Comparing Coalitions

[onedomino]

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200409281110.asp

Comparing Coalitions

Iraq is more multilateral than, say, Korea.
So, the U.S. coalition in Iraq is insignificant? Well, let's compare it to the U.S.-led U.N. coalition during the peak of the Korean War.

Korean War (peak troop numbers, by country, excluding Republic of Korea forces):
United States: 348,000
Great Britain: 14,198
Canada: 6,146
Turkey: 5,455
Australia: 2,282
Philippines: 1,496
New Zealand: 1,389
Thailand: 1,294
Ethiopia: 1,271
Greece: 1,263
France: 1,119
Colombia: 1,068
Belgium/Luxembourg: 944
South Africa: 826
Netherlands: 819
Total: 16 nations; 387,570 combat troops

Iraq War (troop numbers, by country, as of July 2004, excluding Iraqi forces):
United States: 126,500
Great Britain: 8,300
Italy: 3,120
Poland: 2,400
Ukraine: 1,650
Netherlands: 1,400
Australia: 850
Romania: 800
Japan: 600
South Korea: 600
Denmark: 520
Bulgaria: 485
Thailand: 450
El Salvador: 380
Hungary: 300
Singapore: 200
Norway: 155
Azerbaijan: 150
Georgia: 150
Mongolia: 140
Latvia: 120
Portugal: 110
Czech Republic: 110
Lithuania: 105
Slovakia: 105
Albania: 70
New Zealand: 60
Tonga: 45
Estonia: 40
Kazakhstan: 30
Macedonia: 30
Moldova: 10
Total: 32 nations; 149,985 combat troops


In terms of overall troop level, the Iraq war is a much smaller war than the Korean War. Yet the number of nations in the Iraq war coalition currently doubles the Korean War coalition. Moreover, the United States was by far the largest contributor of military personnel in the Korean War, even though that was a U.N.-led coalition. And Poland, the Ukraine, and the Netherlands each contribute more military personnel to the Iraq War coalition than France contributed to the Korean War. (No surprise.)The Korean War was fought with minimal support from France, no support from the then-Federal Republic of Germany, and against the Russian-backed Communist regime in North Korea.

The fact is that President Bush has built a real and impressive coalition in Iraq.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Would you look at the country's on the Iraq list though? I assume this list is to show that: World support is important and we have more world support now than in Korea. However, it does matter who is supporting you. If I get in a fight I would rather have 1 300 pound linebacker than 3 100 pound Doom computer players.

I know if you gave me a blank map I couldn't label most of the countries in the Iraq war while I could in the Korea list. How many could most people in this country label? (I'm making a connection between "labelability" and "importance" - might be incorrect but may be pretty accurate)

 

[Annie]

Would you look at the country's on the Iraq list though? I assume this list is to show that: World support is important and we have more world support now than in Korea. However, it does matter who is supporting you. If I get in a fight I would rather have 1 300 pound linebacker than 3 100 pound Doom computer players.

I know if you gave me a blank map I couldn't label most of the countries in the Iraq war while I could in the Korea list. How many could most people in this country label? (I'm making a connection between "labelability" and "importance" - might be incorrect but may be pretty accurate)

assuming you are referring to France and Germany, they have made it very clear, we could do NOTHING to make them join an international coalition. So is your position that we should join them?

 

[NATO AIR]

don't forget, spain and the philippines were once part of the iraq coalition.
outside events affected their withdrawl.

 

[insein]

Would you look at the country's on the Iraq list though? I assume this list is to show that: World support is important and we have more world support now than in Korea. However, it does matter who is supporting you. If I get in a fight I would rather have 1 300 pound linebacker than 3 100 pound Doom computer players.

I know if you gave me a blank map I couldn't label most of the countries in the Iraq war while I could in the Korea list. How many could most people in this country label? (I'm making a connection between "labelability" and "importance" - might be incorrect but may be pretty accurate)

Most of those troops numbers are insignificant compared to ours but to those countries that probably represents a good portion of their troops unfortunately. I'd take any help that any country wants to give us in the fight to kill terrorists and the regimes that fund and harbor them.

 

[NATO AIR]

Most of those troops numbers are insignificant compared to ours but to those countries that probably represents a good portion of their troops unfortunately. I'd take any help that any country wants to give us in the fight to kill terrorists and the regimes that fund and harbor them.

and that's a point most people forget... their militaries aren't huge like the USA or China. and these smaller countries have to keep a good number of troops for their own homeland defense, as well as in case of national emergencies or problems in their region.