Iraq

Disappearing Coalition Partners in Iraq

|

Disappearling Coalition Partners Infographic
reason infographic

Gulf War (source)
Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the United States

Iraq War (source)

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States Uzbekistan.

Isis Conflict (source)
Australia, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan, the Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom

NEXT: Pro-Union, Elite Harvard Students Against Teach for America, School Choice

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I suppose that animation is better than the one we were treated to yesterday.

    1. Ciao.

      Where is my grieving wild cat?

  2. more like disappearing AM Links

    1. Damn you Humungus! Damn you to hell!

    2. AM links have never existed. You only imagined them.

      1. It was all just a dream.

      2. We’ve always been at war with AM links.

    3. Bring back the fucking Mourning Lynx!

      1. Somebody is geoing to get a vigorous lashing with the Lynx O’Nine Tails.

  3. At least Alaska’s still with us.

  4. Not to mention the disappearing Mourning Lynx.

  5. The Australians? They’re always good for cannon fodder.

    1. Especially, it seems, in desert geographies.

    2. +1 Dalmia

  6. Remember when Bush’s 39 coalition partners in 2003 was derided as a phony coalition?

    From 2004:

    Last year, during the early stages of the Democratic primary, Senator Kerry told supporters that the more than 30 nations in the international operation to remove Saddam Hussein represented a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted.”

    Good times, good times.

    1. Right and wrong switched places on January 20, 2009. You’re a racist for not having noticed.

    2. I also remember when this latest boondoggle started seeing a dem politician on tv say that”What’s different this time is that Obama built a coalition instead of going in alone”. These people have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

    3. I remember a comedian making light of this at a show back then. He claimed there wasn’t ’36 countries’ since most of those didn’t matter. You hear that, Poland?

    4. – Bush: I got a coalition of the willing. I got forty nations, ready to roll, son!

      – Reporter: Like who?

      – Bush: Who the fuck said that? Huh? Huh? Like who? England [United Kingdom]. Japan’s sending PlayStations. Stankonia says they’re willing to drop bombs over Baghdad. Riggity Row is coming. Afrika Bambaataa and the Zulu Nation. So, I’m not doing this by myself, and I’m not disrespecting the U.N., even though they don’t got no army. Go sell some medicine, bitches! I’m trying to get that oil…

      1. Good old Dave.

    5. I also find it humouros that Bush, the “idiot cowboy who acted unilaterally” managed to convince a coalition of 30+ nations to go with us in Afghanistan and Iraq*, yet Obama, the allegedly super intelligint, worldly, black Jesus can only muster a coalition of 14. Funny that…

      *None of which is intended as an endorsement of Bush’s wars, just pointing out the duplicity of it all.

  7. Can you believe there are so many racist countries in the world?

  8. Canada’s Defense Minister (not Bobby Orr) specifically singled out France, Germany and Italy in a speech the other day. Italy more for sending weapons to the Kurds. When the coalition for Iraq was listed, countries who sent money and weapons but no military were considered a part of the coalition which included Japan and Germany at the time.

    So. What’s the criteria? Just military engagement or does stuff like sending weapons and cash count as well?

    http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/21201

  9. Everyone’s an isolationist these days. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why.

  10. I seem to recall that lying POS in the WH was elected, since the world just LOVED him, right?

  11. I remember seeing an anti-war, anti-Bush sign in 2004 that asked “what’s next: Libya, Syria, Cuba?”

    2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

  12. Look, I speak ‘Millenial’

    Here’s the Problem with This:

    – A non-interventionist-libertarian-view should necessarily deride the notion of “multilateral intervention” as being any more desirable than “unilateral use of force in defense of national security

    “Multilateralism” excuses military action so long as enough people seem to agree to back you up, no matter how unrelated they themselves may be. Its justification through popularity, completely aside from the actual interests of any of the so-called ‘aggrieved parties’. In addition, the expectation is always for quid-pro-quo = nations will step forward and support a military action against a 3rd party only when they believe they stand to get something in return: favorable trade deals, similar support against their own personal enemies, a temporary cessation of criticism of their own domestic oppression,etc. I see nothing about it a Nonterventioner should like.

    Unilateral action – or even ‘narrow coalitions’- *in theory* require a more direct justification of what personal interests are at stake. There’s less bullshit to cover up the actual issue of: “who is threatened, and why do we care”.

    So – a declining number of ‘coalition partners’ shouldn’t reflect anything positive from a libertarian POV; it *may* reflect the failures of the Multilateralist approach in Iraq, or it may reflect a declining price tag for the operations in terms of ‘troops committed’.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.