Colonel William A. Phillips

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Iraq

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

International relations B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Morocco and Coalition Monkeys

Why isn't Morocco's contribution of monkeys mentioned anywhere in the article?

Amanojyaku 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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.

This is a garbage-y article, more like it was trying to be a newspaper for 'who has left Iraq' as it occurred. it has little merit the way it is presented. 162.213.136.97 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the chart

How do you do that? Buttockhat 12:45, 23rd February 2007 (GMT+1)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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).[reply]

Palau

Palau might be a member of the coalition of the willing.[1]--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

Do not add information to the article that is not properly sourced. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 22:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

References

^ "Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'". CNN. 20 November 2002. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Operation Iraqui freedom: Coalition Members" (Press release). The White House. 27 march 2003. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Among Key Iraq Partners, Weak Public Support for Troop Presence". WorldPublicOpinion.org. 14 October 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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)

CNN 20 Nov 2002: ^a "Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'". CNN. 20 November 2002. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
WH.gov 27 Mar 2003: ^a "Operation Iraqui freedom: Coalition Members" (Press release). The White House. 27 march 2003. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
WPO.org 14 Oct 2005: ^a "Among Key Iraq Partners, Weak Public Support for Troop Presence". WorldPublicOpinion.org. 14 October 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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:

should the cites in this article be beautified?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

> 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=turkey+iraq+%22coalition+of+the+willing%22 turned up a bunch of hits, including

Steve Schifferes (18 March 2003). " "US names 'coalition of the willing'". BBC News. Retrieved 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 {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

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 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.) {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PSCs DO fall under UCMJ while working for DoD (ALL DoD contractors are under UCMJ when serving on DoD installations or missions). Those working for State Dept fall under USC and/or Iraqi civil codes. I'm aware of stories to the contrary in the press and even in Congress. There's an article of the UCMJ that specifically addresses status of contractors. I'm correcting this section to reflect that.Mzmadmike (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

 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[reply]

EstPla 11

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

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)[reply]

Australia

The Australian Army has withdrawn from Iraq, the remaining 700 soldiers have returned to Australia. Apropriat corrections to the article should be made. Here is the reference http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/World_23/Troops_welcomed_home_as_Australia_quits_Iraq.shtml.(Top Gun)

Jeffery Hammond

Why is there no article on Jeffery Hammond (Jeffery W. Hammond), the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq? Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's the commanding general of Multinational Division - Bagdhad (MND-B). The MNF-I CG is GEN Petraeus, soon to be GEN Odierno.

MNF-I vs MNC-I

There's a lot of confusion in the difference between these two. The Corps controls virtually all combat forces in the area, whereas MNF-I is more or less a big tent that Corps and MNSTC-I fall under that provides a lot of political top cover for the Corps. A citation explaining this in more detail (Something like a subheading reading "subordinate commands to MNF-I") might be well served. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.9.226 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anti iraq bias

no mention of US disrespect for UN resolutions that call for respecting territorial integrity..how can iraqi freedom fighters who are fighting illegal invaders be called "insurgents"? is iraq the home country of us troops?!!!!?!?!?!?? npov tag fitCityvalyu (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table

How do I edit that table? Poland has pulled out? Czolgolz (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begone troll! You shall not pass!

75.179.163.66 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Jade rat[reply]

List of nations in the coalition

The section "List of nations in the coalition" needs to be updated alongside the other info about national forces that have changed their activities in Iraq.

Czech Republic and South Korean forces are believed to have been withdrawn from Iraq, yet they are listed under "Current deployment by country"... 83.108.233.168 (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Withdraw from Iraq

Who ever maintains the list of coalition nations in Iraq needs to remove the Ukraine, the have officially withdrawn from Iraq and their mission has complete. http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/12/11/15056-ukrainians-complete-mission-in-iraq/ CAMP ECHO, Iraq - The Ukrainian Army hosted an end of mission ceremony at Camp Echo in Central Iraq, Dec. 9.

More than 5,000 Ukrainian troops have served in Iraq during Ukraine's five years of service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

-Signaleer (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for bringing it to our attention. Someone needs to change that big chart.Czolgolz (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that same source lists Denmark and Lithuania as still participating, with no mention of Moldova and Singapore. Can someone confirm the troop levels of these countries?Czolgolz (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova, Albania, Bulgaria, Singapore, Denmark, and Lithuania

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24812712-5005961,00.html

Okay, according to this article, Moldova and Albania have left Iraq. I'll make the neccessary changes. This article does not mention Bulgarian troops, which has stated they would be out of Iraq by the end of 2008. Have they left? This article (and the MNF page) do not mention Singapore, but since their contributions are naval, they may not be considered 'in Iraq'. Both this article and the MNF website list Denmark and Lithuania as still participating. Does anyone have any information on these countries? Czolgolz (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Bulgaria is gone as well. Can anyone confirm Denmark and Lithuania?Czolgolz (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/816499.html

And Lithuania was in Iraq at least through the summerCzolgolz (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/06/04/lithuanian_troops_stay_on_in_iraq/07cc/

This article states there were Danish troops in Iraq at late as October, 2008, but does not say how many.Czolgolz (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/109343.html

Okay, I've done some massive rewriting. Moldova, Albania, and Bulgaria are gone. Lithuania and Denmark are still there (the Danish withdrew their air force, but still have troops there, I cannot find an exact number). Singapore is listed, but their contributions are in the Persian Gulf, so it may not count as Iraq deployment. As it stands, our list is now squared with that of the news agencies and the MNF. Could someone update the chart or tell me how? Feel free to correct any of my mistakes.Czolgolz (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever found this link, aparently Lithuania is gone. The MNF page is also no longer listing Denmark as having troops in Iraq, can anyone confirm this? And how about Singapore? Are they still there?Czolgolz (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kam.lt/index.php/en/164609/

Big kudos to whoever finally got the facts for Denmark and Singapore. Great work.Czolgolz (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore

An IP address user keeps sticking Singapore back in the list, using this year and a half old blog as a source http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/06/iraq_coalition_of_the_willing_poland_romania_singapore.php

The same source lists several other countries that have pulled out, such as Poland. I've reverted this edit about a dozen times and I'm getting tired of it. Czolgolz (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multinational Force January 2009

Could you please help with info on current deployment in Iraq. I think El Salvador has pulled out January 1st. Can someone confirm and update the big chart ? Methinks only Romania has remained there alongside US, UK and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crissim99 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard rumors to that effect too, but can't find any confirmation. Czolgolz (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvador's gone: http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/43981 Czolgolz (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article supporting speculation as a valid argument?

In regards to bribes for troops? The "inventions" suggest that the US bribed countries to participate, or threatened to withhold aid.

75.179.163.66 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat[reply]

Georgia

I thought Georgia pulled only half of the contigent consisted of 2000 men, out of Iraq. Can anyone write down a source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.8.154 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

Some IP address keeps reverting the Romanian pullout because the official multinational force page hasn't been updated for a couple of months. However, this article seems to say Romania ended their mission on June 4th. http://www.defenselink.mil/News/newsarticle.aspx?id=54700 Anyone find something that disproves this? Czolgolz (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Romania is out, and the source you have here, shows they are out. And it seems to be a very reliable source. Both Romania and Australia has to withdrawal within July 31st, and there will be good sources on the web when this happen, we don't need to use official sites all the time. Heres a few more references on Romania: [3][4][5] - 83.108.235.67 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there still is some contention whether the Romanians still have troops in Iraq and sources still seem to be conflicting. Their mission is over, but there may be some troops still there, though I can't find any numbers. They'll all be gone by July 31st at any rate. Czolgolz (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several IP addresses from Costa Rica, maybe open proxies (to avoid 3RR), maintain that Romanian troops still roam the premises of Iraq. This is not true, please read this. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, this article is about the military command. Whether there are Romanian citizens in the country or not is of less importance, at least in my opinion. If their mission has ended, than that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.2.105 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of name

When Australia and Romania have withdrawn their forces, the command will change name to U.S. Forces Iraq. I think this should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.2.105 (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still about the international/multinational forces that have or are operating in Iraq. 83.108.235.67 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Forces Iraq will be a new command, which will have a new article. Combined Joint Task Force 7 and Combined Force Land Component Command also have their own separate articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Forces

According to Reference #90, Romania formally terminated its mission on June 4 2009. Romania needs to be taken out of the "More than 100 Military personnel" section and be included in the "2009 withdrawals section.

Reenem (talk)

Yeah, some people attack this article with reverts and changes, just cos of one country is out or not. Their most likely out, and just cos the official site aint updated, dont mean they still there. Several sources say their out, maybe we need another semi or full block again... 83.108.193.157 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New info

Theres now 124.000 U.S. units in Iraq. It is to be cut down to about 120.000 by October, and the mission is to end in August 2010. [6]. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 Nov 07 US deployment map is at [7]. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland

Article says: "Iceland had a total of three troops, including two Explosive Ordnance Disposal experts, a medical advisor, and some transport experts assigned to the Danish unit immediately after the occupation began; they have since been withdrawn." Simple math shows there is a minimum of 4-5 (2 EOD, 1 medical, "some" transport experts), not the "total of three troops." If any were non military, would they be included in this?

Separate, but related, question: How can Iceland deploy "troops" when it has no military? The article on Iceland (under the "Military" section) says that Iceland's Coast Guard EOD was deployed (but not how many), and the rest were part of the Iceland Crisis Response Unit (ICRU), which seems to be equivalent to a State Department/Foreign Ministry security force or National Guard unit in the US (not exactly, but that's what seems closest). The ICRU is under the Department of Foreign Affairs, but at the same time have military rankings.

It may be that I'm just confused about how they can deploy what I would refer to as "troops," without a military, or what I would think of as a military. 108.90.80.171 (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070204055748/http://www.talkingproud.us:80/International022705.html to http://www.talkingproud.us/International022705.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/17/europe/EU-Macedonia-US-Medals.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iAQr-FUGeM29srKHH2WsSWVTWFxQ
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.talkingproud.us/International022705.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radio.com.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=31510&j=2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/01/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Denmark.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/28/europe/EU-GEN-Denmark-Iraq.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/04/europe/EU-GEN-Slovakia-Iraq.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CC7BDEF3-289F-4287-8987-4E2E2F07D4A7.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2004/07/08/filipino.taken.hostage.in.iraq.media.report.(9.30.a.m.).html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310132733/http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24812712-5005961,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24812712-5005961,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multi-National Force – Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with coalition of the willing

As far as I can tell, the name "coalition of the willing" does not have any separate notability from this article, which it is a synonym of. Therefore, I recommend a selective merge into this article. (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merger: Although there are similarities between the coalition of the willing and the US-led coalition forces of MNF-I, the coalition of the willing referred to a larger collective that did not necessarily send troops boots on ground in Iraq. This article written by the New York Times March 28, 2003 explains that:

Who are the coalition members? According to the Bush administration and press reports, they are: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Noticeably absent are major powers--France, for example--that were members of the coalition that overturned Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in 1991.^[1]

Not all countries listed above were part of MNF-I, therefore I do not agree with the proposed merger. -Signaleer (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Q&A: What Is the "Coalition of the Willing?"". archive.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2021-08-23.

Uganda: Security Guards

Thousands of Ugandan nationals served as armed security guards at allied installations in Iraq. While these deployments were generally organized under private contracts, President Museveni actively encouraged the effort, and is referred to sometimes as a member of the American coalition, as in this article:

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2009/0306/p04s02-woaf.html

I believe there is some nuance to this case - Ugandan personnel are perhaps more accurately characterized as affiliated but unofficial members of the coalition force. Still, it may be good to include a note about the subject within the encyclopedia text. 2604:6000:1521:C08D:B0A5:BC58:A9F0:8E49 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Private military contractors (PMCs) that served in Iraq, regardless of their nationality, did so as PMCs and not as official uniformed armed forces personnel representing their respective host nations. This is an undisputed fact and a moot topic. -Signaleer (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as I myself said in the above. This context can easily be included in any text. I am merely suggesting that the encyclopedia includes some record that these thousands of people served in the war. It is not complicated to preface any such note with an explanatory clause, i.e. "While security contractors did not serve in an official military capacity, over 1,200 Ugandan nationals operated as armed guards during the Iraq War. For this reason, Uganda is sometimes referred to as a member of the American coalition, though they were not a party to the formal MNF." 2604:6000:1521:C08D:B0A5:BC58:A9F0:8E49 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'". CNN. 20 November 2002. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[20030327-10.html-2] "Operation Iraqui freedom: Coalition Members" (Press release). The White House. 27 march 2003. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[3] "Among Key Iraq Partners, Weak Public Support for Troop Presence". WorldPublicOpinion.org. 14 October 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[4] "Q&A: What Is the "Coalition of the Willing?"". archive.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2021-08-23.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]