000, a South Korean civilian in Iraq was kidnapped and brutally murdered by Iraqi insurgents. Before beheading him, the insurgents released a video of the man pleading for his life and begging South Korea to withdraw its troops from Iraq.
But South Korea stuck with their original commitment, motivated by the need to maintain close ties with the U.S., the opportunity to battle-test its military, and the allure of Iraq's abundant natural resources. South Korean imports of Iraqi crude have increased dramatically since 2003; folded into a recent announcement of a $100 million loan to Iraq were not-so-subtle references to its interest in jointly developing oil fields with the Iraqis. Nevertheless, South Korean officials are gradually decreasing the country's troop levels and may submit a plan for full withdrawal to the legislature soon.
The U.S. reportedly suspended aid to the Ukraine in 2002, because of a secret tape recording in which former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma personally approved illegal sales of aircraft detection equipment to the regime of Saddam Hussein. Kuchma's efforts to overcome this controversy probably got a boost when his country supplied one of the largest contingents in Iraq, a 1,650-strong force. Ukraine's sizable support was short-lived, however, and after the 2004 election and the so-called Orange Revolution, newly elected President Viktor Yushchenko followed through on his campaign promise to bring the troops home in 2005. Still, there are a handful of Ukrainian soldiers in Iraq training border police.
Posted by: freedomizationdotcom on June 17, 2007 1:34 PM
Nice piece. It looks like Albania should have sent more troops. Then maybe things wouldn't have gone so wrong...