Coalition? What Coalition?

President Bush addressed the CENTCOM Coalition today, and spoke about the war in Iraq. It is customary for the President to recognize key individuals who are present. Since this was the “Coalition Conference,” one would expect such acknowledgements to include representatives from the 21 “allied” governments who are contributing military forces in Iraq. Surely a significant representative from the United Kingdom would have been present, since they have about 7,200 troops in Iraq. Or Korea, or Australia, whose combined troop commitment numbers about 3,150 troops. Or someone from the other 19 countries who have troops in Iraq (that number combined is about 3,902 troops, which averages to be about 205 troops per country, though Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador and Georgia all have more than 300 troops each). The President only acknowledged four individuals by name, three of which were U.S. Military officers. The last was the National Security Advisor to the President of Iraq. President Bush mentioned “members of the coalition who are present” and “ambassadors who have joined us.” I find that very interesting since, last I checked, ambassadors outrank national security advisors. Further, one would assume that since this is a U.S. Central Command Conference and the head of CENTCOM, a four-star Admiral would be present, as well as General Petraeus (a four-star army general and commander of the multi-national force in Iraq), and that each coalition nation would have their top military commanders attend.

We just don’t know who was there, because there is no information on the attendees other than those expressly acknowledged by the President in his opening remarks. I find that interesting, since the word “Coalition” is thrown around like candy by everyone in the Bush administration. I would think that the President would take every opportunity to put a face on who these allies really are, but that does not seem to be the case.

The United States has approximately 145,000 troops in Iraq. Of the seven major Multi-National Force Commands, five are headed by the U.S. Military. Multi-National Division- Central South, headed by Poland, is only a Division in name, since most of its coalition forces withdrew in 2006. It is officially slated to be dissolved sometime this year. Multi-National Division- South East, headed by the U.K., is comprised of nothing more than a reinforced brigade (around 7,000 trooops) and that number is expected to draw down this year. To quickly revisit the numbers, the U.S. has about 145,000 out of approximately 159,200 troops, or 91% of all troops in Iraq. Three out of 21 countries who constitute the coalition account for 72.8% of the 14,200 troops our allies are contributing. The remaining 18 countries account for less than 28% of that number and only 2.4% of total coalition forces in Iraq. Yep, that’s 2.4%. If we create a table of the top five allies in Iraq, here’s what you get:

Multi-National Force Iraq			Total Number of Troops:		159,000
Country	Number of Troops		Percent of Total Troops
U.S.A.	145,000		91.2%
United Kingdom	7,200		4.5%
South Korea	2,300		1.4%
Australia	850		0.5%
Poland	900		0.6%

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Let’s take a look at another “coalition” or allied effort. During WWII, the top five contribution allies in terms of troops, were the United Kingdom, India, the United States, the U.S.S.R and France. Here is what their chart looks like (numbers are 1945 grand totals):

Allied Forces, 1945			Total Number of Troops:		35,350,000
Country	Number of Troops		Percent of Total Troops
U.S.A.	11,700,000		33.1%
U.S.S.R	11,500,000		32.5%
U.K.	5,000,000		14.1%
France	5,000,000		14.1%
India	2,150,000		6.1%

Source:http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/ww2.htm

Before the pundits begin, let me say that I’m not attempting to equate one war with the other. It should be noted, however, that the United States has almost tripled its percentage of troops for Iraq in comparison to those sent in WWII, while Great Britain has halved its percentage in terms of troop commitment. What I am attempting to do by pointing out these discrepancies is establish some sort of definition for what in the heck constitutes a real coalition. Surely, someone in the Defense or State Department could come up with some sort of doctrine regarding these sorts of things. Common sense would dictate that based upon the Iraq chart, we have nothing resembling a coalition at all. In that case, it would make perfect sense not to have anyone of significance at the conference. Why should we? If we assume over ninety percent of the risk, we should call over ninety percent of the shots. Which begs the question: Why even call it a coalition? The world clearly understands that the war in Iraq is being fought by the United States. For good or bad, that’s the way it is.

The fact that President Bush and the administration are still holding to the pipe dream of a coalition is just another example of the insanity that exists in the Executive Branch. Mr. President, we’ve caught on. Just because you keep saying it doesn’t mean that we believe it anymore. As Joseph Goebbels can attest to, even the best propaganda is exposed as a lie in the end.