What happened to the 'coalition of the willing'?
Cobbled together to deflect claims of U.S. unilateralism, the 'coalition' in Iraq left a lot be be desired to begin with, and it's now a mere shadow of what it once was.
By Neil Ripley
nripley@niemanwatchdog.org
Back in March 2003, as the Bush administration was preparing for war without UN approval, President Bush touted a "coalition of the willing" to deflect claims of unilateral U.S. action. At that time, the White House reported that 49 countries, including the United States, were committed to the coalition.
The administration makes little mention of the coalition these days. Some say it never amounted to much to begin with, what with the absence of leading American allies and Muslim countries; other countries supplying very small numbers of soldiers; and those often in only a back-up role. But where does the coalition stand today?
At a May 9 hearing of a House Foreign Relations Committee panel, (the full transcript of which is now available on the House Web site) witnesses explained that the coalition is now about half of what it once was.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office, said that as of May 2007, only 25 nations are in the coalition. Those nations are contributing 12,600 troops -- more than 7,000 coming from Great Britain. That’s compared to approximately 145,000 U.S. troops. Coalition forces have declined 47.5 percent from a December 2003 peak of 24,000, and currently account for just 8 percent of multinational forces in Iraq.
And Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist with the Congressional Research Service, reported that “very few partner forces, coalition partners, are in the five most restive provinces: That is, Baghdad Province, Al Anbar, Salahuddin, Diyala, and Nineveh Province. The conclusion one could draw is that partner forces are not much of a factor on the actual battlefield per se, if one defines battlefield as combat primarily against Sunni insurgents. The bulk of actual combat is conducted by American forces, with the Iraqi security forces in a supporting role, and, I would argue, very much in the background on the combat.”
Katzman submitted the following chart:
(Shown here:)
By Neil Ripley
nripley@niemanwatchdog.org
Back in March 2003, as the Bush administration was preparing for war without UN approval, President Bush touted a "coalition of the willing" to deflect claims of unilateral U.S. action. At that time, the White House reported that 49 countries, including the United States, were committed to the coalition.
The administration makes little mention of the coalition these days. Some say it never amounted to much to begin with, what with the absence of leading American allies and Muslim countries; other countries supplying very small numbers of soldiers; and those often in only a back-up role. But where does the coalition stand today?
At a May 9 hearing of a House Foreign Relations Committee panel, (the full transcript of which is now available on the House Web site) witnesses explained that the coalition is now about half of what it once was.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office, said that as of May 2007, only 25 nations are in the coalition. Those nations are contributing 12,600 troops -- more than 7,000 coming from Great Britain. That’s compared to approximately 145,000 U.S. troops. Coalition forces have declined 47.5 percent from a December 2003 peak of 24,000, and currently account for just 8 percent of multinational forces in Iraq.
And Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist with the Congressional Research Service, reported that “very few partner forces, coalition partners, are in the five most restive provinces: That is, Baghdad Province, Al Anbar, Salahuddin, Diyala, and Nineveh Province. The conclusion one could draw is that partner forces are not much of a factor on the actual battlefield per se, if one defines battlefield as combat primarily against Sunni insurgents. The bulk of actual combat is conducted by American forces, with the Iraqi security forces in a supporting role, and, I would argue, very much in the background on the combat.”
Katzman submitted the following chart:
(Shown here:)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home