| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| A Look at the "Unilateral" Forces in Iraq |
| 2003-09-26 |
| There are more than 20,000 troops or security forces in Iraq from nations other than the United States, which has 130,000. Most of the non-U.S. troops are organized under two peacekeeping contingents, the British in the south and the Poles in central Iraq. They are: Britain: 7,400; 1,200 more planned. Italy: 3,000 Poland: 2,400 Ukraine: 1,640 Spain: 1,300 Netherlands: 1,106 Romania: 600 Bulgaria: 480 Denmark: 406; 90 more planned for October. Thailand: 400 El Salvador: 360 Honduras: 360 Czech Republic: 312 Dominican Republic: 300 Hungary: 290 Philippines: 177 Mongolia: 174 Norway: 156 Nicaragua: 120 Portugal: 120 Latvia: 106 Lithuania: 90; may send 50 more. Slovakia: 82 Albania: 70 New Zealand: 61 Estonia: 55 Macedonia: 28 Kazakhstan: 27 We will remember, thank you. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #10 Mexico: real pals. Interesting how at the UN, Vicente made sure he was in the photo op with Bush and a few other bigs... Did anyone else notice this little group too? Albania: 70 Macedonia: 28 Greece:0. Hmmm, and if the Turks help out... That list totals up to about 20,000. Pretty respectable. But then these are nations with self-respect... |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-9-27 4:25:21 AM |
| #9 Geebus.... Canada used to keep a jumbo Brigade in Germany... a sort of mini-division. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-9-26 8:31:23 PM |
| #8 Yes. The Canadian practice is to have, at any one time, three battalions on duty, three training for duty, and three rotated off for rest. They're already full up with other comittments, including Afghanistan. Sad. They were a very credible second tier force. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-9-26 8:22:38 PM |
| #7 The Canadians have a total of nine infantry battalions in their army, and about three or so are currently committed to peacekeeping duties in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Its not that they are unwilling (well they probably are), its that they haven't any troops left to deploy, at least not without going on a wartime basis. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-26 8:07:52 PM |
| #6 The Canadians have a total of nine infantry battalions in their army, and about three or so are currently committed to peacekeeping duties in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Its not that they are unwilling (well they probably are), its that they haven't any troops left to deploy, at least not without going on a wartime basis. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-26 8:05:33 PM |
| #5 thank you Mexico...oh, wait, not there? Must be because your crack troops are deployed along the border to prevent illegal immigration and drug trafficking...er, not there either? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-26 6:19:24 PM |
| #4 PM Bertie Ahern of the Republic of Ireland was in Albany, NY, last week and apparently mentioned that the Irish may soon join the "Unilateral" force. I've also read (sorry, no link) that Finland may sign on, too. |
| Posted by: JDB 2003-9-26 5:22:54 PM |
| #3 Apparently, this is the multilateral form of unilateralism... :-) |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-9-26 5:18:26 PM |
| #2 Funny how Canada, supposedly a nation of "peacekeepers", is not on this list. |
| Posted by: LMJ 2003-9-26 5:05:44 PM |
| #1 We seem to have a growing list of friends. I'm glad to see that. Actually, I'm sure there are many reasons these countries have sent peace-keepers to Iraq. One I think is primary in the mind of every leader of any nation on earth is, "we may be next" - not that the United States may invade them next, but that they may be the target of Islamic fanatics. Having a few people well-trained in how to deal with that kind of situation, plus the good wishes of the United States, can be the difference between an "incident" and a "disaster". Whatever the reason, we're glad to have you, and have a (insert national drink of choice) on us! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-26 4:47:59 PM |