Talk:Coalition of the willing

Contractors

I find the bar graph at the bottom doesn't really make sense. The article is about the coaltion in the Iraq war, and which countries made it up. "Contractors" are not a country. It's like this list: Apple, Orange, Banana, Truck.

There was not an open call for fighters to come fight in the coalition of the willing, as for instance, ISIS has done in Iraq and Syria. So presumably all of the contractors were working for one of the countries in the coalition, paid for by them. I know the uSA used many, especially for convoy security. I believe some other countries also had firms working for them.

Also, I think the term "mercenary" is not NPV. There never referred to themselves this way, nor were they referred to in the press that way. It a derisive term used by the left to characterize them.

Having said this, assuming the graph is correct, I did find it an interesting piece of information, but it just doesn't fit into either the graph it's on, or the topic of the article very well. I wonder if it should be relocated somewhere else.

If we knew that the vast majority of the Contractors were hired by America, for instance we could then add them all to the America part of the chart, which would help give the true picture of who supplied the men in the war effort. It's like the was was fought 50% by people from "contractors" the way the graph is constructed. Misleading and confusing. The ideal solution would be to break them out by country to, then for each country you could show a bar for military and a bar for non military. Is it an important distinction for this article? If Poland supplied 5000 people, 3000 military and 2000 contractors it doesn't change that they were there as part of the coalition.

ZeroXero (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ireland

Should the Republic of Ireland not be on the list too? In March 2003, the US State Department published a list of 30 countries who were prepared to publically support the US in the event of war with Iraq. A further 15 countries were prepared to offer assistance, but did not want to be identified. On being pressed in the Irish parliament whether the Republic of Ireland were included in the 15 the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern stated "I presume...we would be". The reason he gave was that the US interpreted permission for overflights as assistance. Since the Republic has been neutral since the foundation of the state in 1922, being a member of such a coalition may be interpreted as unconstitutional. The defence for any participation was defended on humanitarian grounds and support of UN resolutions. unsigned comment by 222.3.135.118 01:33, 2005 December 29

222.3.135.118, the convention is that your new comment should go at the end of the talk page.

I disagree with the idea that allowing overflights qualifies a country as a member of the coalition. In declared wars warships and merchant vessels are allowed to frequent neutral seaports. This doesn't compromise their neutrality. -- Geo Swan 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Goa being a good example of that, I guess...I agree, if the country never identified itself as a member, it should not be listed, end of story. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Kuwait army translators

I could be wrong, but I thought for sure that Kuwait sent most of their english speaking army personnel to assist in the war as translators. Anybody know if I'm correct? I could of sworn I saw it on the news. perhaps they've withdrawn them all?

Old comments

I'd like to dispute the neutrality of this article. At the bottom it says "Propoganda" in related articles. Propoganda has nothing to do with the COW. That is an opinion, something that is meant to stay out of Wikipedia.

I did an imperfect merge...there's a lot of information here, some of which perhaps should be split off, better located elsewhere? Also, this is pretty fluid, so let's not get too jumpy about the content. --The Cunctator

Poland being listed as sending "non-combat troops" has to be a surprise to the Polish comandos that are seizing weapons and ships off the coast of iraq.

I also think its unecessary to insist on refering to some of the nations as "small". Who cares? It sounds like you're intentionally trying to diminish their role (and I know you are).

Plenty of people care that they are small. There are any number of corporations with larger budgets than most of the nations on the list. I'm trying to accurately describe the situation. I've even been generous: Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands etc. are tiny nations. --The Cunctator

From Secretary Powell [1]:

Well, I think it's still a fair point to make, whether it's greater or less than it was at the time of the Gulf War. But as of today, there were 46 nations in this coalition. Everybody was saying the United States is going it alone politically and militarily. Well, more and more nations are joining us. Now, they all can't contribute militarily. Most of them don't have the wherewithal to add to the kind of combat power that we, the United Kingdom and the Australians can bring to the table. But for a small country that's taking a big internal domestic political chance, and hears itself threatened by larger nations in Europe, to nevertheless stand up and say we think this is the right thing to do, we want to be a member of the coalition of the willing and we want the whole world to know it, I think that is the kind of commitment we should treasure and the kind of commitment that we should certainly present to the world, as a nation that is part of this great effort to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and provide a better life for the Iraqi people by getting rid of this regime.

that's a very cute comment. I like the idea of small countries feeling threatened by larger nations in Europe, and running under USA fatherly protection, and wanting the whole world to know it. I also like the royal "we".

Now, would anybody object if it be removed ? Or should "we" (the other we around) also start sentimental rants in the talk pages ?

User:anthere

Many Eastern European leaders and individuals reacted negatively to Chirac's thinly veiled threats that support for regime change in Iraq could hamper their EU application hopes. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/18/sprj.irq.chirac/

Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position. It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet. I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others." Ordinary Person

---

The countries listed there are supposed to be part of the coalition ?!

Do you really mean a country who announced it was willing to support reconstruction "after the war" is counted in coalition forces ?

Thanks for pointing that list Mav. That's very interesting. ant

"Coalition of the willing" and "coalition forces" are two related but different things. "Forces" = fighting troops. If I mixed this up by my edit then please forgive me. --mav

There is something very screwy with the counts in this article. There are 191 nations in the UN. 47 + 55 = 191. Huh?? Who goofed? Tannin 09:18 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

there are many nations that have not weighed in. i can list all the nations who have not announced or been implied, if you wish. Kingturtle 16:23 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Kingturtle. I don't think we need to name them, though any particularly prominent ones could be mentioned as examples, but a para saying something like 87 countries, including XXX, YYY and ZZZ have not committed to a position is needed. Tannin

---

Although Germany has declined participation of its troops, it allows the US army to use its bases and hospitals in Germany (notably Ramstein Air Base), and has also granted overflight rights. There have also been talks about Germany participating in the reconstruction. Now what makes Germany a non-member of the "coalition of the willing" and Micronesia a member? --Eloquence 09:25 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with political support. There's some slippage because when the term was coined it refered to a list of countries who politically supported the U.S. policy before the invasion; now it's used to describe something more amorphous. The real problem is that it's just about impossible to find an official list. If you can find it, I congratulate you. Some extensive searching on the State Department website found no details. --The Cunctator

I've compiled the lists on this page by the following means. (1) Do a Yahoo News search for Albania and Iraq; (2) see if there is a story discussing the official stance of Albania; (3) add info to the list; (4) repeat first three steps until reaching Zimbabwe. It took about 4 hours on Sunday. Kingturtle 17:03 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Wow, that's really impressive. I hate to say this, but we need links if we're to keep this entry up-to-date and accurate. In particular, there are countries like Costa Rica which are on the latest White House list but you listed as not in the coalition...maybe you can pull up the links from your history. --The Cunctator 17:18 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Costa Rica's Constitutional Court ordered the country to be removed from the coalition list in 2004.Copperchair 28 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)

Yes, but they did get on the list somehow to start with, it is still there at [2]. This article is a history of those names and what happened to them. Please don't delete the information. Meggar 2005 July 6 07:46 (UTC)

I'll find some time this weekend to add the references. Although, the Yahoo news stories don't last forever; they disappear after a few months. Kingturtle 18:20 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I started putting in the references. My concern is that most of them are from yahoo news, and i think they have a shelf life. so what happens in a year or so, when the links are dead? Kingturtle 03:19 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

could there be somehow a clear division between what "coalition of the wiling" and "coalition forces" are ? ant

My take -- this is an article about the Coalition of the Willing, not about those who oppose it. The opposition lists should be removed. Also, what happened to Slovenia? They were part of the coaliton but are no more? And PLEASE put links around the names of the countries. I tried, but got edit conflicted out. -- Zoe

This is awful. All of those links will be seriously out of date soon, and this is supposed to be an article for the ages, not for the current date. How long do you think newspaper aricles stay online? And if (and likely, when) nations change sides, the links will have to be changed, and that is going to prove very difficult. -- Zoe

I did extensive research to create the support/opposed/neutral/undecided lists as a way to clear up the ambuguity and confusion of which nations exactly are among the 'willing.' The White House and press lists have been inaccurate. I wanted an accurate list. As for the links, those were added because the Cunctator suggested we needed them to maintain accuracy. I thought it was a good idea, at least for the time being. I feel it is important for people to have a clear understanding of who exactly is among the willing and who exactly is in opposition to the willing. As for the article itself, I agree, it is getting messy. I'll take a bold step to tidy up. We can always revert back if I screw up. Kingturtle 14:14 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

You've done a great job so far, KingTurtle. Go ahead and edit as you see fit.

(Afterthought - I wrote that before seeing your latest edit. Haven't read it yet. Tannin)

BTW, I'm three-parts finished doing a reasonably lengthy new entry to be called Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War or something similar (it's a sucky title, so sing out if you can think of a better one). This page will need to link to it somewhere. Tannin 14:40 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

comment left in the main article from someone "Well, I think it's still a fair point to make, whether it's greater or less than it was at the time of the Gulf War. But as of today, there were 46 nations in this coalition"

---

Kingturtle: Looking great; I added back the "nature of support" listing because it's useful information, even if imperfect, and because though we try to include references (thanks!) we don't rely on them. That is, we assume that Wikipedia will outlast outside references, so it's better not to write "For information on x, see [1]", but to include the information, and include the reference. --The Cunctator

---

If people think that it is important to note that some of the CoW nations are small, so be it, but no listing of small contributing nations will change the fact that this was a large coalition of powerful nations. Within Europe, France and Germany were for basically isolated on Iraq. CoW nations make up most of the world's GDP. Most OECD nations were in the coalition. Ordinary Person

Naming

See also: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)

Is coalition of the willing a reasonable name for the entry? Nations supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq is one alternate possibility. However, the content specifically describes the nations described as the coalition of the willing, both before the invasion (in which case the entry name might be Nations supporting the U.S. position on the 2003 Iraq disarmament crisis) and then during.

Coalition of the willing seems to be a better catch-all entry, IMHO. --The Cunctator

---

It's an abscure, trendy phrase which won't mean much to readers in years to come. Let's try to write a timeless article. I also changed a lot of presnt-tense verbs to past-tense, in the opening paragraphs.

The slogan coalition of the willing is being used for propaganda purposes. It should not be the name of an article whose scope transcends that propaganda. coalition of the willing should be that article about the sloagan, or if there's not enough info about the slogan to merit a seperate article, then it should be a disambiguator or a redirect.

I'm splitting the article intoe coalition of the willing and U.S. allies against Iraq. --Uncle Ed 11:19 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Move it back, Ed. You are getting downright unreasonable with unilaterial decisions lately. This one is wrong. Mav says so, Cunc says so, and so do I. Listen to the majority this time. Tannin 12:22 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, if you read User talk:Maveric149 you will see that he agreed with the split. So if it's a matter of voting, the tally is currently 2 to 2, tied at keeping the split. Please read the other talk at Talk:U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq.

Anyway, I'm done for today, because I never engage in edit wars. Do as you like. --Uncle Ed

How can I? I need a sysop to do that. Tannin

---

The deleted passage is:

"The phrase was first used publicly on November 20, 2002 by U.S. President George W. Bush in Prague during a joint news conference with Czech President Vaclav Havel, just ahead of a NATO summit."

"Origins of the phrase are unknown" is simply wrong. The phrase came out of the White House, and we know exactly when it was first used. This must be left in for the historical record. -Kingturtle 23:38 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

Except 20-Nov-2002 was not the first time it was used, unless the Associated Press is employing time travellers or psychics. Here [3] is a reference to the phrase from 14-Nov-2002. -º¡º

Who cares what exact week it was used? The Bush quote makes it clear that he was engaging in political rhetoric. And that he did so way back in last autumn. --Uncle Ed 00:14 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I accept the fact that Bush said the words "Coalition of the willing" in November of 2002. I also accept the fact that Bush said the word "Iraq" in November of 2002. These facts prove neither that Bush originated the phrase "Coalition of the willing" nor that Bush originated the word "Iraq". Since the phrase well predates these dates, why attempt to credit it to Bush -º¡º

That is an excellent reference. You're right; 20-Nov *cannot* be said to be the first public usage, nor can we yet attribute it. However, the date is still important because Bush called on NATO allies to form a "coalition of the willing." I would like to find out when and where he said it before 20-Nov. Kingturtle 00:22 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

--

With all that said, I have a question. The article now lists two uses for the phrase: to governments that supported (1) the U.S. position in the Iraq disarmament crisis and (2) later the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the next paragraph, it mentions that the phrase has been around since the late 1990s. Was the phrase originally used for the first usage expressed in the article, or are there other usages that we need to list? Kingturtle 00:26 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I believe the article is fundamentally wrong in nature. "Coalition of the willing" is a longstanding phrase used to refer to nations acting collectively outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations. The entire slant of the article makes it sound like this originated with the current administration. -º¡º

Whether the phrase is new or old, this article is important because an adminstration of a nuclear power has utilized the phrase to give proof of support for an action that wouldn't pass the U.N. security council. If there is a longer history of the phrase, then add it to the article. Kingturtle 01:43 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

This is an excellent chance for us all to exercise our ability as editors to be "neutral" as far as writing this article is concerned. Many people think that the phrase "coalition of the willing" is misleading, inaccurate, self-serving, etc. Fine and good! Then add to the article all the points of view about the phrase. If some legal expert, politician or even a (mere) columnist or celebrity says that Bush's "coalition" is X or Y or Z, then put that into the article. --Uncle Ed 01:50 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

--

On March 30, Ed Poor "split into 2 articles: one about the slogan, the other about allies, supporteser, neutrals and opponents." Where exactly is the article about the allies and opponents? Am I just not seeing it? Kingturtle 01:51 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

It's at the poorly-name page, U.S.-led coalition against Iraq. It really should be split up and/or merged with Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq. --Uncle Ed 02:01 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

thanks. i knew that but forgot. Kingturtle 02:12 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

--

Why exactly is there such opposition to putting a reference to GW Bush's 20-Nov-2002 use of the phrase? Kingturtle 02:12 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I just don't understand what is important about that specific reference. It wasn't the first time Bush said it, it wasn't the first time an American president said it. Why the fixation on the fact that he said it on 20-Nov-2002? -º¡º

--

As written, the article seems rather POV. Is this article supposed to be about the phrase "coalition of the willing", or the concept itself (the concept being, as I understand it, an alliance of nations willing to act militarily outside the framework of the United Nations)... ? If it's about the phrase, fine. If it's about the concept itself, we should add a section which lists past examples of such coalitions (the coalition behind the first Gulf War, NATO's involvement in Kosovo, the Allied Powers in World War II (acting outside the League of Nations, which eventually dissolved), I'm sure the list goes on. 66.27.202.81 02:30 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Good question. I thought it was supposed to be about the phrase "coalition of the willing", and not about the concept in general. But since the phrase refers to the concept, what to do? -º¡º

The article began in the context of the Bush Administration's use of the term "coalition of the willing" to refer to nations that would act in concert to overthrow Saddam Hussein. If there is another documented meaning of that phrase, I have yet to discover it.

Probably a lot of consideration should be given to the point that Bush is willing to sidestep the UN. He may even dismiss it as an "authority". If so, we should write about this dismissal, as well as about any advocates who assert that the UN has (or should have) authority to dictate who may or may not start a war.

Of course, this leads into difficult concepts such as world government and universal jurisdiction ... --Uncle Ed 02:44 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

IMHO this article does not stand by itself. France has no UN mandate in the Ivory Coast. The US has no UN mandate in Afghanistan. Russia has no UN mandate in Chechnya, nor did it have one in Afghanistan. China has no UN mandate in Tibet or Taiwan. Britain had no UN mandate in The Falklands. NATO had no mandate in Bosnia. Maybe this should go under Jurisdiction of Supranational Organizations or something not so decidedly POV as this article. Are we going to document every meme from this war? How about an article on Old Europe ? Chadloder 02:54 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Two people have said the article is POV, but I don't see it. I must be blind, or overlooking some bias that is so obvious it is staring me in the face. -º¡º

--

Hi Ed. Temporarily leaving aside "UN Authority" and "world government", I want to focus on your statement that the article began in the specific context of Bush's use of a coalition acting to overthrow Saddam. I think that context was the source of my problem with the prior tone of the article.

Assumption:

• Bush was the first president to use the phrase "coalition of the willing", and he first did it to justify operations in Iraq.

Counterexamples:

• Bush used the phrase "coalition of the willing" to refer to actions before Iraq.
• Bush was not the first president to do so.

Sometime in the early to middle 1990s "coalition of the willing" came to be used by western politicians, diplomats, and analysts to refer to the need for an alternate force structure when objectives could not be achieved (or were blocked) through UN mandate. Bush didn't make the idea up, it was established before he got there. The United States had already had precedent for either threatening or actually saying "forget the UN, we'll arrange our own damn coalition". -º¡º

That is very well put. Why not say it somehow in the article? Kingturtle 03:11 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

No, I disagree entirely. It is still possible within the framework of the United Nations to have a coalition of the willing. The UN is designed so that unanimity is not required for action.

Also I feel (contrary to some others who weighed in above) that it is worthwhile to document when the phrase first entered the lexicon. Can we get more references from those who've researched it? For example, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan used the phrase coalition of the willing on February 13 1997 during a press conference at the UN headquarters:

QUESTION: On Zaire, there is no peace-keeping force going there because people said there were no refugees. Now that refugees are starting to reappear, do you see any concerted international action or is this a "mission impossible" of trying to do something diplomatically.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I think the situation in eastern Zaire, in particular for the refugees, is very tragic. Perhaps, in retrospect, the multinational force should not have been disbanded. It should have been suspended in order to be reactivated. Whether that would have been possible or not is difficult to say, but to create a multinational force you need to have a coalition of the willing and the will. In the absence of the willing and the will, there is very little the United Nations can do in terms of putting in a force.

Chadloder 03:17 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the history of the phrase. Now I'm more glad than ever that I started dividing up the original article into:

• one about the phrase and its various uses
• one about the nations opposed to Iraq

Well, I've done enough damage for one night. I gotta catch some Z's. Good night all. :-) --Uncle Ed

So this article should have something in it about the phrase's earlier usage. The origins of the phrase should be divorced from GWB, and the article should discuss the recent rise of the phrase into popular language. Kingturtle 03:32 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Here [4] is a speech where Clinton mentioned in 1994 using a "coalition of the willing" in sanctions against North Korea in the event he couldn't get the UN to go along with him.

Clinton: "The real question is could we have what has been called a coalition of the willing that included as many nations as would observe the sanctions as possible. The answer to that is, we would certainly consider that if we failed at the United Nations."

The phrase has also been used to describe the coalition of nations involved in peacekeeping in East Timor in 1999. In 1, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer is quoted as saying:

"You could put together a force which is described in United Nations parlance as a 'Coalition of the Willing'"

Well done. I like the precision this article is taking. Kingturtle 17:24 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Ok, it looks to me like we have identified several ways that "Coalition of the willing" is used. Here is what I am seeing:

• To refer to countries acting together, outside a UN approved framework.
  • Examples: Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, ?
• To refer to countries acting together, within a UN approved framework.
  • Examples: East Timor, ?
• Specifically to refer to the 2003 Iraq war forces.
  • Specific: Iraq 2003

Any others? -º¡º

In regards to the first definition, should it be added that the countries acting together are organized and/or led by one specified country. At the end of [5] a UN deputy representative makes such an implication. Also, have we found any examples to fulfill the second definition? I've been looking. Kingturtle 18:06 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think it really boils down to two categories:

• the general idea of countries acting in concert against another -- without a UN majority vote or a US security council resolution
• specific "coalitions of the willing" like Bush's 3 or 4 dozen against Iraq

Having defined the general idea and given some examples (Iraq, Timor, etc.) we can go on to describe what various advocates out there feel about the legitimacy of sidestepping the UN. My understanding is that since the early 1990s, there has been a lot of polarization around this latter issue. Some people say, for example, that the US should take a leading role -- and the heck with the UN. Others say, the US should defer to the UN as an authority; some of the latter group even want the UN to become a world government. (This ties in with the idea of the ICC, various international treaties, etc.)

--Uncle Ed

Ed, I think discussing the "legitimacy" of the UN is an excellent idea, but I don't know if here is the place. There are already attempts made at Iraq disarmament crisis, NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, Israeli settlement. Rather than pound on it over and over for every crisis that comes up, maybe it belongs at New World Order or International law? -º¡º

I don't know where it belongs. I just know that for the last year or so, it's been scattered all over the place. Worse, the implicit assumption that the UN is (or ought to be) a higher authority than any national government has crept into a number of articles.

Implicit assumptions get in the way of neutrality. How can we be neutral on an issue when "everyone knows" so and so? When it "goes without saying"? --Uncle Ed

New Zealand

New Zealand, like Canada, did not support the invasion of Iraq. The troops stationed in Iraq are in fact Engineers that are not and never have been intended for combat, but were being used for reconstruction purposes before Basra decended into chaos.

In fact the troops have been confined to their barracks for over 6 months now as it's deemed too dangerous for them to work...

"The whole world is against it"

POV editorials do not belong in the opening paragraph (or anywhere). The opening paragraph makes it clear that it was governments who supported the war. Your attempt to bring a blog?! to support this POV editorial doesn't make it any more appropriate. If you want to create a section on public support (or not) for the coalition of the willing, that would be appropriate, so long as it listed recognized and responsible surveys, and the timeframes in which they were carried out. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I read the page I got the feeling that the text made it sound like there were nations other than the US that backed up the invasion. I think I got that impression because the article refers to the Coalition of the Willing as a group of nations. Nation is an ambigious term, and is far from always equal to "government". Therefore, I felt and still feel, that it is important to point out that no population (other than the US and British at times) backed up their governments. Palestine-info 21:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Therefore, I felt and still feel, that it is important to point out that no population (other than the US and British at times) backed up their governments". This is a falsehood. Here in Australia, there were many polls that showed the bulk of Australians supported the invasion. e.g.http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2003/3616/ This Morgan poll, taken on March 27, 2003, showed 52% supported the action, with 41.5% opposed, and 6.5% undecided. 61% believed the UN should have supported the action. Ordinary Person

The second sentence made it clear that is was the government who supported it. As well, any statements about who actually supported would have to bring credible surveys which clearly state the time period they were taken. Public opinion on the war has changed markedly over the past 2 years, a survey from today is not the same as a survey from 2003. Finally, you need to use credible sources, and blogs simply don't cut it. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. User:Palestine-info/Iraq war lists a few sources about the polls that were conducted. Are they acceptable sources to the claim "The populations of the Coalition of the Willing was and is strongly against the Iraq war."? Palestine-info 00:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to start a section which describes the support for the war over time in various countries in the coalition, that might be interesting. Listing random opinion polls, particularly from 2005 (long after the war was first proposed) is just a way of inserting POV. And this information certainly doesn't belong in the very first paragraph, it is secondary detail. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This source is from 2003. The others is from 2005. And why do you think it is a "secondary detail" that "the whole world is against it"? Palestine-info 12:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because the article is about which government's joined the Coalition of the willing. It is a given that public opinion at a particular time might or might not support any particular decision taken by a democratically elected government; the only reason for trying to prominently emphasize your belief that public opinion was against the war is to deligitimize the prosecution of the war itself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox where one carries on campaigns for or against causes, and as soon as someone says "It is important to note" in an article, you can rest assured that they are getting on their soapbox because it is important the them that people have a particular POV. The reader can discern what is important, they don't need some editor guiding them to share a specific POV. If you want to create a section with a serious study of public attitudes towards the war over time, I'm all for it. But to choose some random polls, and prominently shove them to the front of the article, claiming that the people were against it, is an attempt to create a POV. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that, despite the fact that the claim that "most were and are against the war" can be sourced to hundreds of different polls, it is POV? Or it is a "secondary detail"? Or is it not true? Palestine-info 21:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've said exactly what I've said; no need to create strawman arguments for me. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's a Gallup International poll taken in 2003 about Iraq. [6] I think the results speak for themselves. And accordingly, I think its More than fair to say that the "majority of the world is against it". 68.199.46.6 18:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand is listed as one of the countries that contributed forces to this coalition. I think the New Zealand Government would take issue with that. New Zealand did contribute a team of engineers, but this was at a time after the initial invasion as part of the effort to rebuild Iraq. When they got there they discovered they couldn't do any work because it was still too dangerous and after some period sitting around in their compound they were withdrawn.

Interestingly the list at the Whitehouse site gives 48 members, dispite the link from this page suggesting that there are 49. I wonder whether someone at the Whitehouse got it wrong and put New Zealand on the list, later correcting it.

I am going to remove New Zealand from the list.

210.86.67.166 05:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a note in the article about NZ's contribution, similar to that concerning Canada, and explaining that despite their contribution they are not part of the Coalition of the Willing. Ordinary Person

I'm removing the note, because neither country is remotely connected to the Coalition, and this isn't a list of countries contributing to rebuilding Iraq. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Broken link

The washington post link at the end of the first paragraph is down. I have removed it and the relevant sentence which is reproduced below. I don't know what the article was about, but if you find other supporting evidence, feel free to put it back in...

• The phrase is not in current use. [7].

--postglock 03:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't much of an article, the result of an interview with a "high ranking" but unnamed official at the Whitehouse. Some said it was GWB. A better indication is that the list was blanked and removed from the index on the Whitehouse website [8] in October 2005. A screen capture of the original is here [9]. Meggar 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Cosmetic Change

I've split the members into three groups in what I hope is still a NPOV way (feel free to offer suggestions on alternate labels for the groups). I think that since the article does still deal with a recent/ongoing term, it's important to keep it up to date with the "current members" and the "former members" since several countries have made a large dramatic production of making a point of withdrawing from the coalition. Thoughts? Sherurcij 21:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

get at me

I don't know what kinda category "english phrases" is, so I took it out. I suspect this was in some other category that someone found offensive, so they took it out. I suspect this person then thought putting it in some other category would offset his first change. I put it in political phrases. If this seems wrong, change it to your liking. I'll probly be back. I'm sure we can work something out. Kzzl

Norway

The article lists Norway as part of the Coalition of the Willing, but the map at the top doesn't show Norway as having that status. Can that map be edited? Ordinary Person

Jordan

Is there a place in this article for those such as Jordan that provided de facto assistance to the Coalition forces but were never listed as CoW? US forces ran search-and-rescue missions from Jordan and were allowed to operate Patriot anti-missile systems on Jordanian territory. Ordinary Person

Quite simply, no. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Netherlands

I've removed them from active members to withdrawn, everything I see says they left in March 2005, assuming nobody has other sources, I'll leave it at that. Sherurcij 21:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Coalition members or military presence

The opening para says that all military referenced in Multinational force in Iraq were part of the Coalition of the Willing, but they were not. Some were there solely for reconstruction efforts and did not support the invasion. Daniel Collins 19:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Coalition of the willing? Or Coalition of the willing, sucker-up, timid GOVERNMENTS? Or Coalition of the 'you'd-better-join-us-or-no-money-for-you', not-so-willing? Cos one things for sure, the people in the 'coalition of the willing' arent awfully willing.

Coalition of the Wealthy

I have added a section to the article highlighting the fact that the Coalition contained a disproportionately great number of economically powerful nations. Ordinary Person

Original coalition of the willing who provided troops

I think we should have a distinction between nations of the coalition of the willing who provided troops & support staff before and at any stage. I.E. One will be the ones who sent troops & support staff as part of the intial invasion (US+UK+Australia+Poland?+???) and an up to to date list of those who contributed troops & support staff at any stage of the process... Nil Einne 09:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe you named all of the original belligerents: US, UK, Australia, Poland, and no others. -- Geo Swan 16:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest Revision

I'm not sure much information was actually lost, it was merely moved to the bottom of the page, where fairly, it probably belongs. I'd suggest a revert back personally Sherurcij 16:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same edit? Lambyuk removed nine paragraphs, with no explanation beyond "removing a lot of POV". I put this explanation on User Talk:Lambyuk. -- Geo Swan 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[scroll to the bottom], I thought the same thing at first and was about to revert, then I noticed he just put the "Criticism" part down at the bottom, after the memberlist - which I think is fair, we should discuss the actual coalition first, then the criticism. :) Sherurcij 16:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. I didn't notice that they had pasted material at the bottom. But, I am feeling less trusting than you today. I pasted both what they cut, and what they replaced, in the sandbox, to compare them. Markedly different. They difference is large enough that I would argue that it is indistinguishable from vandalism, except we are assuming Lambyuk is a new user who doesn't know any better. -- Geo Swan 18:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know , there is no such thing as the "Iraq War" War was not declared. As in Korea , it was considered a "police" action. Catweasel (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove sections?

Economics of participating countries Although the Coalition of the Willing contains only about a fifth (38 of 193 [1]) of the world's countries, it includes a disproportionately large fraction of the world's economically powerful countries. For instance, the CoW has contained:

   * 15 of the 30 OECD nations;
   * 15 of the 27 EU nations (Including the two acceding nations);
   * 5 of the top 10 nations by GDP;
   * 4 of the G8 nations;
   * Nations with 61% of the global GDP.

a) This borders on WP:NOR b) We elsewhere in the article state Due to the high percentage of states that were small, impoverished nations in need of United States financial aid, a New York Times editorial referred to it as the "Coalition Of Welfare States." which seems to contradict this c) Surely most war coalitions are made up of a mix of wealthy and poor nations? WWII certainly was on both sides. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Done Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

POV or knowledge problem

Opening Definition: "The term 'coalition of the willing' is a post 1990 political phrase used to describe military or military/humanitarian interventions that the United Nations Security Council cannot agree to mount a full UN peacekeeping operation for."

This expresses a specific pov by representing UN "peacekeeping operations" as an alternative to NATO. There is no overlap in the roles of NATO and the UN in the context of the subject of the article. UN peacekeeping operations do not take place during war. The physical act of military operations to unseat a dictator or save a population from internal or external attact when it involves acts of war are not authorized for UN operations. UN peacekeeping operations are not an alternative for forceful enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions. Rogerfgay 11:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You Forgot Poland

There were actually four countries that participated in the invasion, not three as John Kerry declared in the 2004 debate. They were the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland. Ofhistoricalnote (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland)." - I think it was meant to say, "Of the 48 countries on the list..." But I'm not going to change it, the author can change it if I am right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJPF (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference 3: Forged Original Document?

According to this article: http://www.clinecenter.uiuc.edu/airbrushing_history/ the "official" CoW members list was edited and the original number seems to be 45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.215.155 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

NYT about the Coalition of the willing

As Last British Troops Leave Iraq, a Coalition Ends  Cs32en  21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pacific Force"

I removed:

"The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, do not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association, citizens the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it."

The reference is a blog, not the New Zealand Herald.

Also in the blog that is referenced there is no mention of a "Pacific Force", more likely the National Guard units mentioned above deployed to Iraq as a single unit.

No worries, it has already been reverted back, disregard.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

References

48 states -or- 48 countries?

"In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland)." I think it was meant to say, "Of the 48 countries on the list..." But I'm not going to change it, the author can change it if I am right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJPF (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJPF (talk • contribs)

Mikronesia?

I think Micronesia is mis-spelled, and I can't edit the image. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed this picture from the bottom after checking its sources and seeing that no data backing up its claims existed. Puppier (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Graph

I undid the revert of removing the graph. The graph calls PMC's "mercenaries" which is not a proper name for them. From the CBO source:

DoD policy also prohibits usin

g contractors as mercenaries. See Army Materiel Command (2000), p. 40-2; 73 Fed. Reg. 16764– 16765 (2008). Security contractor personnel are not generally considered mercenaries because their mission is to protect prop- erty and personnel, not to overthrow governments or undermine

the order of the state. See De Wolf (2006), p. 323.

Puppier (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Puppier. I created the graph. What would you suggest instead of mercenaries? How about "private military contractors"? Best wishes, --spitzl (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think "Private Military Contractors" or "PMCs" is correct.Puppier (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, in that case it would be great if you could put the graph back into the article. Thanx Puppier. --spitzl (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coalition of the willing. 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/20090902090645/http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010_Report_to_CongressJul09.pdf to http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010_Report_to_CongressJul09.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coalition of the willing. 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/20090126150127/http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10 to http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)