Résultats de recherche
The term coalition of the willing was applied to the United States-led Multi-National Force – Iraq, the military command during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and much of the ensuing Iraq War. The coalition was led by the U.S. federal government.
The term coalition of the willing refers to a temporary international partnership created for the purpose of achieving a particular objective, usually of military or political nature. [1]
- Introduction
- How Significantly Has The Coalition shrunk?
- Which Nations Contribute Significant Components of The Coalition?
- What Does A Smaller Coalition Mean For U.S. Forces in Iraq?
- Why Are Countries Pulling out?
- What Role Does National Politics Play?
- What Happens If Britain Pulls Its Troops out?
- Has Britain Been Successful at Securing Basra?
- What Roles Do Other Coalition Members Play in Iraq?
- How Many Casualties Have Coalition Forces incurred?
The size and scope of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq has dwindled since the height of the invasion in 2003. Britain, the largest member of the coalition after the United States, recently announced plans to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq in the months ahead and to shift their combat role to support and training. U.S. and British officials say this ...
Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, thirty-eight countries supplied around 25,000 forces. Those numbers have dwindled to twenty-five countries and roughly 15,000 troops, the vast majority of which are stationed in the relatively peaceful south and engage primarily in training, support, and reconstruction missions. The most significant reductio...
Britain fields the largest force (7,100 troops) behind the United States. After Britain, the biggest forces belong to South Korea (2,300), Poland (900), Australia and Georgia (800 each), and Romania (600). Prior to its withdrawal, Italy boasted the third-largest coalition force in Iraq.
Some experts say the dwindling coalition should be cause for concern, and could even set back eventual U.S. plans for a gradual pullout. “Who replaces them?” asks Barry Posen, professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Our forces [in Iraq] have been on an upward curve since May 2003, and today are at their highest...
As casualties mount, citizens of many of the coalition nations are asking: Was it worth the effort? Many of these nations committed troops in exchange for some form of U.S.assistance, experts say. During a November 2005 visit to Mongolia, for example, President Bush pledged $11 million for its 120 “fearless warriors” in Iraq as part of the White Ho...
A strong one, experts say. In many cases, the drawdown of coalition forces is affected more by political timetables in member nations than by conditions on the ground in Iraq. Political opposition groups have exploited the global unpopularity of the Iraq war to galvanize public support. (The strongest example of this was Spain’s immediate withdrawa...
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said British plans for a drawdown of forces in Basra would not likely affect U.S. efforts to build up its forces in Baghdad. Yet others say a partial pullout of British forces could leave a security vacuum in their wake. “The British are the long pole in the tent,” Posen says. “If they got tired all at once, it wou...
Experts and U.S. officials disagree. “They have made some progress on the ground,” White House spokesman Tony Snow recently told reporters, referring to British efforts to train and stand up Iraqi security forces. Basra has generally been more stable and less violence-prone than Baghdad and Anbar Province. Yet others say Britain has left Basra and ...
Coalition forces serve different functions in Iraq. Most of them operate in a non-combat capacity, except for the British, who largely patrol southern Iraq near Basra. Members such as Poland are instrumental in training Iraqi forces, while others, notably Japan and South Korea, are more active in reconstruction efforts. South Korea has been tasked ...
Since March 2003, Britain has lost 132 troops, while the rest of the coalition has incurred around one hundred casualties in total. These statistics do not include contractors, journalists, aid workers, and other foreign nationals killed in Iraq.
- Lionel Beehner
The international press has repeatedly mocked the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’. The press claims that these countries did not join the coalition in order to help liberate the Iraqi people, but because they were motivated by self-interest.
Summary. There has been widespread support for the idea that the so-called international community has a remedial moral responsibility to protect vulnerable populations from mass atrocities when their own governments fail to do so.
- Toni Erskine
- 2015
28 mars 2003 · What is the "coalition of the willing?" The group of nations that Bush administration officials describe as America's partners in the U.S.-led effort to oust Saddam...
19 juin 2006 · The shrinking US “coalition of the willing” in Iraq has come to resemble more a coalition of the reluctant, as allies weigh up the costs of continued involvement in an unpopular war against the...
