High Price of Coalition Operations

[Stan]

Jan 03, 2007, TBT staff

VILNIUIS - A farewell ceremony for Lithuania’s LITCON-9 contingent that is leaving for an international mission in Iraq will be held in Vilnius on Jan. 3.

Captain Nerijus Kackauskas is the national representative of LITCON-9. Comprised of some 50 servicemen from the Iron Wolf Brigade, the contingent is led by First Lieutenant Rokas Noreikis.
Before leaving for the mission in Iraq, the servicemen will go to Denmark for one-month pre-mission training. The contingent is planned to leave for Iraq in February. LITCON-9 will serve with the Danish battalion in the British-led multinational division near the city of Basra in southeastern Iraq.

Some 60 Lithuanian troops currently serve in the US-led international peacekeeping operation Iraqi Freedom.

This is a fairly large contingent for any of the Baltics. Estonia's total military force (reserves and NG) is 7,000.

Regards, Stan

[Stan]

Jan 10, 2007, By Elizabeth Celms

Despite the recent deaths, which Defense Minister Atis Slakteris said were due to “hatred and cruel fanaticism,” little debate has been stirred over the necessity of Latvian soldiers in Iraq.

Hmmm, quite a change of heart in the last 8 days !

Gets a little clearer.....

"Everyone knows that we [Latvians] need America. We’ve got to participate in Iraq for the United States, for our allies," Atis Lejins, head of the Latvian Institute of Foreign Affairs, told The Baltic Times. "We die for America in hope that they will die for us."

Now something really profound from Foreign Affairs:

Commenting on the decision to decrease Latvia’s contingent, Lejins admitted that it was about time.
“Recently, the situation in Iraq has changed. There’s no point being there anymore. We’ve done our duty. If the Iraqis want to fight each other, we won’t stand in the middle,” he said.

Wonder if Kerry provided the Latvians with his secret on ending the Iraqi war
Regards, Stan

[FascistLibertarian]

I dont think this is a zero sum equation. Clearly when you have multinational forces working togeather there are diverese goals. Having a unified command is very useful and the problems of international military HQ's and Armies have been studied in depth. The question really is what the different groups get out of their partnership, some allies have hurt their partners in wars while others are helpful.
The US speant a lot of money on Australian and Korean (among others) forces in Vietnam.
As it is the US is doing most of the work and spending most of the money in Iraq and A-Stan but the contributions of the other countries should not be overlooked.
The military contractors in Iraq can make $1,000 a day. Wars cost a lot of money. Clearly after the Americans the military contractors and then the British are making the biggest contribution but I think that America's $200 million on allies is better spent money than some of the weapons they develop and produce.
Just my 2 cents
cheers

[FascistLibertarian]

From wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Willing

[edit] Incentives given by the U.S. to coalition members
Many nations received monetary and other incentives from the United States in return for sending troops to or otherwise supporting the Iraq war.[76] Critics of the Bush Administration such as Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has said this approach smacks of "bribery"[77] Below is a partial list of some of the incentives offered to coalition members:

Turkey - Turkey was offered approximately $8.5 billion in loans in exchange for sending 10,000 peacekeeping troops in 2003. Even though the US did say the loans and the sending of troops to Iraq were not directly linked, it also said the loans are contingent upon "cooperation" on Iraq.[78]
Singapore - In May 2003 the Bush Administration signed a free trade agreement with Singapore, the first with an Asian country. In announcing the deal, President Bush hailed Singapore as "a strong partner in the war on terrorism and a member of the coalition on Iraq." Asia Times columnist Jeffrey Robertson argued was a reward for Singapore's support of the Iraq invasion.[79] [80][81]
Australia: In 2004 the Bush Administration "fast tracked" a free trade agreement with Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald called the deal a "reward" for Australia's contribution of troops to the Iraq invasion.[82][83]
Great Britain: As of 2006, the Independent reported that British companies have received at least £1.1bn contracts for reconstruction work in postwar Iraq.[84]
In addition to direct incentives, critics of the war have argued that the involvement of other members of the coalition was in response for indirect benefits, such as support for NATO membership or other military and financial aid. Indeed, almost all of the Eastern European nations involved in the Coalition have either recently joined or are in the process of joining the US-led NATO alliance (namely Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia).[85] Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, for example, said on April 21 that Estonian troops had to remain in Iraq due to his country's “important partnership” with the United States.[86]

At least one country- Georgia- is believed to have sent soldiers to Iraq as an act of repayment for the American training of security forces that could potentially be deployed to the break-away regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[87] Indeed, Georgian troops that were sent to Iraq have all undergone these training programmes.[88]

El Salvador's President Antonio Saca has been accused of deploying troops in return for membership in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),[89] and as a member of the right-wing ARENA party that was supported heavily by the United States during the El Salvador Civil War, is certainly influenced by the United States.

Conversely, Greece's non involvement (a poll indicated 90% against the Iraq Invasion), may have led to the US recognising FYROM as 'Macedonia'.[90]