Return to P.S. FAQs

Allies, Coalition,  and UN, Post-War (March 2003-Present) 

Besides the UK's 12,000 troops under Tony Blair (left) on the ground in 2003 from the beginning,  Poland and Ukraine committed by early July to send troops.  Others have been asked, some have committed, but none are expected before September.  On July 14, India refused to send troops, followed by France. Britain added a few hundred troops in May 2004, to bring their total back up to 9000.

In late July 2003, Germany and France considered sending troops.  After the third bloody bombing in three weeks during August, Chirac urged more UN cooperation. Polls released in early September showed that Europeans are still opposed to U.S. policy.  However, Poland took over control of 5 central provinces in early September. 

In April 2004, Spain and at least two others decided to withdraw their troops.

See 2006-2007 chart below. In addition, in April 2004, 500 or more of the troops came from Australia,  Romania, and Denmark.  
100 or fewer troops were on the ground from Portugal, Philippines, Czech Republic, Albania, New Zealand, Estonia, and Kazakhstan.

Actually, the second largest contingent was not the UK but the nearly 20,000 privately employed by U.S. security firms.  They are costing up to $1500/day.  With salaries of ten times what some troops earn, there is bound to be animosity.   In "Privatizing Warfare", the New York Times editorial concludes, "The Pentagon should be recruiting and training more soldiers, rather than running the risk of creating a new breed of mercenaries" (4/21/04). For much more on Blackwater and violence in 2006-2007, see PZ Violence FAQ.

Japan seemed to accept in late July 2003, the first time Japanese troops will have been abroad  since World War II.  After that war, the US did not allow Japan to have an offensvie military. The Japanese troops would be in non-combat areas and were predicted to arrive after November, 2003. and the Japanese public is wary. Japan was still debating their aid in mid-October. Finally, on December 9, the Japanese government approved the deployment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38151-2003Oct16?language=printer Around Christmas the first troops left Japan for the Middle East. By the summer of 2006, Japanese troops had left Iraq.

In January 2007, Japan's Defense Minister said Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and he wondered about Japan's continuing air force mission. The former Prime Minsiter, Koisumi, supported the war.

Turkey had also been asked to send troops after the war began. Critics such as Joe Lieberman suggest officially asking NATO for troops. Some members of Congress suggest the force in Iraq should be led by the UN.  Sergio de Melo was the UN coordinator for Iraq, though he appears to be more of an observer. de Melo was killed in the UN bombing in August, 2003. By mid October 2003, Turkey seemed to be on the verge of sending troops, though that actions is opposed by the Iraqi Council, and especially by the Kurds. Thomas Friedman's New York Times piece warned against sending Turkish troops to stir of old hatreds. After weeks of speculation, on November 7 it was reported that Turkey would not indeed be sending troops.

Turkey was back in the news in April 2007, with a high level official threatening to invade Iraq to chase after Kurdish PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) rebels. The PKK had killed dozens of Turks in recent weeks. The US would be stuck between a rock (Iraq?) and a hard place, knowing who to support. The northern area of Iraq is officially controlled by the US military. Turkey is a NATO ally and the US has been very friendly with Iraqi Kurds. Any invasion would have to be approved by the Turkish Parliament. The PKK has fought the Turkish military since the 1980s, pushing for more rights for Turkish Kurds. Turkey feels they represent a threat to Turkish sovereignty.

"Even Closer to the Brink" was the Times lead editorial of October 23, 2007. "The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse," yet this last crisis "should come as no surprise" but due to poor US policies. "Turkey's anger is understandable" and their civilian leaders "are feeling strong popular pressure to lash back." Turkey is actually the top investor in the region of northern Iraq.

Turkey was very upset with the U.S. House, which again considered a resolution acknowledging the genocide upon Armenians in 1915. Turkey withdrew their ambassador. House members began to withdraw their support, after the resolution passed a House committee and was headed for the full House. Turkey was upset with the House but pleased with the White House, which strongly urged against the resolution. Its support for the Iraq war is in logistical ways.

One critic of the Armenian resolution, which was eventually shelved, was Sec. Gates. "A resolution that looks back almost 100 years to an event that took place under a prodesessor government, the Ottomans, and that has enormous preset-day implications for American soldiers...in Iraq, is something we need to take very seriously."

Meanwhile, their Parliament was set to vote for incursions into Iraq to stop and chase the Kurdish separatists being sheltered there. The PKK is Kurdish Workers Party, condemned by the US as a terrorist organization, and hoping to give more rights to Kurds in Turkey. Turkey has been asking the Iraq government to act against the Kurds. Not surprisingly, the Kurds in northern Iraq have not acted. "Our patience has run out," said a Turkish spokesman. Iraq's VP traveled to Istanbul to urge a peaceful resolution. These two conflicts came to a head on October 17, 2007 when the Turkish Parliament voted 507-19 to allow its military to cross in Iraq.This did not guarantee an immediate attack, Turkey assured an apprehensive world. A former US Ambassador was quoted on the front page of the Times, "We are at a defining moment in Turkish-American relations."

The Washington Post was pleased that Turkey waited at least a few days, holding back in an invasion/incursion of northern Iraq. However, the front page Tribune headline of Oct. 22 blared, "Kurd raid [which killed about 12 Turkish troops] fuels rage in Turkey." Turkey actually attacked Iraq that week, with missiles and rockets. There was no report of Turkish troops actually invading Iraq. Secretary Rice continued to work hard to avoid a Turkish invasion. Bush urged Turkey not to send troops into Iraq. 70% of US air cargo for Iraq travels through Turkey. One Turkish lawmaker complained, "Iraq has become a stomping ground for terrorists." The situation was fluid and contradictory in late October, but at one point Prime Minister Erdogan planned to hold off any attacks until he visited Bush on November 5. At that point Bush promised to provide more intelligence (satellites) to Turkey.

A Post guest column feels the US challenges with Turkey and Kurds are our own doing. We "missed a moment" to make things better with Iraq.

Iraq soon promised that it would set up more checkpoints along its frontier to keep out supplies for Kurdish rebels, which number about 3500. How many Iraqi troops can be spared to move to this frontier area? Into early November the standoff continued. The Turkish people and government were "united in pursuit of rebels" reported the Tribune. Though a Kurdish party office was raided (perhaps half-heartedly) by Iraqi troops, two days of meetings produced no new proposal, Turkey said, on the eve of the meeting with President Bush. As of mid-November, Turkey had not yet attacked. Just in the next few days were reports that Turkish planes had bombed an abandoned Kurdish villages inside Iraq. However, there were no reports of deaths. Perhaps Turkey intended the strike to be merely a warning. Did the Americans know about this bombing? It would be hard to imagine that they did not. Said one Iraq, "The sky is in the hands of the Americans."

Turkey has strong economic relations with northern Iraq, which may be one reason an invasion had not occurred by mid-November. With 80% foreign investment in the area, Turkey is heavily invested in Kurdistan. One project is a 187 room luxury hotel worth $25 million.

In early December, after an apparent lull of a few weeks, an unnamed Turkish military officials claimed that 100 Turkish special forces entered Iraq, attacked, and withdrew. "It's not an invasion or a war," said a Turkish MP. A Kurdish spokesman denied the attack.

Sec. Rice made a surprise visit to Iraq just after this ground attack by Turkey. The Pentagon admitted to "deconflicting" the airspace to allow for the Turkish attack. The Times labeled the US being in a "delicate position."

Turkey bombed Iraq in mid-December, with an estimated 50 planes, a clear escalation. Since the US controls Iraqi airspace, the Turkish forces must have gained US permission to attack Kurdish areas, though this was not immediately confirmed by the US. The planes flew about 100 miles over the border. With Turkey a US ally in NATO and the Kurds the best friends of the US in Iraq, this clearly puts the US between Iraq and a hard place. At least 8 villages were attacked and six houses were destroyed. One upset witness told the Tribune, "My youngest daughter is still crying and saying, 'Mama; I'm scared.' Why is the Turkish army bombing our village?" Deaths were hard to verify. The Iraqi government denounced the bombings. There were three different bombing raids, with Turkey claiming that it killed 150 rebels. Kurds claim the areas bombed were isolated and no civilians were killed.

What does the US know about these attacks? The US military played dumb. They could not confirm whether any bombs were dropped but said "We would be concerned about anything that leads to civilian casualties or destabilization in northern Iraq." Amb. Crocker added that the PKK is "a terrorist organization" and the Turks "clearly have the right to defend their country and their people." Meanwhile, the US claimed to have "no operational reports" of the bombings but "we do get advance warning."

In early January a bomb exploded in Turkey for the first time in months. Its target was military personnel. Five were killed and 60 injured. One suspects the bomb was by Kurds in response to Turkish bombing in Iraq in December.

Come early February, Turkey bombed Iraq again. Their warplanes attacked Kurdish villages, aiming for 70 targets in 11 locations over a 12 hour period. Damage was not clear.

On Feb. 22, Turkey attacked Iraq, sending tanks and about 10,000 troops as an invasion. Clearly, this was "a significatn escalation," as the Tribune explained following its banner headline. Troops had not moved into Iraq since the war began nearly five years ago. The US knew ahead of time. Though troops were only sent into northern Iraq, those upset included the Iraqi government and the Kurdish regional government. The Iraqi cabinet stated that Iraqi sovereignty was being violated and "unilateral military action is not acceptable." Estimates of death tolls widely varied. Some early estimates were over 150 Kurds killed and 100 Turks killed. Turkey and the US termed the move an incursion. About one week into the action, the Times labeled it an invasion. After a few day, Sec. Gates visited Turkey and said that they must be "mindful of Iraqi sovereignty." He wants to invasion to end by mid-March.

Just the next day, Turkey began its withdraw. After 8 days, the Turks claimed that 24 of its own had been killed along with nearly 250 Kurds. The PKK caliemd that 5 Kurds were killed and 130 Turks.

A Times editorial (3/1/08) focuses on the danger of the Turkish invasion. While Turkey's anger at PKK raids is "understandable" its invasion is "risky, verging on foolhardy. The last thing Iraq, Turkey, or the US need is more chaos in the region." The US continues to provide Turkey with intelligence of air strikes. Kurds need to curb PKK activities and the US must "press the Iraqi Kurds to immediately close off rebel escape routes. It must also press the Turks and the Iraqi Kurds to begin a serious discussion" to secure the border, "expand commerce and live peacefully side by side."

President Talabani tried to patch up the Turkey relationship by visiting Istanbul for the first time since he became President in 2005. Meeting with Turkish President Gul, Talabani commented, "The Kurdish administration pressured the PKK groups in the region to lay down arms or to leave the country."

Moving west to events relating to Spain, in April 2004, Spain was the first country to publicly declare they were pulling out their troops.  The new Prime Minister, elected just days after the Madrid train bombings, is Zapatero.  In mid-April, Spain had about 1300 troops in Iraq. The Prime Minister was "scolded" by President Bush for "giving false comfort to terrorists."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32541-2004Apr21?language=printer

Just a few days later Honduras announced they would soon be withdrawing their troops.  Then the Dominican Republic joined this growing list with their 300 troops. Thailand began hinting of a possible withdrawal. However, Albania spoke of trying to send additional non-combat forces. Britain promised the next week to add troops to make up for these loses. Spain completed their withdrawal on April 26.  In 2005, after its second Presidential election, we learned that Ukraine was planning to withdraw 2/3 of their 1600 troops in April and the rest by the end of the year. At one point Ukraine was #5 in troops levels. The New York Times editorial of Jan. 14 was entitled "Out of Iraq" and stated:  "Ukraine has been much in the news and that its contingent..was fifth...is worth noting.  It's the end of a cynical marriage of convenience."  Other countries which had left the coalition by February 2005 were Hungary, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, Philippines, and Tonga, shrinking the coalition to 26 nations.  Portugal may send some of its troops back. Of those 26 left, 14 (just more than half) have under 200 troops.  By the spring of 2005, it is expected that those with more than 1000 troops will only include Britain, South Korea, Italy, and Poland. Derrick Jackson, commenting in the Times described the allies:  "The Coalition of the willing is losing its will" and "is no longer willing to accept America's rosy scenario on Iraq."

In May 2004 we learned that  about 3500 U.S. troops from South Korea would be moving to Iraq. Among other potential or real allies, we learned in October 2004 that three months before the war France was planning to send over 10,000 troops to Iraq but decided not too when the Bush administration rushed to war
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9709-2004Oct5?language=printer

At the G8 Summit that in June 2004, NATO leaders again refused to send more troops to Iraq. 

The British government agreed in October to move their troops from the relatively peaceful areas of Basra toward the more violence-prone Sunni area.

At  its peak the coalition was 38 countries, and in March 2004 it was down to 24, with the US making up 150,00 of the total 170,000 troops. Spain was the first to pull out.  After the US and Britain, South Korea is #3. Others with over a few hundred troops, Ukraine, Netherlands, and Poland, have similar withdrawal plans, with Ukraine to complete its withdrawal by October and Poland in 2006.

This follows action from Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras and the Philippines.  Two months later Japan agreed to extend their 550 non combat troops until December 2005. At the end of 2004, South Korea agreed to extend the stay of their 3600 troops for another year. Since the summer of 2004, about 12 countries have withdrawn or announced plans to do so. 

A Chicago Tribune analysis in July 2005 of those allies who had troops and those who had pulled out summarized the situation:

Those who pulled out in 2004 were:  Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Hungary, and Tonga.  Those who completed their pullout in 2005 thus far include:  Moldova and Portugal. 

The breakdown of coalition forces just after the Jan. 30, 2005 election was as follows:  152,000 US and 25,300 non-U.S. Of those 25,000, 9000 are British, 3600 South Korea, about 3000 Italy about 2400 Poland, 1600 Ukraine, and 1500 Netherlands.  The others countries about 700 or fewer troops. Plans to withdraw have come from Poland, Ukraine, and Netherlands, which would leave only three countries over 700 troops.  Ukraine announced their withdrawal would begin in March 2005 and conclude in October  We learned in March that Poland, ranking #4, would begin withdrawal in July. With Italy as the new #3, even their status could be at risk after the shooting in March of Italian secret service after the female journalist had been released (for details, see below)

Bush would remind skeptics that 32 countries contributed 22,000 troops to Iraq.  Good news for the U.S. came in February, when the Prime Minister Howard of Australia went back on a campaign promise, and agreed to double  their combat troop levels, with 450 more troops.  However, one could note that Australia had withdrawn most of its troops, from the original 2000.  Only about 200 had been left in Iraq.  Singapore, for example, has all of its 180 troops on a ship offshore. See below for more on foreign troops. 

Foreign troops in early 2006 included a reversal of Poland's decision to totally withdraw.  They plan to reduce 40% from 1500 to 900 but stay in Iraq, switching to non-combat roles.  Poland's' deployment has been opposed by 70% of the country, according to one poll. The top five troops totals remained in about the same rank order: US, UK, South Korea, and Italy. Bulgaria and Ukraine completed their withdrawals. In November 2006 we learned that a Korean pullout was planned for the end of 2007. They were the third largest, at 2300.

The "coalition of the willing" has dwindled from 38 nations with 50,000 troops to 26 with 23,000.  Most of those remaining plan to be out in 2006.  The Tribune reports that these departures "are a political setback for the Bush administration"  (12/28/05) and the Times adds that the number of allied troops is now only symbolic. In early 2007 Denmark and Lithuania appeared to be the next to leave.

In the fall of 2007, Georgia announced its plan to cut from 2000 down to 300 by next July. South Korea was considering more cuts, so Poland would become #3. Total non-American troops were at about 12,000. Poland announced in November that it would withdraw its roughly 900 troops over the next 6 weeks. The withdrawal was scheudled to be complete by October 2008. Next came Australia, with the Labor Party swept into power. New Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, taking over from John Howard, said that he would pull out combat troops by the middle of 2008. Rudd was making good on an election promise.

Tony Blair made a surprise visit to troops just before Christmas. Blair gets harsh and direct criticism from much of the British press.

See below for British reduction plans for 2007. Denmark was the next to announce a coming withdrawal of all of its forces. By February 2007, only the UK, Australia, and South Korea had over 900 troops. Only 3 others countries would soon have over 150.

Kidnappings and hostage taking also began in early April of 2004 with the victims being Americans, Japanese, Russians, and many other nationalities. The headline in Moscow on April 14 might have been "The Russian are going!" as 800 Russians in Iraq were ordered home.  Hostage taking of many nationalities increased into the summer of 2004, leading some countries to withdraw their troops.  The worst example of the violence toward non-Americans was the reported killing of 12 hostages from Nepal in late August, 2004  The event doubled the number of hostages killed since April.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48832-2004Aug31.html

.The BBC compiled a helpful map on coalition forces in 2004

In terms of UN issues, on September 3 2003 he headlines were that Bush was now willing to return to the UN for support.   The Washington Post labeled this policy "a major shift" and penned their first Iraq editorial in over a week, "Back to the UN."  The Chicago Tribune's cover story feels the change "reflects a growing recognition within the administration that a strong UN mandate is essential to winning foreign military and economic help in stabilizing Iraq" (9/3).

The story is the spring of 2004 was of kidnapping and hostage taking of dozens of non-combat foreigners.  As a reaction to this violence and the "Fallujah Four" American contractors killed and mutilated, other countries had second thoughts.  These four private contractors are among the thousands of mostly former U.S.-military hired by the Pentagon. 

Also in the UN front, on September 23, 2003, Bush returned to the UN to address the world body concerning Iraq.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51755-2003Sep23?language=printer
The next day's Chicago Tribune blared, "Bush urges UN to look past rift to rebuild Iraq" but also "Defiant speech unlikely to sway world leaders."  The opening paragraph summarized the day at the UN:  "President Bush...called on the UN to help rebuild Iraq following a war that many in his audience had opposed and despite Bush' unwillingness to meet their demands for a greater say in that country's redevelopment." 

Reaction to the speech included criticism from Kofi Annan on U.S. unilateralism.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51543-2003Sep23?language=printer
Would a new UN resolution pass?  How quickly would Iraqis lead Iraq?  Will other nations send more troops or money?

In early October, the administration let it be known that they might give up trying for a new resolution.  However, by mid-October, likely under pressure from Britain, the U.S. went back to the UN with a revised resolution.  France, China, Russia, Germany, and Syria were still not in favor of the resolution though it might pass anyway. Surprisingly, a new version of the resolution passed unanimously on October 16, pleasing Powell and Bush.  It remained unclear how many troops or billions would follow; little will likely come from France, Germany, Russia, or China.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38336-2003Oct16?language=printer

On December 10 2003, Wolfowitz announced that countries who did not support the war could not bid on the $18.6 billion in contracts for reconstruction.  This included France, Germany, Russia, and Canada. The reasoning, said Wolfowitz, was "the essential security interests of the U.S."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51059-2003Dec9?language=printer
Opening the New York Times lead editorial of December 11 "Payback in Iraq", "There's an undeniable sense of gleeful retribution in the revelation...You can almost hear...Wolfowitz...muttering, 'What goes around comes around.'"  As Christmas approached, Baker was able to illicit concessions from France, Germany, and Russia on debt relief for Iraq.  Russia, at least, was apparently offered a share in the oil contacts in return. 

Talk of a new UN resolution surfaced again in April 2004.  Proposals which guarantee legal protection for foreign troops and which let the US make final judgments on Saddam's WMD will likely face opposition form Russia and France.  They want to UN to gain real power.

In March of 2005 the oil-for-food investigation by Paul Volcker was concluded after many months.  It found no evidence that Kofi Annan influenced the rewarding of a lucrative inspection contact to a company that employed his son.  Annan was criticized for  not aggressively investigation the possible conflict of interest. Many critics of Annan had predicted that the investigation for force him to resign. In short, the program was established during the 1990s sanctions to allow Saddam to sell oil for humanitarian needs, war reparations, and administrative costs.For more on oil-for-food program before the war, see "Pre-War Sanctions" FAQ.

In April 2004, 52 former British diplomats complained to Blair in a letter formally and directly condemning his policy in Iraq and his strong alliance with the U.S. in the war. Labeling the policy "doomed to failure" this unprecedented letter said the US-led coalition had "no effective plan" for Iraq after the war and an apparent disregard for the lives of Iraqis.  They estimated the number of dead Iraqis at 10,000-15,000. "To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful." 

American diplomats followed with a letter of their own to Bush.  The Australian letter of military and diplomats came out in early August, complaining of misleading pre-war allegations of Iraq's military.

On June 8, 2004the UN unanimously approved the fourth draft of a resolution on Iraq.  The resolution allows for more independence for Iraq than the U.S. had previously suggested.  U.S. troops might not stay beyond 2006 and could conceivably be asked to leave anytime in the future. The President was proud, the French were willing,  but the Kurds were upset over their lack of sovereignty.  

Also in the fall of 2004, UN leader Koffi Annan, when pressed, declared the war "illegal." Annan was under increased scrutiny in November and December for the oil-for-food scandal.  Annan tended to blame UN member counties while some Republicans called for his resignation.

Colin Powell, who resigned after Bush's re-election, stayed on through December, pending the confirmation of the new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  Traveling more than usual, he urged Europeans who opposed the war to get over their opposition so they could "support the Iraqi people." Rice traveled to Europe ahead of President Bush's fence mending trip of late February.  He met with French President Jacque Chirac, among others.

The UN oil-for-food program continued to be investigated into 2005, led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.  An interim report in February "severely criticizes" its director Benon Sevan and depicts the program as "tainted" for failing to follow the organizations' own procedures.  For more on Sevan and the UN, see pre-war FAQ on Sanctions. 

In August, a UN procurement officer plead guilty to fraud and money laundering.  He was the first person connected with the program to be convicted.  

Then, in September, Volcker finished his investigation.  He blamed Annan for failing to curb corruption mismanagement and confirmed that Saddam had taken about $10 billion from the project.  The investigation did not suggest that Annan was guilty of a crime, such as improperly influencing the oil-for-food program.  The oil-for-food investigation seemed to conclude in the fall of 2005, with many western companies to blame and little UN oversite.

President Bush's five day trip to Europe in late February 2005.  He met with Chirac (at left) , Schroeder, and Putin, among others.  The US President was pleased that all  NATO nations agreed to contribute to help build an Iraqi army.  The top 3, Canada, Germany and Spain pledged over $500 million. The support seemed more symbolic and substantive, and likely won't lead to a major change on the ground.  The U.S. spends $5 billion on Iraq every week.

Robin Wright in the Washington Post reported that the US is planning increasingly "to shift the duties of foreign troops...from providing security to train Iraq's new army and police to prevent more countries from abandoning the international coalition" and to lure others back.

An Italian journalist, Giuliana Sgrena was released in early March 2005 after being held captive by insurgents for a month.  A video released in February showed her begging for her life, clasping her hands. On March 4, 35 minutes after her release, she was driving to the Baghdad airport at night with Italian secret service agents who had helped secure her release. At a checkpoint with circumstances under dispute, US forces opened fire on her car, killing secret service agent Nicola Calipari (at left), and injuring another.  The journalist was also injured.

Experts doubt the incident will lead to the quick withdrawal of the 3000 Italian troops, but since most Italians did not support the war in the first place and don't like their troops there, pressure on Berluscone will likely mount, according to a Times report. 

Less than two weeks after the shooting, Berluscone made a surprise announcement that Italian troops would start withdrawing in September. This move was seen as a signal that "the domestic cost of loyalty to the US over the war is growing too high" (Chicago Tribune's NYTimes News Service). As Italy is #4 in troops totals (3000), the coalition continued to shrink.  The Prime Minister said that the timing of the withdrawal depended on the strength of the Iraqi government and their security.  But does that mean the withdrawal would not take place of the Iraqi government was weak?  This condition, suggested a Times article, seemed aimed "at shielding himself against allegation that he would leave Iraq even in the direst of straits, which could call into question the entire rationale for entering the war."  Tony Blair, who Berluscone seemed to consult with more than Bush, added, "Neither the Italian govern not ourselves have set some deadline for withdrawal."

Berluscone also said he would continue to consult carefully with the US.  However, the announcement appeared to be a surprise and he made no mention of notifying President Bush. "Berlusconi denies backtracking on pullout" was the Tribune article based on his statement of "hope" that troops could leave in the fall.  Originally, it was announced as a "firm plan" rather than a hope.  Critics charge the words changed after a conversation with the President.

Italy has local elections in a few weeks and national elections in 2006.  Most Italians were against the war before it began, against sending troops, and 70% wanted their troops out. 

Not until January 2006 did Italy hit the headlines again, announcing that as the #4 contributor of troops in Iraq, 1000 of 2600 troops would be out by June, and the rest by the end of 2006. 

This time the White House appeared less surprised calling it "an indication of progress" that Iraqis were being trained to take over. 

Concerning the attacks on the Italians, the rules of engagement for US soldiers is to fire on any vehicle they deemed threatening.  With abundant suicide car bombs, this can be a frightening decision.  John Burns of the Times reports, "Next to....Abu Ghraib...no other aspect of the American military presence...has caused such widespread dismay and anger among Iraqis, judging by their frequent outbursts on the subject."

American leaders apologized, and President Bush called Prime Minister Berluscone.  A State Department statement expressed "our deep condolences for this tragic event" though they appeared to take no responsibility. US soldiers said they tried to warn the speeding car to slow down and fired into the engine to stop the car.  According to the Tribune's front page story of March 5, "The [military statement] did not explain how bullets fired into the engine hit the passengers."  Though a US hostage negotiator had been working on the case, we first learned that the Italians did not tell the Americans about her release, perhaps because they worried that the US would try to confront the hostage takers and harm the Italians. Later, sources said that her car had indeed been cleared to the airport.  The plane picking her up had its landing cleared at some level by the US military. It was assumed that a ransom of likely millions was paid to the kidnappers.  Nearly a dozen Italians have been kidnapped in Iraq. 

In her newspaper Il Manifesto, her story "My Truth", Sgrena claimed that US troops may have deliberately opened fire because of US opposition to the Italian policy of negotiating with hostage-takers.  She challenged the official US version, saying the car was not going fast and "There was no bright light; no signal."  She said it was a patrol not a checkpoint.

The Washington Post reported that this was one of many incidents of civilians being mistakenly targeted.  Many Iraqis tell of being fired on with little or no warning, reports the Times.  Some feel they are under attack by insurgents and speed up to get away, provoking a larger US response. US government reports that at least six incidence in the past 3 months of troops firing on vehicles carrying Westerners in the area around the airport.  I'm reminded of Robert McNamara's description of war, especially around the Vietnam era.  The former Sec. of Defense speaks of "The fog of war."  On the next day, the Marine Corps leader, interviewed on NPR, said, "Warfare is messy."

Press reaction to the shooting included "Rules of Engagement", a New York Times editorial.  In two recent cases "...and presumably hundreds more like them are a dreadful reminder of the human cost of America's war with Iraq and the ensuing occupation.  Iraqi civilians don't have to live only in fear of suicide bombers and masked insurgents.  They also must fear being mistaken for an insurgent by jumpy American forces, which are told to shoot first and ask questions later...More broadly, these accidents further harm America's already shaky image abroad.  And they play into the hands of extremists, who use them to vilify America and the American solider."  The editorial concludes, "None of us want our soldiers killed by suicide bombers who got too close.  But neither do we want those soldiers to have to live forever with the knowledge that they killed a heroic intelligence officer, or that they mowed down the parents of four Iraqi children in front of their very eyes, by mistake."

The Wall Street Journal (3/9) editorial opened that "Americans join Italian in mourning."  It also hoped that Ms. Sgrena "will also shed a tear for the Americans and Iraqis who will die because of the ransom that was paid for her release."  Her own account, the paper adds, is that they were "traveling so fast they were 'losing control.'"  The journal piece concludes, "Not only does paying ransom encourage more kidnapping--of Italians especially--it also puts money in the hands of the enemy in a country where $40 buys an atomic rifle and $200 an attack on US forces.  The shooting of a speeding car at a military checkpoint in a war zone is an unintentional tragedy, but the paying of ransom amounts to a policy of deliberately aiding terrorist."  

The Chicago Tribune editorial focused on Sgrena's "outlandish allegation that the shooting may well have been an ambush.  She suggested that a ransom was paid for her release the and US might have targeted her because it frowns on paying for the release of hostages."  While admitting the death of Calipari is a tragedy, in suggesting that her car was driving too quickly and ignoring warnings, "Baghdad's most feared road" the paper suggests to me that she is partly to blame and that "these things happen" in a war zone as troops try to protect themselves. 

The investigation at first was not satisfactory to the Italian authorities.  A second investigation invited Italians to be included.  

In late April 2005, the U.S. military cleared US troops in the shooting of the Italians.  They committed no wrongdoing and will not be disciplined.  Italy disagreed and was very upset with the conclusions.  Thus, it should not surprise some that in February 2007, the Italian courts added the Sgrena shooting to the CIA agents accused of kidnapping (See "Torture and Rendition" FAQ) . A marine was ordered to stand trial for the 2005 shooting. The trial will likely take place without the defendant. We finally heard about the trial in November 2007, when a court threw out the case "due to lack of jurisdiction." Responded Sgrena, "The arrogance of America, which never wanted this trial, has won." The shooting of Calipari would find no one guilty.

In early December 2006, the last of Italy's troops withdrew. At one point they were the largest allies, after Britain.

On the same day as the Italian shooting, Bulgarian troops had been shot at by American troops and one was killed.  The "investigation is pending" was the Pentagon reaction.  Reuters reproved that spent bullets removed from a Bulgarian were of US issue.  "Gurdev had been sprayed with automatic weapons fire after his unit shot warning rounds to halt an Iraq vehicle in the dark."  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12507-2005Mar6.html

Italy remained in the news in June of 2005 when an Italian judge ordered to arrest of 13 CIA agents for kidnapping an Egyptian cleric on  a Milan street two years ago.  He was flown to Egypt, a country infamous  for its torturing.  After questioning he is still missing. In July a Milan judge decided that six more Americans should be arrested.

Not until May 2006 did he hear much more from Italy, when the new Prime Minister labeled the US invasion and occupation "a grave error."  He plans to propose the withdrawal of Italian troops. 

Also in March 2005, John Bolton, undersecretary of State, was nominated to become US Ambassador to the UN.  He is more often labeled as a blunt hawk than a diplomat. See more on Bolton, the PNAC, and neocons before the war.

Reaction to Bolton, before his confirmation began in the Senate, was usually critical.  Some columnists and papers liked to use Bolton's quotes against him,. especially for his strident criticism of the UN.   For instance, he has said, "There's no such thing as the UN...IF the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference...If I were doing the Security Council today, I've have one permanent member [the US] because that's the real refection of the distribution of power in the world."   The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, Lugar (R), advised Rice not to nominate Bolton. Reports were that Cheney pushed for the nomination. 

Bolton stayed in the news from the day he was nominated, March 7, through mid-May. Republican Senator Voinovich broke with the party and "denounced Mr. Bolton in scathing terms as unsuited for the job, calling him 'the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.'" Nonetheless, the Senate committee voted to send Bolton forward "without recommendation" to be voted on by the entire Senate.  

After a relatively quite few months, President Bush appointed Bolton anyway on August 1, as part of a "recess appointment" to last until January 2007.  Democrats alleged that Bolton was "damaged goods."

John Bolton was back in the news in November 2006, with his term almost over. The Senate committee appeared not able to confirm him, either with the old or the new members. The lead Chicago Tribune editorial urged them to do so because, among other reasons, "Bolton has proven he doesn't have horns." In early December Bolton announced that he would resign.

Just a week after the Bolton nomination, came the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.   Wolfowitz was one of the primary architects of the Iraq War, an advocate of using US power to spread democracy.  "The spiritual father" of the war on Iraq,", calls NPR's veteran Daniel Schoor. Wolfowitz also suggested regime change well before 9/11 and urged strong consideration of an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11

"His moralistic streak and humanitarian impulses have taken him to desolate corners of the globe," wrote the Times.  But his critics say "his optimism on American's ability to build a better world has often blinded him to the motivations of people like Ahmad Chalabi, the INC leader whose intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons, used as the primary basis for going to war, turned out to be wrong.  These critics also say that he failed to prepare a through postwar strategy in Iraq" feeling that our troops would be greeted with flowers.  

Reaction to the nomination came from columnists, authors, and editorials.   For example, Todd Purdham, Times reporter and author of  A Time of Our Choosing on the Iraq War, wrote that Bush undertook the invasion "principally proclaiming the danger of its unconventional weapons, but came in time, aides said, to share the impassioned view of the man he calls Wolfie:  that a democratic beachhead in Iraq could reshape the broader Middle East."

The Washington Post seemed to endorse the Wolfowitz nomination.  Hostility toward him and his policies "is mostly unjustified.  Mr. Wolfowitz is the best qualified of all the recently rumored candidates."

"Why Paul Wolfowitz?", the New York Times editorial, was more critical than the Post.  Bush seemed "slightly flummoxed about why a job that is all about international cooperation should go to a man whose work has so outraged many of the nations with which he will be expected to work."  The piece continues. "Even those who supported the goals of the invasion must remember Mr. Wolfowitz's scathing contempt for estimates that the occupation of Iraq would require hundred of thousands of troops, and his serene conviction that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers.  Like the nomination of John Bolton...Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the UN that accompanied it. "  The editorial concludes, "We can only hope that Mr. Wolfowitz reverts to his earlier incarnation in his new job...It is too critical a post to be used by the president to make another triumphalist political point." (3/17/05). 

Harsh commentary came from The Nation's David Corn who emphasized Wolfowitz' "record on Iraq  [as] one of miscalculation and exaggeration...A leading neocon, Wolfowitz was a chief cheerleader for the war in Iraq--even before 9/11." Corn worries about US creditably oversees from one "who symbolizes arrogance and hubris in policymaking."  Recalling a similar career move made in the 1960s, Corn adds, "In 1967, Robert McNamara, the captain of the Vietnam tragedy, left his post as secretary of defense to become president of the World Bank.  So Bush is establishing a bipartisan tradition:  you screw up a war, you get to run the World Bank."  Corn's article was entitled "Wolfowitz To Rule the World (Bank)"

A relatively quiet John Kerry spoke up against Bolton and Wolfowitz fearing that, according to the LA Times,  they "would undermine the administration efforts to rebuild ties with allies frayed by stain over the war..." 

James Rubin, assistant secretary of state under Clinton, supports Wolfowitz more than Bolton.  While Bolton "appears to reject the very purpose of the UN, Mr. Wolfowitz has supported the ideas that they advanced counties should use their resources to promote democracy and prosperity around the world.  Indeed, at the core of the neoconservatives mission is the expenditure of American resources in support of democratic values." The critics of Wolfowitz (post-war planning, insurgency, liberators not occupiers, etc.) should worry about means not motive, Rubin adds in his March 22 Times op-ed.

For more on Wolfowitz, see pre-war FAQs, especially "Was the War Inevitable?"

Wolfowitz, Bolton, and the Italian journalist were not the only "Ally" story of spring 2005.  Secretary Rumsfeld fanned the flames with Turkey by blaming Turkey for the insurgency.

"Clearly, if we had been able to get the 4th Infantry Division in from the north through Turkey, more of the Iraq Saddam Hussein Baathist regime would have been captured or killed.  The insurgency today would be less."  The Turkish Parliament had refused in March 2003 to permit US troops to launch a northern offensive. 

Tony Blair won re-election on May 5, 2005. The Iraq issues played a role in the decision making of the British.  Though many Brits are distrustful of Blair, he was won over Tory and Liberal-Democrats. Blair told his voters that he had no regrets about the war. Opponents think he planned the war with President Bush and decided to invade long before he made public.  This decision was likely in about April of 2002, about one year before the war began.  Blair agreed that "regime change" was necessary.

A potentially damaging documents was released about one week before the election.  The government's lawyer had privately cautioned Blair about the legality of the war.  This contradicts Blair's earlier statements.  This legal conclusion was made to Parliament before it voted to support the war.  

The war was re-evaluated by some in the British press upon the news of the death of the former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook.  He quit the government in protest before the war and was the leader of the House of Commons.  

In the spring of 2003, Cook had written to Blair, "In principle, I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international supp0rt.  In practice, I believe it is against Britain's interest to create a precedent for unilateral military action."  Cooks asked, "Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?"  Wrote the Times author of his obituary, "In British politics, Mr. Cook's action--defying his party at a time of national crisis--was seen as a rare display of principle at person and political cost.

Though few opposition leaders in Britain seem willing to confront Bush on Iraq,  in September 2005,   Kenneth Clarke, one of the few  Conservative leaders who opposed the war, criticized both the Prime Minister and the President.  "If the prime minister really believes it, he must be the only person left who thinks that the recent bombs in London had no connection at all with his policy in Iraq....America is a great friend of Britain and our closest ally.  But a true friend is a candid friend.  American presidents are not always right...The invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the core task of the pursuit and destruction of Al Qaeda.  Indeed, the failure to prepare properly for the aftermath of invasion has left to a horrifying expansion of terrorist activity in Iraq.  We must not make such a mistake again." 

Further British criticism came from the former UK Ambassador to the U.S., who favored the war.  Sir Christopher Meyer's memoir appeared in extracts in The Guardian and Daily Mail, starting in mid-November.  Meyer feels that Blair could have delayed the war but failed.  The "rush to war" led to the US and UK being unprepared for the aftermath.  He labels Blair's government as "a crowd of pygmies" and paints Blair as "being almost laughably inattentive to detail," according the the New York Times.

In March 2006 the UK Attorney General threatened newspapers not to print more information of the  Bush-Blair meetings when Bush suggested bombing al-Jazeera TV.

The British news in November 2005 was of a secret 5-page memo/ document that London's Daily Mirror wanted to release.  The editors were threatened with prosecution by invoking the Official Secrets Act.  The memo purportedly shows that Blair and Bush disagreed during the war about how to handle the Qatar-based Al Jazeera.  Qatar is an ally of the US.  The memo reportedly says that Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera headquarters.

Blair disagreed. The Tribune story reminded readers that the Al Jazeera office in Kabul was destroyed by US bombs in 2001, and in 2003 a reporter was killed in a US missile strike on the networks' Baghdad office. At the time of the memo, Al Jazeera was reporting on large civilians deaths in the bloody assault. on Fallujah. 600 Iraqis reportedly died in a week, many of them women and children. As Jeremy Scahill wrote in The Nation, "Faced with a public relations disaster, US officials did what they do best--they attacked the messenger....To date, there has been no credible rejection of the Mirror's report from the White House."

"Why Did You Want To Bomb Me, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair?" is a misleading title to an otherwise unique perspective from the director general of al-Jazeera.  (Blair reportedly argued against any alleged bombing).  Wadah Khanfar recalls that until 2001 his network "was perceived in a positive way in the west as a whole and the US in particular.  It was seen as the single most important force for reform and democracy across the Arab region."  But after the Iraq War, al-Jazeera's offices "in Kabul and Baghdad were bombed" and promised investigations nor apologies have followed.  

The al Jazeera bombing story continued into January of 2006, when two Britons were to face trial on the memo leak.  

Blair was in the news again in early March 2006, with the story that he "invoked God in decision to send British troops to Iraq"

There was little news from allies in the early summer of 2005.  However, the London bombings of July 7 seemed to provoke a response from Italy.  Italy appeared to be a next likely target for Al Qaeda upset with US troops in Iraq. Prime Minister Berlusconi, a strong US ally,  affirmed the some of its troops would leave in September.  Italy originally sent 3000 troops and 25 have been killed.  Relations with the US have been strained for at least six months. 

Also out of Europe came the spring 2006 story that  German intelligence agents in Iraq had cooperated with the Americans in early 2003 and through the start of the war.  Secret war plans of Saddam were passed along. The German government, not supportive of the war, had long insisted that its support was limited. 

Iraq's foreign policy, outside of the big news stories about making deals with Iran, also concerns other nations.  President Talabani "angrily criticized other Arab states...in an unusual public rebuke" (NYTimes, 9/6/05) by saying they had insulted Iraq by not sending diplomats or condolence letters about the bridge stampede in Baghdad, which left 1000 dead.

News from the fall of 2005 included the front-page Chicago Tribune detailed investigation of workers coming from Nepal and become forced laborers were companies contracted out by the U.S.  They were fooled and promised good jobs in Jordan if they left Nepal. 

In September and October of 2005 there was little news of allied troops in Iraq, save for the riot against British troops in Basra. 

"UN votes to extend mission of multiforce", declared the Chicago Tribune/AP on November 9.  The unanimous Security Council vote extended the troop mandate until the end of 2006, with a review after 8 months.  At the time, there were 157,000 US troops and 22,000 from other countries. The mandate allows for the ending at any point if Iraq requests it. Originally, this mandate was to end when an permanent Iraqi cabinet was formed. 

Of those 22,000 foreign troops, the number was ever decreasing.  For example, in April, Britain announced it would soon reduce troop levels from 8000 to 7000.  At one point, the UK had 46,000 troops in Iraq. 

Did Russia help Iraq determine US troop movements in March, 2003?  This was alleged by captured documents discovered in March, 2006.  Russia denies the charges.  A US study shows attack plans were also leaked through the Russian ambassador.  Some of the reports were not accurate, it turns out. Rice said she would ask Russia if the allegations were true.

If true, one would assume that these charges would greatly impact the Bush-Putin relationship. As the Tribune put it, "The disclosure could jeopardize US-Russian relations more tan any single event since the end of the Cold War" 25 years ago. Russia had strongly opposed the war. About one week later the US announced that it would not investigate the charges. 

The US image in the world continued to worsen, studies showed in June 2006. Favorable views of the US dropped from last year over 10% in Spain (down to 23%) and India (to 56%) and Turkey (to 12%). Our image in China and Pakistan improved. Top ally Britain remained about 55%, though down from 75% before the war. Compared to 1999, the numbers are way down. Of the 14 counties polled, majorities in just two expressed confidence in Mr. Bush, India and Nigeria.

In October of 2006, the British were in the news again, with an investigation that blamed Americans for shooting a British TV correspondent. The shooting took place in March 2003 in the first days of the war. An inquest found that Terry Lloyd was "unlawfully killed" when his vehicle with wounded civilians was fired on. Britain's National Union of Journalists called Lloyd's death a war crime. Later that month polls showed that the majority of Brits want their troops out by the end of 2006.

In late October Blair barely survived a parliamentary inquiry on evidence used in the lead up to the war. During the debate, the longest-serving Conservative in the House of Commons said, "Because of his tragic misjudgment, our prime minister is more steeped in blood than any Scottish politician since Macbeth." Opponents of the inquiry feared adversaries would see weakness, troops morale could be hurt, and Iraq might be less unified. 81% of Brits are now against the war.

In other US-British news from the fall, Britain asked Syria for help in Iraq to squash sectarian violence. The talks were the first since 2003. Maybe Iran will also be part of future talks. For much more on Iran, see "Is Iran Next?" FAQ. Syria surprised many of agreeing with Iraq to re-establishing diplomatic relations. Syria had cut off relations in 1982 during the Iran-Iraq War. The US hopes that Syria will close down its border with Iraq, not allow insurgents or fighters to enter so easily.

A secret tape was revealed in February 2007 of the US pilots' reaction to shooting and killing British soldiers. "I'm going to be sick. We're in jail, dude," was the 2003 response. No charges have been brought against the US pilots.

The man who organized Australia's Special Forces for the war, labeled it in November 2006 as "a strategic and moral blunder" and a "cynical" use of his country's forces.

How many US allies are dying? Allies total sess than 10% of US deaths, with Britain leading at 126. 10-33 have been lost by Italy, Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria, and Spain. About 10 other countries have lost at least one soldier in the past four years.

The British stormed on Iraq jail, likely saving 127 prisoners from more torture and death. The Christmas Day raid in Basra, including 1400 British and Iraqi troops. Torture signs included cigarette burns, electrical burns, and gunshots wounds to legs and knees

In the United Arab Emirates a woman told President Bush, Sr., "We do not respect you son." Bush responded, "This son is not going to back down...This is going to work out in Iraq."

As Syria and Iran were part of the larger potential puzzle with the Iraq Study Group report of December 2006, so Saudi Arabia came back into the news. In the event of a US withdrawal, the Saudi government would support the Sunnis of Iraq, fearing their massacre by Shiites. Saudi clerics seemed united on this stance. A statement read, "After almost four years of occupation, it is clear that the aim behind this occupation is the the Crusaders and Shiites to take control of Iraq, paving the way to complete their control over the region." Saudi haven't supported Sunnis as much because parts of the Sunni insurgency are al Qaeda, strongly opposed to the royal family. "One of the first consequences" of a US pullout would "be massive Saudi intervention," wrote a consultant in the Post. He was fired by the Saudi government. It is known in diplomatic circles, however, that the Saudi do not desire a US withdrawal. Cheney was in Saudi Arabia about one week before the Post column.

US Senator Nelson visited Syria and met with President Assad, much to the chagrin of the White House. They agreed to control the border between Syria and Ira. Both countries seem to have an interest in doing so.

Also see "When Might US Troops Come Home?" FAQ

Reaction to the President's "surge" speech came throughout the Middle East. The Foreign Minister from Qatar chastixed the US: "I think it's important for American friends to coordinate their policies with countries in the region...before adopting them." A Saudi newspaper believes that the US government should "first of all convince its own people about the strategy before tyring to convince the world." Rice traveled to many Middle Eastern countries in January, 2007. She also went to Iraq.

The unpopular war in Britain received news in February that Blair would be removing many British troops by the end of 2007. The large Tribune headline blared, "Weakened Blair begins Iraq pullout." British troops, currently numbering about 7000, are mostly around Basra. They will be reduced by about 1500 this year. That day was the first bombing in Najaf in moths. US officials declared the withdrawal "a sign of success" and making us "pleased" because Iraqis were taking over security. Blair added, that though brave troops are regularly coming under fire, "The next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis." In response to critics, Blair replied in NRA (National Rifle Association) semantics, "We did not cause the terrorism. The terrorists caused the terrorism." The Pentagon agreed that attacks in Basra had actually increased over the last year. Politicians and experts tend to agree that there is no al Qaeda base near Basra.

British opponents of Blair countered that Iraq is far from becoming "the beacon of democracy" promised by Blair. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that Blair "leaves behind a country on the brink of civil war, reconstruction stalled, corruption endemic and the region as a whole a lot less stable than it was in 2003." All British troops, according to plan, would be out by the end of 2008. Blair was to soon announce when he will leave office, after having been Prime Minister for the past 10 years. British polls in March showed that nearly 60% say invading was a mistake. A majority in this BBC poll feel that they war has made Britain less safe, with only 5% feeling more safe. In a reference to possible war with Iran, 51% feel, according to the Tribune that "they would not trust the British government if it said military action were needed elsewhere because a county posed a threat to national security."

Just one week after the Blair announcement, British troops again raided a Basra-areas office and found signs of torture of Iraqis by Iraqis. Maliki condemned the raid but said nothing about the torture. The office were of the Shiite-led intelligence agency. British troops had found larger evidence of torture with raid in December 2006. "Site 4" in Baghdad controlled by the Interior Ministry, had 1400 prisoners.

In other British news, the Queen's grandson, Prince Harry, is joining the British military in Iraq. Harry is the first member of the Royal Family to serve in combat in 25 years.

For British sailors captured by Iran in spring 2007, see "Is Iran Next?" FAQ.

Blair announced his resignation on May 10, 2007, after 10 years as Prime Minister. The number one criticism for most Brits was Blair strong support for Bush and the Iraq War. E.J. Dione examined the Blair legacy.

British forces withdrew the remaining of their forces to a military base on Labor Day. Ironically, President Bush arrived in Iraq the very next day. The 500 British troops had been in a Basra palace joined those 5000 at an airport base. The Brits once had 45,00 troops in Iraq. Officers felt their presence "was a magnet for attacks" which sometimes killed civilians neighbors. The Brits announced that they would continue to train Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and could intervene to support them. Sadr has infiltrated the ISF. Some Iraqis favor the British withdrawal while others are worried. Concerns are greater lawlessness and political violence. Said one Iraqi, "We might become safe from mortars but not from killing and assassination." Tribes and militias have better weapons that the ISF. The British feel the main problem is not insurgents but criminal gangs. Perhaps the US could learn lessons from this withdrawal. The London Independent wondered, "What has been achieved?"

In early October Gordon Brown further announced another 500 troops leaving by the end of the year, taking their total to 4500. Their role will be mostly oversight rather than combat. The Prime Minister waited only a few more days to announce that British troops would be cut in half by the spring of 2008. All troops might leave during 2008. Brown's reasoning in the withdrawal is "progress in training" of Iraqis. The Times front page article of Oct. 9 spoke of the "tight alliance fraying" with the US. British voters are strongly and vocally against the war.

Gates defended these cuts of "America's closest ally" as the cuts were made "with the full consent" of the US.

As the British announced another reduction in forces, Georgia was doubling their troops to 2000. Only the US and British have more. Georgia, a former Soviet Republic, would like to join US-led NATO. The small nation in the Caucasus mountains is the cite of a Caspian oil pipeline built by the US.

Overall foreign troops, not including US, peaked in early 2004 at 25,000 and by October 2007 are about 12,000.

New Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited British troops in early December. A few weeks later, the British formally withdrew from Basra in a ceremony held indoors to avoid mortar attacks. The Major General said, "I came to rid Basra of its enemies, and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends...We will continue to help train Basra security forces. But we are guests in your country, and we will act accordingly." One of the two rival militia groups vying for power is Sadr's. Of the 16 Iraqi provinces, Basra is the 9th and most important to be turned over. Lt. General Odierno, in charge of US forces, is concerned about undo Iranian influence in Basra, the largest oil producing region in Iraq.

Queen Elizabeth's son, Prince Andrew, who rarely speaks in public, went public in February 2008. The US could have avoided problems if it had listened to Britain's advice and learned from its experiences in Iraq in the 1920s. The Prince added, "If you are looking at colonialism, if you are looking at operations on an international scale, if you are looking at understanding each other's culture, understanding how to operate in a military insurgency campagin--we have been through them all."

With violence in Basra increasing in March/April 2008, Britain postponed their troop withdrawals. Troops were recalled from their Basra base to fight with the Iraqi Army. UK troops were at 4000. Some in the Bush administration have spoken of British withdrawals as tantamount to handing Basra over to Shiite militias. Also see "PZ Violence 2007-2008" FAQ.

Also see "Violence 2006-2007" FAQ.
See also Iraqi Politics 2006-2007.

Could the UN play a greater role in 2008 or 2009? There was speculation to this effect in the spring of 2006. What countries would be willing to send troops? The role of the UN came up in late September as Iraq sought an extended mandate from the world body. The mandate of US-led forces would end at the end of 2008, according to the proposal. UN special representative in Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, is trying to follow through on a recent UN resolution calling on the group to help the Iraqi government. He feels time is short and recalls the horrific bombing of UN headquarters in 2003, where de Mello was killed along with 21 others. Of his 250-300 staff in Iraq, and unclear number are for security.

The "coalition of the willing" was exagerrated, we only learned in November 2008. Three official sites were changed but retained their original release date, making them appear to be unaltered originals. The difference was between 45 and 49 allies, including Costa Rica and Angola. Research was done at the University of Illinois. As careful readers of this site may recall, a country didn't even need to send troops or money to be considered allies.

Since most allies had pulled out by the summer of 2008, we didn't hear much about them in the fall. However, in mid-December the British press announced that nearly all British troops would be out in 2009. I surmize that perhaps, as in the past, this withdrawal could be delayed. The numbers would be reduced from the 4000 to about 400, by June. The British at one point had tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. Other allies are withdrawing because their authrotiy expires at the end of December. These include troops from Tonga, Azerbaijan, Poland, and Macedonia. Poland was one of the largest, at 900.

The British update of December is that a withdrawal will begin in March, with only 300-400 left by June, down from end of year 4100 and top of 46,000. Strains between British and US included how to deal with Sadr forces in the south. The British have lost 177 KIA and spend $12 billion. Another casualty, reported the New York Times, was Tony Blair and his Labor Party, "hastened out" of office in 2007 "largely because of his unpopular role" in supporting troops to Iraq in 2003.

In mid-June 2009 came the announcement from British leadership to investigate of the "lessons learned" from the war. PM Gordon Brown said the hearings would be behind closed doors, where "blame" and "liability" were not the goals. The leader of the opposition Conservative Party responded, "If mistakes were made, we need to know who made them, and why they were made." British troops are nearly all out of Iraq but the decision to enter the war remains the most highly contentious foreign policy decision in the past 50 years. The cost to Britain was $10 billion, 120,000 deployed over six years, and 179 deaths. Controversial issues are pre-war intelligence, equipment shortcomings, and the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, a top weapons specialist "hounded by the government after he criticized the misuse of intelligence on Iraq's secret weapons programs."

How did Britain get into the war? Did Tony Blair drawn in the British by an eagerness to please the US, even though the defense, intelligence, and foreign policy establishment was against the war.? Did Blair secretly pledge support to Bush up to a year before the war? Publicly, Blair stated that he wanted to avoid war. Rice may have joined Cheney and others in the US in raising the case for a war with Iraq even before 9/11.

Blair seemed to ignore those in his government who had been against the war, we learned from British documents in November, 2009. The inquiry was expected to last 18 months. The strains with the US during the war were mostly in the south. The UK was very upset that the US was planning to arrest Sadr. The British said their colonial experience had taught them how to deal with the native population

At the end of June US troops left Iraqi cities. The international force was becoming "a coalition of one." That is, there is no "multi" in the Multi-National Force. Romanians and Australians are expected to be gone by the end of July. Iceland two troops have already left.