Nations with Troops in Afghanistan. . . .

Bird of Prey · Aug 17, 2010

ISAF total - 119,819

United States - 78,430
United Kingdom - 9,500
Germany - 4,590
France - 3,750
Italy - 3,400
Canada - 2,830
Poland - 2,630
Romania - 1,750
Turkey - 1,740
Spain - 1,555
Australia - 1,455

Georgia - 925

Denmark - 730

Belgium - 575
Bulgaria - 540
Sweden - 530
Czech Republic - 500
Norway - 500
Hungary - 360
Slovakia - 300
Albania - 295
Croatia - 295
Portugal - 250
Lithuania - 245
Macedonia - 240
New Zealand - 205
Latvia - 170
Estonia - 160

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

I'm assuming this list is pretty accurate. Of course quite a few of these nations are not engaged in fighting in Afghanistan, but I thought it interesting. I am quite surpirsed at some of the participants, and quite surprised at the "allies" missing from the list. I'm posting this because I'm willing to bet that this list will be halved or more by December next year.

Don · Aug 17, 2010

It would be interesting to see those figures expressed as a percentage of population.

veinglory · Aug 17, 2010

The non-US contingent has been shrinking.

But of course there is a difference between being an ally and being a follower.

Mr Flibble · Aug 17, 2010

Don said:
It would be interesting to see those figures expressed as a percentage of population.

Wouldn't 'percentage of the standing army' be more accurate. Because some nations have a larger army / population ratio than others.

Don · Aug 17, 2010

IdiotsRUs said:
Wouldn't 'percentage of the standing army' be more accurate. Because some nations have a larger army / population ratio than others.

That would be interesting too, but I'm more interested in the former.

Although standing army as percentage of population would be interesting too. I'm guessing the policemen of the world would win both, as well as the raw count, but I'm curious.

Tom from UK · Aug 17, 2010

As a UK citizen whose son is off to Afghanistan in October, I'm not that interested in how many troops countries have in Afghanistan altogether. The interesting bit is how many have troops in combat.

Unfortunately, the best way to evaluate this is probably to count their dead.

Bird of Prey · Aug 17, 2010

Tom from UK said:
As a UK citizen whose son is off to Afghanistan in October, I'm not that interested in how many troops countries have in Afghanistan altogether. The interesting bit is how many have troops in combat.

Unfortunately, the best way to evaluate this is probably to count their dead.

From what I understand, the top eleven nations on the list have troops deployed potentially in combat. The rest, I'm pretty sure, are participating in a noncombat capacity. . . .

Bird of Prey · Aug 17, 2010

Now, folks, if you will, take a look here: http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000677. All of those nations contributed troops and/or personnel in Iraq beginning in 2003. We even had a few Latin American contributors. In total, there were 49 countries taking part in the Iraq invasion in 2003. In total, over the course of the years, I count 56 nations participating in some compacity including Rwanda, Angola, Ethiopia, Thailand, Honduras, Japan, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Latvia, Singapore and oddly, Afghanistan. Do you know how many there are now??

None with the exception of the US.

And I want to add this: for all the rabble rousing about Iran developing a nuclear weapon and what a threat she is to our Middle Eastern friends, and how the US should support or even participate in military action should Iran continue operations, you will not find Israel, Saudi Arabia or Egypt on either the Iraq or the Afghanistan roster of nations contributing personnel. So much for lending a hand. . . .

Lhun · Aug 17, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
So much for lending a hand. . . .

Why would anyone support the US in doing something they didn't want them to do (and in some cases protested) in the first case?

Bird of Prey · Aug 17, 2010

Lhun said:
Why would anyone support the US in doing something they didn't want them to do (and in some cases protested) in the first case?

I have no problem with the their protest and their nonparticipation until it's deemed that Iran is such a big problem that the US should "do" something about it, when Iran's nuclear capability particularly affects the countries mentioned, the same countries that haven't bothered to send troops to aid our war weary fighters. . . .

Lhun · Aug 17, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
I have no problem with the their protest and their nonparticipation until it's deemed that Iran is such a big problem that the US should "do" something about it, when Iran's nuclear capability particularly affects the countries mentioned, the same countries that haven't bothered to send troops to aid our war weary fighters. . . .

Well, pretty much no-one outside the US thinks the US should "do" something about Iran, just as no-one outside the US thought that about Iraq. The perception of the US being asked to police the world is largely self-inflicted.

Mr Flibble · Aug 17, 2010

Don said:
Although standing army as percentage of population would be interesting too. I'm guessing the policemen of the world would win both, as well as the raw count, but I'm curious.

I found this. America is twelfth highest. Beneath Greece? lol. Anyway, Israel tops it.

Soo, quick calculation....US has 0.002 of its forces there. UK has 0.02? Or am I mucking up the decimal places...?

veinglory · Aug 17, 2010

Also the combat/non-combat thing is getting rather hard to determine. It's not like their is a front line anymore. Doctors and engineers tend to be in the same area as security and patrol. That's the main reason women are seeing a lot more combat situation. But there si still a distinction between those carrying a weapon and likely to use it--I am just not sure how you would determine which people those are.

dmytryp · Aug 17, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
Now, folks, if you will, take a look here: http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000677. All of those nations contributed troops and/or personnel in Iraq beginning in 2003. We even had a few Latin American contributors. In total, there were 49 countries taking part in the Iraq invasion in 2003. In total, over the course of the years, I count 56 nations participating in some compacity including Rwanda, Angola, Ethiopia, Thailand, Honduras, Japan, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Latvia, Singapore and oddly, Afghanistan. Do you know how many there are now??

None with the exception of the US.

And I want to add this: for all the rabble rousing about Iran developing a nuclear weapon and what a threat she is to our Middle Eastern friends, and how the US should support or even participate in military action should Iran continue operations, you will not find Israel, Saudi Arabia or Egypt on either the Iraq or the Afghanistan roster of nations contributing personnel. So much for lending a hand. . . .

Bird of Prey said:
I have no problem with the their protest and their nonparticipation until it's deemed that Iran is such a big problem that the US should "do" something about it, when Iran's nuclear capability particularly affects the countries mentioned, the same countries that haven't bothered to send troops to aid our war weary fighters. . . .

What a bunch of crock. Israel doesn't ask anybody to fight its wars and doesn't fight the wars of others. It does help US and the allies in other things, like weapons stockpiling, training against IEDs, doing some work on the armor of the Hummers and supplying parts of the technology used in the drones.

Lhun said:
Well, pretty much no-one outside the US thinks the US should "do" something about Iran, just as no-one outside the US thought that about Iraq. The perception of the US being asked to police the world is largely self-inflicted.

US "needs" to do something about Iran because it is in its best interest, and because how nuclear Iran would affect US interests in the area, not because Israel or Saudi Arabia or Egypt asks.

darkprincealain · Aug 17, 2010

Color me surprised that France sent so many. I really have nothing further to add.

dmytryp · Aug 17, 2010

Don said:
That would be interesting too, but I'm more interested in the former.

Although standing army as percentage of population would be interesting too. I'm guessing the policemen of the world would win both, as well as the raw count, but I'm curious.

IdiotsRUs said:
I found this. America is twelfth highest. Beneath Greece? lol. Anyway, Israel tops it.

Soo, quick calculation....US has 0.002 of its forces there. UK has 0.02? Or am I mucking up the decimal places...?

Countries with a draft will have larger militaries (at least among the democracies). US has a large military, but most of the costly expenditures are on technology (Israel is no different -- the airforce has by far the biggest chunk of the military budget)

Bird of Prey · Aug 17, 2010

dmytryp said:
US "needs" to do something about Iran because it is in its best interest, and because how nuclear Iran would affect US interests in the area, not because Israel or Saudi Arabia or Egypt asks.

It's not in US best interests at all. Why on earth is it in the US best interests?? A nuclear Iran is certainly of minor concern compared to say, a nuclear NK in relation to our Asian interests. A nuclear Iran would be more of a concern to Russia than us.

And btw, the bottom line is that Israel sent no personnel. None. Zip. And "all that technology" she supplies, I'm sure is paid for. . . .

Fame<Infamy · Aug 17, 2010

Lhun said:
Why would anyone support the US in doing something they didn't want them to do (and in some cases protested) in the first case?

Who didn't support the US going into Afghanistan? Please stop trying to lump this in with Iraq, there was no question why we went into this country and as much as people like to suddenly turn it into a political football and act like its the wrong war, its just not the case.

As for the numbers, I don't know what they're to illustrate, you don't typically see countries with much smaller standing militaries send that many people. And what's probably not counted is the PMCs.

Also realize, the US is so big that we have the top two airforces in the world. Its hard to expect anyone to send as much as us with that.

Lhun · Aug 17, 2010

Fame<Infamy said:
Who didn't support the US going into Afghanistan? Please stop trying to lump this in with Iraq

I neither lumped nor tried to, to the post i referred to, and specifically quoted, linked to a list about Iraq participation, not Afghanistan participation.

Fame<Infamy · Aug 17, 2010

Lhun said:
I neither lumped nor tried to, to the post i referred to, and specifically quoted, linked to a list about Iraq participation, not Afghanistan participation.

Ah I read the posts wrong, sorry for that.

dmytryp · Aug 17, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
It's not in US best interests at all. Why on earth is it in the US best interests?? A nuclear Iran is certainly of minor concern compared to say, a nuclear NK in relation to our Asian interests. A nuclear Iran would be more of a concern to Russia than us.

That's your opinion. Others don't share it. Doesn't make it true.

Bird of Prey said:
And btw, the bottom line is that Israel sent no personnel. None. Zip. And "all that technology" she supplies, I'm sure is paid for. . . .

Bottom line -- Israel fights its own wars and doesn't ask anybody to fight for it. It helps as well it can in constrains of its own abilities (it did have an almost non-stop war/police actions throughout this decade), and sometimes it sits out because US had asked it to (like in the fist Gulf War), while it takes hits. Your complete lack of understanding of the relationship between US and Israel is showing.

dmytryp · Aug 17, 2010

Afghanistan is mostly fought by NATO, so it isn't all that surprising that most of the forces are from NATO

Bird of Prey · Aug 17, 2010

dmytryp said:
Afghanistan is mostly fought by NATO, so it isn't all that surprising that most of the forces are from NATO

So what? Who cares? Why didn't Israel step up to the plate?? She gets 3 billion a year from the US. And you still haven't demonstrated why Iran should be such a big problem for the US. You know why?? Because Iran ISN'T a big problem for the US. She's a perceived, potential and pobably not a big problem for Israel and a couple of her ME neighbors, but that's about it.

My opinion is that certain militants want control of the region, so all this hoopla about Iran is generated to fit that scheme.

Now I am going to try to find some peace with you, Dm - hasn't worked in the past but I'm gonna give it yet another Yankee try - by acknowledging - as you have stated - that you are not advocating an Israeli military strike against Iran. I get that.

I want you to get the simple fact that I am not Israel's enemy, but I am an enemy of war, particularly needless war. Admittedly, I love my country dearly, am protective of her citizens, but also the international community and our collective potential to make a heretofor unfathomable leap into frontiers that could finally stop the suffering of the ages. WAR doesn't fit into to that scenario, and I'm disgusted with the near apes that have run this world on ego, greed, and blood without an altruistic bone in their bodies, to the detriment of mankind and to the obscene suffering of all, including flora and fauna. . . .

Maxinquaye · Aug 17, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
So what? Who cares? Why didn't Israel step up to the plate??

Come on. If Israel had got involved in any war in Iraq or Afghanistan, it would have made the whole of the middle east side with Saddam and the Taliban. No arab state would have fought a war together with Israel. Just facts of life down there. It would have meant no bases in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or anywhere else - as well as swelling the opposition against the allied forces by millions of people.

dmytryp · Aug 17, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
So what? Who cares? Why didn't Israel step up to the plate?? She gets 3 billion a year from the US.

There are many reasons for this, including, but not limited to our own security woes. As far as I know, Israeli operatives did help US in Iraq, by the way (mostly in Kurdish areas).

Bird of Prey said:
And you still haven't demonstrated why Iran should be such a big problem for the US. You know why?? Because Iran ISN'T a big problem for the US. She's a perceived, potential and pobably not a big problem for Israel and a couple of her ME neighbors, but that's about it.

I am not going into that with you again. This is your opinion. It isn't shared by other people, and nothing you say will change this fact.

Bird of Prey said:
Now I am going to try to find some peace with you, Dm - hasn't worked in the past but I'm gonna give it yet another Yankee try - by acknowledging - as you have stated - that you are not advocating an Israeli military strike against Iran. I get that.

I want you to get the simple fact that I am not Israel's enemy, but I am an enemy of war, particularly needless war. Admittedly, I love my country dearly, am protective of her citizens, but also the international community and our collective potential to make a heretofor unfathomable leap into frontiers that could finally stop the suffering of the ages. WAR doesn't fit into to that scenario, and I'm disgusted with the near apes that have run this world on ego, greed, and blood without an altruistic bone in their bodies, to the detriment of mankind and to the obscene suffering of all, including flora and fauna. . . .

Look, this is all fine, but it is your opinion and others are free to disagree with parts of it. It is absolutely possible to see some things as more dangerous then war. It is absolutely possible to have a different assesment of threat than you do. It is absolutely possible to think that if something is not done now, it would lead to even worse war later. In order to make these assesments there is no need to be a "warmonger", to want destruction or whatever.

Nations with Troops in Afghanistan. . . .

Benefactor Member

All Living is Local

volitare nequeo

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

All Living is Local

Benefactor Member

Benefactor Member

New kid, be gentle!

Benefactor Member

New kid, be gentle!

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

volitare nequeo

Benefactor Member

New kid, be gentle!

Benefactor Member

That cheeky buggerer