4 Nations Have Left, 4 More Are Getting Ready to Leave International Force

U.S. Works to Sustain Iraq Coalition

By Robin Wright and Bradley Graham

The Bush administration faces growing challenges in holding together the
32-nation coalition deployed in Iraq, with four countries already gone,
another four due to leave by September and others now making known their
intention to wind down or depart before the political transition is
complete next year, according to officials from 28 participating countries.

The drama over the Filipino hostage in Iraq, which led the Philippines
government to say this week that it will pull out before its August
mandate expires, is only the latest problem — and one of the smaller
issues — in U.S. efforts to sustain the 22,000-strong force that, with
140,000 U.S. troops, forms the multinational force trying to stabilize
postwar Iraq.

Norway quietly pulled out its 155 military engineers this month, leaving
behind only about 15 personnel to assist a new NATO-coordinated effort
to help train and equip Iraqi security forces. New Zealand intends to
pull out its 60 engineers by September, while Thailand plans to withdraw
its more than 450 troops that same month, barring a last-minute
political reversal that Thai officials consider unlikely, say envoys
from both countries. "It’s 90 percent definite that we’re going," a Thai
diplomat said.

The Netherlands is likely to pull out next spring after the first of
three Iraqi elections, while Polish military officials told the Pentagon
that Poland’s large contingent will probably leave in mid-2005, other
diplomats say.

Any dwindling of the coalition — by choice or after hostage seizures
and other violence — further complicates the already difficult job of
sustaining the multinational force, which is critical to Washington’s
assertion that it has international support for the Iraq mission. It
could also encourage further abductions or attacks to heighten the
psychological pressure and undermine the U.S.-led mission, coalition
diplomats say.

"We think withdrawal sends the wrong signal and that it is important for
people to stand up to terrorists and not allow them to change our
behavior," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters.

Some attrition was inevitable after the U.S.-led occupation officially
ended on June 28, say envoys in Washington. "This was expected as
sovereignty was handed over. Some have been desperate to get out of
there, because they were handcuffed to the process," said a diplomat
from a prominent member of the coalition who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

"In certain countries, public opinion was against them going in — so
they were under political pressure that they either shouldn’t be there
or they should be there only for so long. Sovereignty was always a point
at which countries look at how long they’ll stay. It becomes a segue for
pulling out," he added.

To track commitments, the Bush administration keeps a color-coded chart
of coalition members: red for countries withdrawing, yellow for nations
considering a pullout and green for countries staying.

The size and abilities of the coalition forces have been a source of
controversy and embarrassment for the administration since the war to
oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In many ways, the symbolic importance of international participation has
been at least as vital for the Bush administration as the often-limited
military role the troops have played. And while administration officials
have stressed the number of countries that have sent troops, others have
noted the small size of many military contingents and the continued
absence of some major powers.

Several participating countries sent fewer than 100 troops. In other
cases, forces diminished significantly over time. Moldova’s contingent
is the smallest — down to 12 from 42. Singapore has quietly reduced its
presence from 191 to 33.

The Bush administration contends the coalition is holding, pointing to
the renewed troop commitments from large contributors such as Britain
and Italy. "Their support has solidified as the political process has
come to pass," said Lincoln Bloomfield, assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs.

"If you look at how many voices were doubting that the transfer of
sovereignty would actually occur, you can now see a momentum behind the
military coalition to rally around the Iraqi government and complete the
process all the way through the electoral stages leading to full
sovereignty at the end of 2005. Despite all the security challenges, the
big picture is that the plan is working," Bloomfield said.

El Salvador renewed its commitment of 380 troops after President Bush
hosted Salvadoran President Antonio Saca at the White House this week,
the latest of several White House visits by leaders of coalition
countries. Lithuania renewed its 105-troop commitment last week.

Several other countries have promised to significantly add to their
contingents. South Korea is increasing its force from 600 to 3,700,
while Azerbaijan offered another 250 soldiers in addition to 150 already
in Iraq. Georgia said it is ready to more than double its 159 troops —
to more than 400.

"We don’t see any major defections; we see troops coming and going as
they said they would; and there have been more plus-ups than
withdrawals," said a senior Pentagon official involved in Iraq policy.

But some pledges the administration cites are misleading or contain
caveats that call into question whether many troops will stay much
beyond the first round of Iraqi elections scheduled for January.

Australia’s pledge to increase its commitment will bring its troop
strength to 880 — fewer than half the 2,000 troops it had during the
war. And only about 250 are in Iraq, with the rest in air and naval
support positions nearby, Australian envoys say. For Australia and some
other countries, increases are mainly meant to enhance security for
their own troops, embassies and personnel.

Support is also tenuous in nations Washington considers to be key
players. The vote this week in Italy’s House of Deputies to extend its
deployment was 257 to 207, a reflection of the almost even public split,
an Italian envoy said. Playing to strong public antiwar sentiment,
Australia’s opposition pledged to withdraw troops by Christmas if
elected, while revelations about the Abu Ghraib prison abuses led
Hungary’s opposition to call for a withdrawal despite originally
supporting the deployment.

Hostage seizures of nationals from Japan, South Korea, Poland, Italy,
Bulgaria, the Philippines and the United States have heightened public
and political pressure, with several countries expecting debates to
intensify this fall.

The first blow to the U.S.-led force was the decision by new Spanish
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to withdraw his country’s
1,300 troops, which led Honduras and the Dominican Republic to bring
home their few hundred troops this past spring. Britain and Spain had
been the two closest U.S. allies in the Iraq war. Zapatero’s election
upset after a terrorist bombing at a Madrid train station deepened
opposition to Spain’s deployment.

For other countries, however, the issue is capability. "We have limited
resources and huge commitments, like Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands,
Bosnia, Kosovo and Timor," a New Zealand diplomat said. "Hostage dramas
have not influenced our plans or thinking, and it was not a political
decision. We’re just stretched."

The countries most committed to staying are East European and former
Soviet countries. "We benefited in our own recent history from foreign
peacekeepers, so we understand the value of action. Our stand on Iraq is
firm, and our participation is not questionable," said Macedonian
Ambassador Nikola Dimitrov.

The day Spain pulled out, Albania wrote Washington to reaffirm its
commitment and has since pledged to increase its troops from 71 to 200.
"We’re the most pro-U.S. nation in Europe," Ambassador Satos Tarisa
said, "and we’re in Iraq for the long haul."

The Washington Post Company

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5439562/