Hubbry Logo
Multi-National Force – IraqMulti-National Force – IraqMain
Open search
Multi-National Force – Iraq
Community hub
Multi-National Force – Iraq
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Multi-National Force – Iraq
Multi-National Force – Iraq
from Wikipedia

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF–I), often referred to as the Coalition forces, was a U.S.-led military command during the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009.

Key Information

The vast majority of MNF-I was made up of United States Army forces.[3] However it also supervised British, Australian, Polish, Spanish, and other countries' forces. It replaced the previous force, Combined Joint Task Force 7, on 15 May 2004. It was significantly reinforced during the Iraq War troop surge of 2007. MNF-I was reorganized into its successor, United States Forces – Iraq, on 1 January 2010.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, which does humanitarian work and has a number of guards and military observers, has also operated in Iraq since 2003. The U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq was not a part of the MNF-I, but a separate entity. The NATO Training Mission – Iraq, was in Iraq from 2004 to December 2011, where it trained the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police.

History

[edit]

The MNF-I's objectives, as expressed in an annex to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, a June 2004 letter from U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council, were stated to be:

The MNF under unified command is prepared to continue to contribute to the maintenance of security in Iraq, including by preventing and deterring terrorism and protecting the territory of Iraq. The goal of the MNF will be to help the Iraqi people to complete the political transition and will permit the United Nations and the international community to work to facilitate Iraq's reconstruction.

— Colin Powell, UNSCR 1546 (June 2004)[4]

The majority of countries that deployed forces to Iraq generally confined them to their respective military installations,[3] due to widespread violence throughout the country.

The government of Iraq enjoyed broad international recognition, including from constituent countries of the Arab League. Jordan assisted in training of Iraqi security forces, and the United Arab Emirates donated military equipment, though purchased from Switzerland.

As of September 2008, over 545,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained.[5]

In November 2006, the United Nations Security Council voted to extend the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of 2007. The move was requested by the Iraqi government, which said the troops were needed for another year while it built up its own security forces.[6] In December 2007, the Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1790, which extended the mandate until December 31, 2008.[7]

In December 2008, the American and Iraqi governments signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which covered only American troops. It allowed them to remain in the country until 2011, but changed the status on several issues. Iraq regains sovereignty of its airspace, gains sovereignty over American contractors U.S. forces who commit crimes, if they are both off-duty and off base. The U.S. were given until July 31, 2009 to withdraw from Iraqi cities and the whole agreement was subject to a referendum of Iraqi voters held prior to June 30, 2009. If the referendum failed to approve the agreement, the Iraqi government would have given the U.S. until July 31, 2010 to withdraw completely.

On December 18, 2008 the Iraqi government published a law that covered the status of non-U.S. foreign forces in the country from the end of the U.N.'s mandate on December 31, 2008 through to their withdrawal on July 31, 2009. The Iraqi parliament voted on Saturday December 20, 2008, after a second reading of this law, to reject it and send it back to the Iraqi cabinet. The majority of Iraqi parliamentarians wanted it to be made into a binding international agreement rather than simply presenting it as a local Iraqi law.[8] A compromise was reached and the law passed on December 23, 2008, with the Iraqi government agreeing to then sign bilateral agreements with the affected countries.[9]

List of countries in the coalition

[edit]

Troop deployment in Iraq 2003–2011

[edit]
Iraq War Coalition troop deployment
Troops at time of MNF-I deactivation Deployed troops (2008–2011) Deployed troops (2003–2007)

Total invasion deployment

  • Less than 200,000 troops

Multi-National Force – Iraq units

  • NATO: A contingent of around 150 advisers under the collective command NATO Training Mission – Iraq (withdrawn 12/11)
  • United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak (withdrawn 12/11)
  • United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 5/11)
  • Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
  • Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)
  • South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 8/08)
  • Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 7/09)
  • Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 1/09)
  • Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 09/08)
  • Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03; withdrawn 11/08)
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05; withdrawn 11/08)
  • North Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 11/08)
  • Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05; withdrawn 10/08)
  • Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05; withdrawn 1/09)
  • Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 10/08)
  • Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 12/08)
  • Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 11/06)
  • Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 3/05)
  • Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03; withdrawn 4/04)
  • Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04; withdrawn 7/06)
  • Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 8/04)
  • Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 5/04)
  • Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 5/04)
  • Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 3/05)
  • Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 2/04)
  • Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 8/06)
  • Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03; withdrawn 2/05)
  • Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03; withdrawn 08/07)
  • Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03; withdrawn 12/07)
  • New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03; withdrawn 9/04)
  • Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03; withdrawn 7/04)
  • Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03; withdrawal 8/07)
Clandestine deployment of Canadian forces
[edit]
  • Canada – According to the U.S. State Department, a total of 15 countries participated covertly.[10] According to leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, despite the Canadian government's official position that they would not participate in the invasion, Canadian officials allegedly promised to clandestinely support it.[11] In addition to naval vessels and personnel already in the region,[11] Canadian officers, Major Generals Walter Natynczyk, Peter Devlin, and Nicholas Matern, served as Deputy Commanding Generals of Multi-National Corps – Iraq.[12][13] and Canadian pilots flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews.[14] In 2003, Prime Minister Chrétien admitted that some Canadian troops could be serving alongside U.S. and British troops in Iraq. "It's possible," he said, "but they are not in combat roles." Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum refused to give Parliament details about the locations of Canadian soldiers in Iraq.[15]
Notable deployment of military equipment
[edit]

Norway – contributed with ARTHUR counter-battery radar systems, which pointed out 1,500 bombing targets during"[16] the first days of the war (the British minister of defence, Geoff Hoon, thanked Norway for its "robust"[16] contribution).

Countries that deployed troops to Iraq

[edit]

2011 withdrawals

[edit]
  • United Kingdom – 3,700 troops were in Southern Iraq, leading the Multi-National Division (South East), which includes troops from several other countries. The deployment includes infantry, mechanized infantry and armored units as well as water-borne patrol personnel and a range of aircraft. After the invasion (which involved 46,000 British troops[17]), approximately 8,500 troops were stationed in the south of the country, but 1,300 were withdrawn in early 2006.[18] The British government then gradually reduced the number of troops in Iraq [19][20][21][22][23][24] until May 22, 2011 when all the remaining British troops left Iraq after the Iraqi government rejected their request to stay and to extend their mission.[25] The UK has lost 179 soldiers in Iraq as of 12 February 2009: 136 in roadside bombings, firefights, and rocket attacks. Out of the remaining 43, the cause of death included accidents, 'friendly fire' incidents, illnesses, and suicide. See Operation Telic for further information.
  • United States – In the cities, U.S. forces operate in support of Iraqi forces, and outside the cities U.S. forces operate in partnership with Iraqi forces. Support includes, for example, aerial surveillance, tactical advice, logistics, and intelligence, while partnership includes actual combat, for example patrolling, mine clearing, and serving arrest warrants. Additionally, a major line of operations is the logistical work of transporting millions of pieces of equipment back to the United States. On 1 January 2010 the five major command groups in the country were consolidated into a headquarters command called U.S. Forces – Iraq (USF–I), and MNF–I was deactivated. Subordinate commands (MNC–I, MNSTC–I, and Task Force 134), responsible for detainee operations, were also deactivated in the same ceremony and their responsibilities now fall under the aegis of USF–I. In August 2010 all U.S. combat operations in Iraq ceased, and by then it is planned that all combat brigades will be AABs. In accordance with the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Iraq by December 31, 2011.[26] On October 21, 2011, President Barack Obama confirmed that all U.S. military personnel would leave Iraq by the end of 2011. As of December 6, 2011 there were 4,485 U.S. soldiers killed in combat operations within Iraq.[27] On December 15, 2011, the United States formally ended its mission in Iraq.[28] On December 18, 2011, the United States completed its withdrawal from Iraq.[29][30][31]

2009 withdrawals

[edit]
  • Australia – Australia contributed 2,000 personnel to the 2003 Iraq invasion. The largest force was the Overwatch Battle Group (West), which comprised 515 soldiers based at Camp Terendak in Talil (Southern Iraq), which terminated operations on June 2, 2008 along with the attached Australian Army training team (composed of 60–95 personnel).[32][33] The battle group was previously known as the Al Muthanna Task Group, which had about 450 troops and was deployed on February 22, 2005 to reinforce Task Force Eagle, a British Army Battlegroup, which had recently replaced outgoing Dutch forces in Al Muthana Province.[33][34] The Australian military presence in Iraq ended on July 28, 2009 per an agreement with the Iraqi government.[35] There have been several injuries but no deaths of Australian troops in Iraq attributed to hostile action, however, a SASR operator was killed in a vehicle accident in Kuwait, and a soldier named Jacob Kovco, assigned to the Baghdad SECDET, died from an accidental discharge of his pistol.[36] (See also: Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq)
  • El Salvador – Salvadoran troops were involved in guarding convoys. The last Salvadoran troops left Iraq on January 22.[37] El Salvador lost five soldiers in Iraq, four in hostile incidents and one in an accident.[38] Twenty soldiers were wounded.[39]
  • Estonia – Estonia has decided not to send a fresh troop contingent to Iraq, ending the involvement of units of up to 40 soldiers in the mission in Iraq since June 2003, Estonia's defence ministry announced in January.[40] The mission officially ended on February 7, 2009.[41] Their task was to conduct raids and combat patrols alongside American Forces in Baghdad and Fallujah. Two soldiers were killed in Iraq in separate insurgent attacks, 18 soldiers were wounded.[42] Three staff officers remain with the NATO-led training mission in Iraq.
  • Romania – Romania had originally had 730 soldiers (400 infantry, 100 military police, 150 de-miners, 50 intelligence officers, and 30 medics[43]) deployed in Iraq. At its peak, it operated in three different zones (South-East, Central, and Baghdad). They performed a wide range of missions—prisoner interrogation at Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca in the American sector, reconnaissance and surveillance missions (often involving Romanian Air Force RQ-7 Shadow UAVs) in the Polish sector, and training, peacekeeping missions, and base protection missions in the British sector. Romania also temporarily deployed a force of 130 soldiers to support UNAMI, a Coalition force in Iraq working under the authority of the United Nations. The force was deployed in March 2005, and withdrawn after six months. Romania reduced it, first to 501 by November 2008, and by early 2009, Romania had reduced its contingent to 350. They were stationed in Nasiriyah and Al-Kut. In an agreement signed with Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qader al-Ubeidi and the Romanian ambassador, Romania promised to withdraw its troops on July 31, 2009. It had been previously announced on November 6, 2008 that Romania would withdraw its then 501-strong contingent by the end of the year and leave a small group of advisers to assist the Iraqi authorities.[44] In 2008, the president announced that the troops would stay until 2011. However, under the terms of the SOFA agreement between the United States and Iraq, all non-US forces must leave Iraq prior to July 31, 2009. As a result, Romania decided to withdraw. Romania formally terminated its mission in Iraq on June 4, 2009, and pulled out its troops. On July 23, 2009 the last Romanian soldiers left Iraq.[45] Three Romanian soldiers had been killed during their mission, and at least eight were wounded.

2008 withdrawals

[edit]
  • Albania – Albania was one of the first countries participating in the invasion as they sent 70 troops to Iraq in April 2003.[46] Albania increased its deployment from 120 to 240 in September 2008, with the new troops serving in a different, unspecified part of Iraq.[47] Half of the troops were stationed at Mosul airport, where they manned guard towers and conducted internal and external patrols.[48] On December 17, the departure of all 240 Albanian troops, under U.S. command, was announced.[49] Five soldiers were wounded during the deployment.[50][51]
  • Armenia deployed a total of 46 personnel divided into three units: a logistics platoon providing vehicles and drivers for supply convoys that run from Kuwait into the Polish sector of Iraq, an ordnance disposal engineer team attached to the Salvadoran contingent, and a medical unit at Camp Echo. On December 5, 2005 the Armenian government declared its intention to stay in Iraq for another year,[52] and did the same on December 6, 2006.[53] However, in October 2008, Armenia ended its military presence in Iraq, citing improved security and the ongoing withdrawal of a much larger Polish army contingent that has supervised Armenian troops deployed in the country.[54]
  • Azerbaijan – The original contingent numbered 150 troops, increasing to 250 after an additional 100 were sent on December 29, 2004, before decreasing to 88 by September 2007.[55] They had been stationed in the vicinity of Haditha Dam in western Iraq, providing security for a nearby US Marine camp and patrolling the dam complex. The Azerbaijanis formally terminated their operations and handed over their mission to the Iraqis on December 4, 2008.[56] One soldier, Rafael Seyidbala Agayev, died during the mission due to an unspecified cause.[57]
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina deployed a total of 85 soldiers. This included a unit of 36 troops involved in ordnance disposal in Diwaniyah. In August 2008, Bosnia and Herzegovina sent an additional 49 soldiers to help guard the US Camp Victory in Baghdad.[58] A farewell ceremony for the Bosnian troops was held on November 29, 2008.[59]
  • Bulgaria – Bulgaria withdrew its original contribution of about 485 soldiers in 2005; the unit's objective had been guarding the city centre of Diwaniyah. From March 2006 to late 2008, this unit had guarded the headquarters of the MEK at Camp Ashraf, 100 km west of the Iranian border.[60] On December 17, 2008 Bulgaria's last 155 troops stationed in Iraq returned home.[61] 13 soldiers were killed during this deployment. At least five Bulgarian contractors were also killed by insurgents.
  • Czech Republic – The original Czech contingent consisted of 300 troops and three civilians running a field hospital, operating under British command Multi-National Division (South-East) (Iraq). After 2006, the goal changed from training Iraqi police to providing Force Protection to Contingency Operation Base (Basrah Air Station) at the vehicle checkpoints. Two thirds of these soldiers were pulled out by late 2007, and 80 out of the remaining 100 were withdrawn in summer 2008[62] On October 1, 2008 it was announced that the remaining 17 Taji-based Czech troops, who were training Iraqi troops in the use of armoured vehicles, would be withdrawn in December, leaving five troops supporting the NATO Training Mission (NTM-I).[63] On December 4, a ceremony was held marking the end of the Czech mission.[64] One Czech soldier died in May 2003 from injuries sustained in a vehicle accident in Iraq.
  • GeorgiaRole of Georgia in the Iraq War: Georgia's contingent originally consisted of 300 special forces troops under U.S. command in Baqouba, who guarded two bridges and three American Forward Operating Bases. Five hundred and fifty more troops were deployed in June 2005, ostensibly to serve as UNAMI guards, although they were placed under U.S. command on a dangerous 'Middle Ring Security' mission in the Green Zone.[65] On March 9, 2007 Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili announced his plans to increase total Georgian troop strength in Iraq to 2000, by sending an extra 1,200 troops and moving those already in Iraq to join the new unit.[66] Politicians had already stated that the contingent would be reduced to 300 in summer 2008.[67] Following the outbreak of war between Georgia and Russia on August 8, 2008, Mikhail Saakashvili said that Georgia was pulling its entire 2,000-strong contingent of troops from Iraq.[68] During 10 and 11 August the US Air Force airlifted the whole contingent out of Iraq.[69] The troops, all of whom had been trained by American instructors, were based east of Baghdad, close to the border with Iran.[70] As of July 2008, five Georgian soldiers had died in Iraq (one in a vehicle accident, one committed suicide, while three were killed in combat) and 19 were wounded.[71]
  • Kazakhstan – 29 ordnance disposal experts were deployed to Kut, under Polish command. The contingent was withdrawn from Iraq on October 21, 2008, thereby concluding a five-year mission.[72] One soldier was killed in 2005 along with eight Ukrainians when a pile of booby-trapped munitions was detonated by insurgents.
  • South Korea – A farewell ceremony for the remainder of the Irbil-based South Korean contingent was held on December 1, 2008, with its withdrawal from Iraq scheduled for December 5.[73][74] Total of 20,308 troops had deployed. See Zaytun Division for further information.
  • Latvia – Latvian troops were initially deployed to Kirkuk (under U.S. command) for a year, then transferred to Camp Charlie in Al Hillah, followed by Camp Delta in Al Kut. Finally, the Latvians were stationed at Camp Echo in Ad Diwaniyah where they conducted external security patrols. During their final posting, three Latvian soldiers were killed in action. On June 18, 2007, all but 7 of Latvia's 125 troops left Iraq. Four of the remainder left within two weeks, leaving three officers who participated in intelligence analysis and operational planning from July 2007 onwards. The last three Latvian soldiers concluded their mission on November 8, 2008.[75]
  • Lithuania – Lithuania originally deployed 120 troops to Iraq, approximately 50 under Polish command near Hillah (designation: LITDET), where they guarded Camp Echo; and an equal number under Danish command near Basra (designation: LITCON), where they conducted joint patrols with the Danish troops.[citation needed] The remainder served at various command centers throughout the country. The unit in the Polish sector was withdrawn during the course of 2006. Nine Lithuanian soldiers remain in Iraq under NTM–I. The remaining 33 members of the Lithuanian contingent arrived home on August 1, 2008.[76]
  • Macedonia – 77 soldiers under U.S. command in Taji conducted a wide range of missions including patrols, raids, training, and manning checkpoints.[77] In 2007, it was announced that Macedonia would increase its contingent from 44 to 80 the following year.[78] A farewell ceremony for the Macedonian troops was held on November 26, 2008,[59][74] with the withdrawal of the contingent scheduled for the second half of December.[79]
  • Moldova – On October 15, 2008 it was announced that Moldova would withdraw its 20-member unit from Iraq before the end of the year.[80] On December 17, the U.S. military announced the withdrawal of the Moldovan contingent.[49]
  • Mongolia – The Mongolians, who originally numbered 180, had operated under Polish command and were tasked with guarding the main Polish base, Camp Echo. Prior to that posting, they had been protecting a logistics base dubbed 'Camp Charlie' in Hillah.[81] All 100 troops were withdrawn on September 25, 2008.[82]
  • Poland – Following Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2,500 troops were deployed to the south of the country. Poland led the Multinational Division Central-South. The contingent was reduced in size from 2,500 to 1,500 in 2005. In January 2006 Polish troops handed over control of Babil province to U.S. troops and decided to remain on bases in Kut and Diwaniyah for the remainder of their mandate.[83] Two months later, the number of troops was reduced to 900. These soldiers were pulled out in October 2008,[84] following a dispute between President Lech Kaczyński and newly elected Prime Minister Donald Tusk over how long they should remain in the country.[85] Twenty-two Polish soldiers were killed in Iraq, along with three security personnel and two journalists, one of whom was Waldemar Milewicz, a famous Polish war correspondent.
  • Singapore – In general, Singapore's ships and aircraft return home after two or three months' deployment in the Persian Gulf, but there were no ground troops.[86][87][88][89][90][91] Singapore's withdrawal was acknowledged on 23 December 2008.[92]
    Henadii Lachkov, commander of the Ukrainian contingent in Iraq, kisses his country's flag
  • Tonga – A separate contingent of 45 Royal Marines had previously operated in Iraq from early July 2004 to mid-December 2004, augmenting the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force by guarding Camp Blue Diamond in Anbar Province.[74] 55 Royal Marines were deployed in late 2007, guarding the command headquarters at Camp Victory in Baghdad.[93][94] The Tongan unit concluded its mission on December 5.[95]
  • Ukraine – An independent contingent, consisting of 1,650 troops from the 5th Mechanized Brigade, was deployed to Kut (South Central Iraq) in late 2003. In May 2005, the brigade was replaced with the 81st Tactical Group, numbering around 900 troops.[96] A training team of around 40 troops remained in Diwaniyah & Al Kut until December 9, 2008.[97] The deployment was then reduced continuously until the remaining 44 troops were pulled out on December 22, 2005.[98] This fulfilled a long-planned withdrawal pledged by newly elected President Viktor Yushchenko. Ukraine suffered 18 fatalities: twelve in attacks, three in accidents, two in suicides and one as a result of a heart attack, while 33 were wounded or injured.[99] Early in 2004, three Ukrainian engineers were taken hostage in Iraq but were freed shortly after.

2007 withdrawals

[edit]
Provincial security transition assessment as of August 2007
  • Denmark – By December 21, 2007 Denmark's main contribution to the Multinational Force in Iraq, a 55-member air force contingent based in Basra, had been completely withdrawn.[100] Their task had been to operate a unit of four helicopters in support of British and Iraqi forces until December,[101] following the withdrawal of the original contingent in July 2007.[101] The Dancon/Irak mission consisted of 430 troops operating under UK command (South-East Iraq), and included military police involved in the training of local security forces as well as infantry. They were based south of Basra at "Camp Danevang".
    • A number of troops remain in Baghdad, Iraq, where they train Iraqi forces under the NATO Training Mission – Iraq, but NTM-I is not part of the Multinational Force.[102] Under the Iraqi Law agreed December 16, 2008 the NATO Training Mission seems to be treated as the remaining non-US foreign contingents and will withdraw during 2009.
    • A separate unit of 35 troops temporarily served under UNAMI.
    • On February 21, 2007 Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen had announced that the withdrawal of Danish 'combat' troops in Iraq would be completed by August 2007,[103] however, on July 26, 2007, it was reported that 250 of the Danish troops had already withdrawn, at least two weeks ahead of schedule.[104] The Danish government repeatedly guaranteed that its forces would remain as long as the Iraqi government requested. On April 28, 2007 the Danish military reported that it was in the process of temporarily deploying an unspecified number of special forces to "resolve a special problem".[105] Denmark has lost seven soldiers in Iraq; one to friendly fire, one in a vehicle accident, and five to hostile incidents, while several more have been wounded. In early 2006, the Iraqi insurgency released a statement calling for more attacks on the Danish army in the retaliation to the Danish cartoon controversy.[106]
  • Slovakia – On January 27, 2007 Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico announced that all but 11 of the 110 Slovak troops (primarily engaged in destroying ordnance) operating under the US-led Coalition had been transferred from Diwaniya in Iraq to Kuwait. They arrived home the following month. The remaining troops were sent to perform liaison duties at the Multinational Forces HQ in Baghdad: nine were withdrawn in stages,[107] while the last two returned by the end of the year.[108] Four Slovak soldiers were killed by mortars and roadside bombs during their deployment in Iraq.

2006 withdrawals

[edit]
  • Italy – The original contingent consisted of about 3,200 troops, but on July 9, 2005, former PM Berlusconi announced that Italian soldiers would gradually be withdrawn in groups of 300. New Prime Minister Romano Prodi had pledged to withdraw the troops in his first speech to the senate and called the war "a grave mistake that has complicated rather than solved the problem of security".[109][110] Shortly after, on May 26, 2006, Italian foreign minister Massimo D'Alema announced that the Italian forces would be reduced from 1,800 to 1,600 by June. On June 8, he said Italy's military presence in Iraq would end before 2007.[111] On September 21, 2006, Italian forces handed over Dhi Qar province in southern Iraq to newly trained Iraqi security forces, thus ending their military mission. About a month earlier, on August 23, the Italian contingent stood at 1,600 troops. The 'Garibaldi Brigade' served its final four-month tour of duty between May and September 2006, and included mechanized infantry, helicopters and Carabinieri in South Central Iraq, based around Nasiriyah. The Military of Italy lost 33 soldiers in Iraq. See Operation Ancient Babylon for more information.
  • Japan – In early January 2004, 600 Japanese soldiers were deployed in Samawah and 6,100 cumulative till withdrawal in July 2006,[112] Iraq in what was called the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group. Most Japanese soldiers were there for humanitarian work and reconstruction, not combat, and were prohibited from opening fire on Iraqi insurgents unless fired on first. Japanese Special Forces soldiers and Australian soldiers provided security. Iraqi insurgents also threatened attacks against Japanese soil unless all Japanese forces were withdrawn from Iraq. Incidents like these furthered public demand in Japan that Japan withdraw from Iraq. Insurgents launched several mortar attacks on Japanese positions, but these caused no casualties. In July 2006 all Japanese soldiers were withdrawn from Iraq. There were no Japanese military casualties during the Operation.
  • Norway – 140 of 150 troops (engineers and mine clearers) withdrawn on June 30, 2004 citing growing domestic opposition and the need for the troops elsewhere; the ten remaining staff officers assigned to MND-SE and MND CS had been withdrawn by August 2006. The Bondevik II government insists the troops were never part of the invasion force, citing a UN humanitarian mandate. This does not seem to have come to the attention of the international community, as Al-Qaeda has included Norway in videotaped threats on at least two occasions, and U.S. organizations have included Norway on their lists of participating nations.

2005 withdrawals

[edit]
  • Netherlands – An independent contingent of 1,345 troops (including 650 Dutch Marines, three or four Chinook helicopters, a military police unit, a logistics team, a commando squad, a field hospital and Royal Netherlands Air Force AH-64 attack helicopters) was deployed to Iraq in 2003, based in Samawah (Southern Iraq). On June 1, 2004 the Dutch government renewed their stay until 2005. The Algemeen Dagblad reported on October 21, 2004 that the Netherlands would pull its troops out of Iraq in March 2005, which it did, leaving half a dozen liaison officers until late 2005. The Netherlands lost two soldiers in separate attacks.
  • Portugal – had 128 military policemen (GNR – Guarda Nacional Republicana) under Italian command (South East Iraq). These troops were withdrawn on February 10, 2005, two days ahead of schedule.

2004 withdrawals

[edit]
  • Dominican Republic – 302 troops withdrawn by the end of May 2004, shortly after Spain and Honduras withdrew their contingents, citing growing domestic opposition and the fall from power of PRD candidate Hipólito Mejía and the election of center-left PLD candidate Leonel Fernández to the presidency in 2004. The decision to withdraw came just two days after President Mejia promised to keep the troops in Iraq until the expiration of their mandate in August.[113] Dominican troops were under constant mortar attacks but suffered no casualties. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command (South East Iraq).
  • Honduras – 368 troops withdrawn by the end of May 2004 along with Spain's contingent, citing that the troops were sent there for reconstruction, not combat. While in Iraq, the troops were part of the Spanish led Plus Ultra Brigade in South East Iraq.
  • Hungary – Hungary's contingent of 300 transportation troops had begun arriving home in Budapest from Iraq on December 22, 2004, reported by the AFP. All of Hungary's troops were reported by the Defence Ministry to have left Iraq by the end of that day. While in Iraq, one Hungarian soldier was killed in an insurgent attack.
  • Iceland – Iceland had two Explosive Ordnance Disposal Soldiers prior to their withdrawal.[114]
  • New Zealand – Two rotations of 61 military engineers, known as Task Force Rake, operated in Iraq from September 26, 2003 to September 25, 2004.[115][116] They were deployed to undertake humanitarian and reconstruction tasks consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1483; they were not part of the invading force. While in Iraq the unit was under British command (South East Iraq) and was based in Basra.
  • Nicaragua – 230 troops left in February 2004, no replacement, attributed to financial reasons. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command.
  • Philippines – 51 medics, engineers and other troops led by Jovito Palparan were withdrawn on July 14, 2004 in response to the kidnapping of a truck driver. When the hostage takers' demands were met (the withdrawal of Filipino troops from Iraq), the hostage was released.[117] While in Iraq, the troops were under Polish command (Central South Iraq). During that time, three Filipino soldiers were wounded in an insurgent attack, although none died.[118]
  • Spain – had 1,300 troops (mostly assigned to policing duties) in Najaf and commanded, through the Plus Ultra Brigade, the troops of Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and of Nicaragua. Newly elected Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero fulfilled one of his campaign pledges and declared the end of the mission on April 28, 2004 with the withdrawal of the last 260 troops. While in Iraq, Spain lost 11 military personnel: ten killed in insurgent attacks and one in an accident.
  • ThailandThai Humanitarian Assistance Task Force 976 Thai-Iraq Withdrawal of the last 100 troops from Thailand's 423-strong humanitarian contingent was completed on September 10, 2004, in accordance with Thailand's mandate in Iraq, which expired in September. Thailand lost two soldiers in Iraq in an insurgent attack.

Public relations

[edit]

YouTube

[edit]

In early March 2007, Multi-National Force – Iraq announced[119] that it had launched an official YouTube channel for the first time.[120] The channel's videos have over eight million views.[121]

The stated purpose of the YouTube channel is to "document action as it appeared to personnel on the ground and in the air as it was shot." The video clips posted to the site are edited for "time, security reasons, and/or overly disturbing or offensive images."

Commanders

[edit]
No. Commander Term Service branch Ref.
Portrait Name Took office Left office Duration
1
Ricardo Sanchez
Sanchez, RicardoLieutenant General
Ricardo Sanchez
(born 1953)
June 14, 2003July 1, 20041 year, 17 days
U.S. Army
2
George W. Casey Jr.
Casey, GeorgeGeneral
George W. Casey Jr.
(born 1948)
July 1, 2004February 10, 20072 years, 224 days
U.S. Army
[122]
3
David Petraeus
Petraeus, DavidGeneral
David Petraeus
(born 1952)
February 10, 2007September 16, 20081 year, 219 days
U.S. Army
4
Raymond T. Odierno
Odierno, RaymondGeneral
Raymond T. Odierno
(1954–2021)
September 16, 2008January 1, 20101 year, 107 days
U.S. Army

Controversy

[edit]

Critics of the war have argued that, in addition to direct incentives, the involvement of other members of the coalition was in response for indirect benefits, such as support for North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership or other military and financial aid. Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, stated in April 2006, that Estonian military forces were to remain in Iraq due to Estonia's "important partnership" with the United States.[123]

Incentives given to MNF-I member countries

[edit]

Many MNF-I member countries had received monetary gain, among other incentives from the United States, in return for their sending of military forces to Iraq, or otherwise supporting coalition forces during the Iraq War.[124]

Georgia

[edit]

Georgia, is believed to have sent soldiers to Iraq as an act of repayment for U.S. training of security forces that could potentially be deployed to the break-away regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[125] Indeed, Georgian troops that were sent to Iraq have all undergone these training programs.[126]

Turkey

[edit]

Turkey was offered approximately $8.5 billion in loans in exchange for sending 10,000 peacekeeping troops in 2003. Even though the United States 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.[127] The Turkish government swiftly rejected all offers of financial aid, and on March 1, 2003, the Turkish Grand National Assembly rejected sending military forces to help participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The decision of the Turkish parliament to do so, at the time, was seen as both a response against American interests in the Middle East, and a desire to keep Turkey out of the Iraq War. The Turkish government, however, allowed all humanitarian flights into and out of Turkey, such as the airlifting of wounded coalition forces.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In March 2006, British newspaper, The Independent, reported that companies based within the United Kingdom had received at least £1.1bn in contracts for reconstruction work in post-invasion Iraq.[128]

Deaths

[edit]

When U.S. forces withdrew in December 2011, 4,804 coalition military personnel had been killed in Iraq. This list, which includes withdrawn countries, lists those deaths.[129]

Coalition fatalities
Country Deaths Reference(s)
United States 4,486 [130]
United Kingdom 179 [131]
Italy 33 [132]
Poland 23 [133]
Ukraine 18 [134]
Bulgaria 13 [135]
Spain 11 [136]
Denmark 7 [137]
El Salvador 5 [138]
Georgia 5 [139]
Slovakia 4 [140]
Latvia 3 [141]
Romania 3 [142]
Estonia 2 [143]
Thailand 2 [144]
Australia 2 [145]
Netherlands 2 [146]
Kazakhstan 1 [147]
South Korea 1 [148]
Hungary 1 [149]
Czech Republic 1 [150]
Azerbaijan 1 [151]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) was a U.S.-led multinational military command established to oversee coalition operations in Iraq following the initial invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Formed on May 15, 2004, it replaced Combined Joint Task Force 7, assuming responsibility for strategic-level planning and execution amid escalating insurgency challenges. Commanded initially by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez and later by General George W. Casey Jr., MNF-I coordinated forces from over 30 nations, with the United States providing the bulk of personnel exceeding 100,000 troops at various points. Its primary mission involved conducting counterinsurgency operations to neutralize terrorist networks and former regime elements, while simultaneously organizing, training, and equipping Iraqi security forces to assume national defense roles. This dual focus supported the broader objective of stabilizing Iraq for a transition to self-governance under UN Security Council mandates. MNF-I's operations peaked during the 2007 troop surge, which correlated with reduced violence through intensified offensive actions and partnerships with Sunni tribal leaders against al-Qaeda in Iraq, though sustained insurgent attacks and sectarian tensions highlighted operational complexities. The command dissolved on December 31, 2009, transitioning to U.S. Forces – Iraq as coalition partners withdrew and Iraqi forces took primary security duties.

Background and Establishment

Preceding Events and Rationale

The U.S.-led invasion of commenced on March 20, 2003, with coalition forces rapidly defeating the Iraqi military and capturing by April 9, toppling the regime of . Following the end of major combat operations declared on May 1, 2003, a emerged, leading to the establishment of the (CPA) on May 23, 2003, under U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer III, to administer during the transitional period. The CPA governed , disbanded the Iraqi army, and pursued policies, but faced escalating from disparate groups including former regime loyalists, foreign jihadists, and sectarian militias, resulting in over 10,000 insurgent attacks by mid-2004. In November 2003, the CPA and the agreed to transfer sovereignty to an by June 30, 2004, to facilitate political transition and elections. On June 28, 2004, two days ahead of schedule to preempt attacks, Bremer formally handed over authority to Iyad Allawi's interim government, dissolving the CPA and marking the nominal end of occupation. This transition occurred amid intensifying violence, with the exploiting governance gaps and targeting and emerging Iraqi institutions, underscoring the new government's limited capacity to secure the country independently. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, adopted unanimously on June 8, 2004, endorsed the formation of the sovereign and authorized a (MNF), at the explicit request of the Iraqi government, to undertake all necessary measures to maintain security and stability, deter and defeat terrorism, protect Iraqi institutions, and train until Iraqi forces could assume full responsibility. The rationale emphasized enabling Iraq's political process, including national elections planned for January 2005, by providing external support against persistent threats that the nascent Iraqi —rebuilding from scratch after the CPA's dissolution of Saddam-era forces—could not yet counter effectively. This framework shifted from CPA-era occupation to a supportive role, with the U.S. retaining operational command under Combined 7, reorganized as MNF-I on May 15, 2004, to coordinate these efforts.

Formation and Mandate

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF–I) was established on 15 May 2004 as a U.S.-led command, succeeding the Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF-7) to direct all operations aimed at stabilizing following the 2003 invasion. This transition addressed operational concerns by centralizing strategic-level command under a dedicated multinational structure, with initial leadership provided by U.S. . MNF–I's mandate derived from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511, adopted unanimously on 16 October 2003, which authorized a to assist in restoring security and stability in post-Saddam , including protecting the and facilitating the transition to Iraqi self-governance. This was reinforced by Resolution 1546 on 8 June 2004, which endorsed the force's role after the scheduled transfer of sovereignty to the on 28 June 2004, empowering MNF–I to take necessary measures for security, support through training and equipping, and aid in the political transition process at the Iraqi government's request. The mandate emphasized temporary assistance to enable to assume control, with provisions for annual reviews or earlier reassessment upon Iraqi request, reflecting a framework for gradual drawdown as Iraqi capabilities developed. Subsequent resolutions, such as (2005) and (2006), extended this authority until 31 December each year, maintaining the focus on countering and building Iraqi institutions amid ongoing violence.

Command Structure and Leadership

Overall Organization

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) functioned as the senior U.S.-led coalition headquarters in , established on May 15, 2004, to manage strategic-level operations following the transition from Combined Joint Task Force 7. Headquartered at near , MNF-I reported to U.S. Central Command and coordinated coalition efforts with the Iraqi government, emphasizing force generation, sustainment, and the phased handover of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. MNF-I's core structure included several key subordinate commands to execute its mission. The Multi-National Corps – Iraq (MNC-I), activated concurrently on May 15, 2004, served as the primary operational arm, handling tactical command over ground forces and daily combat activities across the theater. MNC-I oversaw regionally aligned Multi-National Divisions (MNDs), typically numbering five to six, which divided into operational sectors: Multi-National Division – Baghdad (covering the capital region), Multi-National Division – North (northern provinces including ), Multi-National Division – Central (central areas), Multi-National Division – South Central (southern-central provinces), Multi-National Division – Southeast (British-led in the southeast), and Multi-National Force – West (U.S. Marine-led in Al Anbar Province). These divisions integrated coalition troops from participating nations, with U.S. units predominant but allies often leading or contributing significantly to specific MNDs, such as British forces in MND-Southeast. Parallel to MNC-I, the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq (MNSTC-I) operated under MNF-I to focus on building Iraqi security capabilities, including training, equipping, and mentoring the Iraqi Army and National Police from 2004 onward. Other specialized elements, such as Task Force 134 for detention operations, supported counterinsurgency efforts. The organizational framework evolved dynamically, with MND boundaries adjusted based on insurgency patterns, troop rotations, and coalition drawdowns, ensuring flexible command and control while prioritizing multinational integration where feasible.

Key Commanders and Transitions

Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez served as the initial commander of the Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) upon its establishment on May 15, 2004, overseeing the transition from amid the of to the . His tenure ended on July 1, 2004, following controversies including the prisoner abuse scandal, which occurred under his operational command and led to investigations highlighting leadership and oversight failures. General assumed command on July 1, 2004, leading MNF-I through the intensification of the and focusing on transitioning security responsibilities to Iraqi forces while pursuing a strategy of force stabilization rather than large-scale surges. Casey's period, extending until February 10, 2007, emphasized building Iraqi security capabilities and conducting elections, though it faced criticism for underestimating persistent violence and sectarian tensions. General David H. Petraeus took command on February 10, 2007, implementing the "Surge" strategy that involved a temporary increase of U.S. troops to approximately 170,000, coupled with tactics prioritizing population security and partnerships with Sunni tribes against . Petraeus's leadership until September 16, 2008, correlated with reduced violence levels, attributed by military analyses to intensified operations, local alliances, and improved Iraqi force integration, though debates persist on long-term causal factors including the Anbar Awakening's pre-Surge momentum. General succeeded Petraeus on September 16, 2008, directing the drawdown of surge forces and the transition to advisory roles, culminating in MNF-I's dissolution on December 31, 2009, as U.S. combat operations ended under Operation Iraqi Freedom. Odierno's command emphasized consolidating gains, transferring bases and capabilities to Iraqi control, and preparing for the shift to , with troop levels reduced to about 50,000 by late 2010.
CommanderRankStart DateEnd Date
Ricardo S. SanchezMay 15, 2004July 1, 2004
George W. Casey Jr.GeneralJuly 1, 2004February 10, 2007
David H. PetraeusGeneralFebruary 10, 2007September 16, 2008
GeneralSeptember 16, 2008December 31, 2009

Coalition Composition

Member Countries and Troop Contributions

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) consisted of military contingents from the and up to 37 other nations during its operation from 2004 to 2011, with the U.S. providing the overwhelming majority of personnel. Non-U.S. troop levels peaked at around 24,000 in December 2003 shortly before MNF-I's formal establishment under UN Security Council Resolution 1511, but declined progressively to approximately 12,600 by May 2007 across 25 countries, reflecting withdrawals driven by political changes, casualties, and national priorities. By late 2008, further reductions left fewer than 10,000 non-U.S. troops, with most allies exiting by mid-2009 amid the transition to Iraqi security control. Key contributors operated in designated Multi-National Divisions (MNDs), such as the United Kingdom leading MND South East in Basra with forces averaging 5,000-10,000 after 2004, focusing on stabilization and training; Poland commanding MND Central South in areas like Najaf and Karbala with up to 2,500 troops until October 2008; and Australia maintaining a special operations task group and reconstruction teams in southern Iraq until July 2009. Other significant participants included Georgia (peak 1,850 in Baghdad and Kut), Italy (peak 2,600 in Nasiriyah until 2006), and South Korea (peak 3,600 in northern Iraq for reconstruction until 2008). Smaller contingents from nations like El Salvador, Romania, and Denmark emphasized humanitarian aid, explosive ordnance disposal, and police training.
CountryPeak TroopsPrimary Deployment PeriodKey Roles/Areas
Albania2402003–2008Security in (MND-N)
Armenia502005–2008Peacekeeping in (MND-CS)
Australia5152005–2009Reconstruction in Muthanna (MND-SE)
Azerbaijan1752003–2008Infrastructure security in Hadithah
Bulgaria4962003–2008Camp protection in Diwaniyah (MND-CS)
Denmark5452003–2007Security in (MND-SE)
El Salvador3802003–2009Humanitarian in (MND-CS)
Georgia1,8502003–2008Security in /
Italy2,6002003–2006Police training in (MND-SE)
Poland2,5002003–2008Division command in Central South
Republic of Korea3,6002003–2008Reconstruction in (MND-NE)
Romania7302003–2009Training in (MND-SE)
Ukraine1,6502003–2008Reconstruction in (MND-CS)
United Kingdom46,0002003–2009Division command in South East
This table highlights select major and representative contributors based on peak strengths; full U.S. forces numbered over 140,000 at various points, dwarfing allied inputs which comprised less than 20% of total MNF-I personnel after 2004. Withdrawals accelerated post-2006 "surge," with allies citing completed missions, domestic opposition, and improved Iraqi capabilities as rationales, though some reports noted strains from insurgent attacks and limited strategic impact relative to commitments. By December 2011, all foreign combat troops had departed .

Diplomatic Incentives and Challenges

The formation and maintenance of the Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) relied on diplomatic efforts to secure contributions from allied nations, often driven by strategic alignment with the rather than broad international consensus. Major partners such as the and viewed participation as an extension of longstanding security alliances, with the emphasizing shared intelligence and interests post-9/11, while invoked treaty obligations to support U.S.-led stabilization amid perceived regional threats from rogue states. Eastern European contributors, including —which commanded Multinational Division Central-South with up to 2,500 troops—sought to solidify integration and bilateral defense ties with Washington, leveraging involvement to access U.S. military training and equipment upgrades following their 1999-2004 accessions. Financial mechanisms supplemented these strategic motivations, as the U.S. Department of Defense allocated funds to reimburse coalition partners for incremental deployment costs, totaling hundreds of millions in supplemental appropriations to offset , , and operational expenses. This support aimed to encourage burden-sharing in reconstruction and tasks, though it drew criticism for resembling arrangements, with some partners gaining preferential access to Iraqi oil contracts or negotiations. Smaller contributors, such as Georgia and the , received enhanced U.S. assistance packages, including non-lethal aid and joint exercises, as incentives tied to their post-Soviet alignment against potential Russian influence. However, these benefits were uneven, with the U.S. shouldering over 90% of troop commitments throughout MNF-I's existence from 2004 to 2011. Diplomatic challenges arose primarily from domestic political dynamics in contributing democracies, where rising casualties—exceeding 300 non-U.S. fatalities by 2007—and public opposition fueled electoral pressures for withdrawal. Spain's rapid pullout of 1,300 troops in May 2004 followed the March 11 Madrid bombings, attributed to , and the subsequent electoral defeat of José María , whose successor José Luis Rodríguez prioritized anti-war sentiment. Similar patterns emerged in , where Romano Prodi's 2006 government ended deployment of 3,000 troops amid corruption scandals and protests, and in , whose forces reduced from 2,500 in 2005 to full withdrawal by October 2008 under public fatigue and shifting priorities toward . Internationally, the absence of initial UN authorization for the 2003 invasion limited recruitment, with key European powers like and refusing participation and advocating multilateral alternatives, complicating U.S. . Subsequent UN Security Council resolutions, such as 1546 in June 2004 authorizing MNF-I under Iraqi sovereignty and extensions through Resolution 1790 until December 2008, provided legal cover but faced scrutiny over mandate scope and Iraqi consent, with negotiating stricter conditions amid sovereignty assertions. cohesion eroded as non-U.S. forces dwindled from 23,000 in 2005 to under 5,000 by 2009, straining U.S. bilateral relations and highlighting the asymmetry where token contributions from over two dozen nations masked limited strategic buy-in.

Operational Phases

Initial Stabilization and Insurgency (2004-2006)

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) assumed command on May 15, 2004, replacing to oversee coalition operations aimed at defeating and stabilizing the country under a UN-authorized mandate. This transition coincided with preparations for the transfer of sovereignty to the , which occurred on June 28, 2004—two days ahead of the planned date of June 30 to preempt potential disruptions. endorsed the MNF-I's role in maintaining security, training Iraqi forces, and facilitating the political transition until Iraqi authorities could assume full responsibility. Initial stabilization efforts focused on countering a burgeoning Sunni Arab-led , bolstered by foreign fighters and groups like , which targeted coalition troops, Iraqi security personnel, and civilians to undermine the new government. Insurgent attacks surged, numbering approximately 26,500 in 2004 and rising to over 34,000 in 2005, with a consistent success rate around 24 percent, reflecting the insurgents' adaptive tactics including improvised explosive devices and suicide bombings. MNF-I operations emphasized clearing insurgent strongholds, such as the Second Battle of Fallujah (Operation Phantom Fury) from November 7 to December 23, 2004, where over 10,000 U.S., British, and Iraqi troops engaged an estimated 3,000-4,000 fighters, resulting in 95 American deaths and the clearing of a major hub. Despite these kinetic actions, violence persisted, with MNF-I reporting challenges in holding cleared areas due to insufficient Iraqi force capabilities and local support for insurgents. By 2005-2006, the evolved to include Shia elements, exacerbating sectarian tensions, while MNF-I troop levels hovered around 140,000-160,000 U.S. personnel supplemented by smaller contingents, prioritizing alongside reconstruction support. Key strategies involved partnering with nascent for joint patrols and training, though GAO assessments highlighted ongoing difficulties in achieving stable security conditions amid daily attacks averaging over 100. Operations like those in and aimed to disrupt insurgent networks, but the period saw a shift toward intra-Iraqi conflict, with insurgents increasingly targeting Iraqi targets over MNF-I units, signaling partial adaptation to presence but no decisive stabilization.

The Surge and Counterinsurgency Peak (2007-2008)

In January 2007, U.S. President announced a temporary increase of approximately 20,000 additional U.S. troops to as part of a revised strategy aimed at securing population centers, disrupting insurgent networks, and fostering local security partnerships. This "Surge" built on prior tactical shifts, including the Anbar Awakening where Sunni tribal leaders began cooperating with coalition forces against (AQI) starting in late 2006, but accelerated with the influx of forces focused on and surrounding areas. General assumed command of Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I) on January 26, 2007, implementing principles from the U.S. 's Field Manual 3-24 on , which emphasized protecting civilians, conducting joint operations with Iraqi forces, and enabling political reconciliation. The strategy shifted from large-scale sweeps to "clear, hold, and build" tactics, with troops embedding in neighborhoods to maintain security and support Iraqi and police units. By June 2007, all five Surge brigades had deployed, bringing total U.S. troop levels to about 170,000, supplemented by enhanced contributions and coalition partners under MNF-I. Key operations included the reinforcement of Baghdad's belts, where joint clearing actions targeted AQI strongholds, and expanded programs that integrated over 100,000 former insurgents into local protection roles by mid-2008. In Anbar Province, the Awakening's momentum, combined with Surge-enabled operations, dismantled AQI networks, reducing enemy-initiated attacks by over 70% province-wide by late 2007. MNF-I also conducted major offensives, such as Arrowhead Ripper in Diyala Province (June-August 2007), which cleared of insurgents, resulting in over 1,000 enemy fighters killed or captured. These efforts peaked in 2008 with operations in Basrah and against Shi'a militias, where MNF-I supported Iraqi-led assaults under , neutralizing Jaish threats and securing urban areas. Violence metrics reflected the strategy's impact: ethno-sectarian deaths dropped from a monthly average of over 1,500 in 2006 to under 300 by mid-2008, while total attacks fell by 60-80% nationwide, per MNF-I reporting. Petraeus testified before in September 2007 that conditions allowed for conditional reductions starting in 2008, leading to the withdrawal of Surge brigades by July 2008 while maintaining baseline force levels for sustained . This period marked the height of MNF-I's integrated approach, blending kinetic operations with support, though challenges persisted from incomplete Iraqi political integration and residual activities. Empirical data from multiple analyses attributes much of the security gains to the combined effects of troop density increases, tribal realignments, and cessation of sectarian reprisals, rather than isolated factors.

Transition to Iraqi Lead and Drawdown (2009-2011)

In accordance with the U.S.- (SOFA) signed on November 17, 2008, (ISF) assumed lead responsibility for internal security nationwide on January 1, 2009, with Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) shifting to a supporting advisory role focused on training and equipping ISF units. This transition aligned with the SOFA's requirement for U.S. and coalition forces to vacate Iraqi cities and villages by June 30, 2009, reducing direct operational involvement in urban areas while maintaining overwatch capabilities. By mid-2009, U.S. troop levels stood at approximately 130,000, down from peaks exceeding 170,000 during the prior surge, as initial drawdowns commenced under the framework established by the administration but accelerated by incoming President . On February 27, 2009, Obama outlined a drawdown plan to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades—reducing forces to 35,000–50,000 personnel—by August 31, 2010, emphasizing a transition to stability operations centered on partnering with ISF through the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq (MNSTC-I). This phase saw MNF-I prioritize counter-terrorism support, logistics handover, and professionalization of Iraqi ministries of defense and interior, with ISF personnel growing to over 600,000 by 2010, though capabilities varied by unit due to ongoing insurgent pressures. Coalition partners, including the United Kingdom and remaining smaller contingents, largely completed their withdrawals by early 2010, leaving primarily U.S. forces under MNF-I's evolving command structure, which re-designated as United States Forces – Iraq (USF-I) on January 1, 2010, to reflect the diminished multinational composition. The end of U.S. combat operations occurred on August 31, 2010, when Obama declared Operation Iraqi Freedom concluded, transitioning to Operation New Dawn with roughly 50,000 troops dedicated to advising, training, and counter-terrorism missions alongside ISF. From September 2010 through 2011, USF-I (formerly MNF-I) oversaw the phased handover of over 500 bases and facilities to Iraqi control, culminating in the withdrawal of all remaining forces by December 31, 2011, as stipulated by the SOFA, with the last organized convoy crossing into on December 18, 2011. This drawdown reduced U.S. personnel from 49,700 in August 2010 to zero by year's end, marking the formal end of MNF-I's mandate amid Iraqi assertions of , though ISF faced immediate tests from resurgent violence in subsequent years.

Military Operations and Strategies

Counterinsurgency Tactics and Battles

The Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I) implemented tactics emphasizing the protection of civilian populations, disruption of insurgent networks through intelligence-driven operations, and partnership with local Iraqi forces and tribes to deny safe havens to extremists. These approaches, formalized under U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24 co-authored by , prioritized "clear, hold, and build" strategies: kinetic operations to clear insurgents from areas, sustained presence to hold terrain with joint patrols and outposts, and non-kinetic efforts to build governance and economic stability. MNF-I commanders adapted these tactics to Iraq's urban and tribal environments, conducting over 500 named operations by mid-2007, including raids, cordons, and cache clearances that targeted (AQI) leadership and logistics. A pivotal tactical shift involved supporting the Anbar Awakening, where MNF-I forces allied with Sunni tribal leaders alienated by AQI's brutality, beginning in in September 2006 with Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha's pact against foreign jihadists. This enabled the formation of Provincial Security Forces (later ), numbering up to 100,000 by 2008, which conducted local patrols and provided intelligence, reducing AQI attacks in Anbar by over 90% from 2006 peaks. The strategy extended to and Diyala, combining tribal buy-in with U.S. surge reinforcements of approximately 20,000-30,000 troops arriving from February 2007, allowing denser troop footprints for embedded operations. Major battles underscored these tactics' evolution. The Second Battle of Fallujah (Operation Al-Fajr), from November 7 to December 23, 2004, involved 10,000-13,000 U.S. Marines, Army, and Iraqi troops assaulting insurgent strongholds in house-to-house fighting, employing with , armor, and air support to clear over 1,350 enemy fighters killed while securing the city at a cost of 95 U.S. and 560 wounded. In , from March to November 2006, MNF-I units established combat outposts amid daily attacks averaging 20-30, killing or capturing hundreds of insurgents through persistent urban patrols and sniping defenses, paving the way for the Awakening's expansion despite 84 U.S. fatalities. The 2007 Surge intensified with , launched June 16, 2007, as a multi-division offensive across Anbar, Diyala, and Babil provinces, synchronizing 11 brigade-sized operations to dismantle AQI sanctuaries, resulting in over 2,000 insurgents killed or detained in the first month alone through raids, airstrikes, and ground maneuvers supported by . These efforts transitioned from high-casualty clearances to sustained holds, correlating with a 60% drop in violence nationwide by mid-2008, as measured by attacks on coalition forces falling from 1,800 per month in 2007 to under 300.

Training and Partnership with Iraqi Forces

The Multi-National Security Transition Command—Iraq (MNSTC-I), established in June 2004 under the Multi-National Force—Iraq (MNF-I), led efforts to recruit, train, equip, and sustain (ISF), encompassing both Ministry of Defense (army, navy, air force) and Ministry of Interior (police, border, facilities protection) elements. MNSTC-I integrated the prior Coalition Military Assistance Training Team (for military forces) and Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (for police), focusing on building forces capable of independent operations amid ongoing . The command operated training academies, such as those in and Taji for army recruits, and regional police training centers, emphasizing basic combat skills, weapons handling, and tactics. Training scale expanded rapidly: by July 2005, approximately 174,000 ISF personnel had been trained and equipped; this grew to 327,000 by February 2007. By December 2008, over 614,000 ISF were assigned, with more than 500,000 reported as trained across army divisions, police units, and support elements. In 2007 alone, MNSTC-I supported recruitment, training, and equipping of over 124,000 new personnel. Police training lagged behind army efforts initially, with about 63,000 of a targeted 135,000 regular police trained and equipped by mid-2005, supplemented by 25,000 elite commandos. The Iraqi Army implemented advanced programs like the Warrior Training exercise starting in July 2008, involving battalion-level drills to enhance operational readiness. Partnership evolved from direct training to advisory roles, with coalition military transition teams (MiTTs) and police transition teams (PoTTs) embedding with ISF units to provide on-the-job mentoring, logistics support, and joint planning. By 2007-2008, during , U.S. and coalition advisors partnered with Iraqi brigades in operations, fostering integration and transitioning select units to "independent" status based on Department of Defense criteria for self-sufficiency in planning, intelligence, and sustainment. NATO's Training Mission—Iraq (NTM-I), active from 2004 to 2011, complemented MNSTC-I by providing specialized non-combat training in areas like officer education and defense institution-building, training thousands of Iraqi personnel at facilities outside combat zones. Challenges persisted, including inconsistent equipping (with U.S.-funded gear often unaccounted for or diverted), weak , and leadership gaps that hindered . Sectarian infiltration, high absenteeism rates (up to 30% in some units), and corruption within Iraqi ministries undermined training efficacy, as noted in Government Accountability Office assessments; for instance, many police recruits received abbreviated training due to urgent needs, compromising long-term professionalism. Despite these, by 2009, sufficient ISF capabilities enabled provincial security handovers and supported MNF-I drawdown, with partnered units conducting independent patrols in stable areas.

Achievements and Strategic Successes

Violence Reduction and Security Gains

The implementation of additional U.S. troops as part of the 2007 surge, combined with strategies and local Sunni Awakening alliances, correlated with substantial reductions in across Iraq. Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) reported that total security incidents declined from peaks exceeding 1,700 per week in mid-2007 to approximately 400 per week by mid-2008, representing an overall drop of more than 75% from pre-surge levels. Ethno-sectarian deaths, a key metric of intra-Iraqi conflict, fell by over 90% between early 2007 and mid-2008, according to MNF-I assessments, enabling greater civilian mobility and market activity in previously contested areas like and Anbar Province. Civilian casualties from violence, tracked by Iraq Body Count using media and official reports, decreased from an annual total of 28,869 in 2006 to 26,801 in , with sharper monthly drops post-June —from over 2,500 per month in January to under 1,000 by December—continuing to 10,945 in 2008. Attacks on forces plummeted from averages of 600 per week in early to fewer than 100 by late 2008, reducing U.S. fatalities from 904 in (the highest annual toll) to 314 in 2008. These gains facilitated security improvements, including the expansion of the program, which integrated over 100,000 former insurgents into local protection roles by 2008, further stabilizing Sunni areas against . By 2009, overall violence levels reached their lowest since the 2003 invasion, with daily insurgent attacks averaging under 10 nationwide per tracking, allowing for provincial Iraqi security control handovers starting in June 2008. Independent analyses, such as those from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, confirmed the sustained drop, attributing it partly to increased troop presence disrupting insurgent operations, though noting residual threats in northern provinces like Ninewa.

Enabling Iraqi Political Milestones

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) contributed to Iraqi political progress by conducting operations and joint security patrols with Iraqi forces, which suppressed insurgent threats and protected electoral infrastructure during critical transitions from 2005 onward. This stabilization effort was essential amid ongoing violence from groups like , allowing Iraqis to participate in foundational democratic exercises despite targeted attacks on voters and officials. MNF-I's mandate, authorized under UN Security Council resolutions, emphasized creating conditions for by prioritizing force protection for political actors and logistics for voting. During the October 15, 2005, constitutional referendum, MNF-I units, including in Anbar Province, executed operations such as Liberty Express to secure 139 polling centers, roads, and bridges against , enabling a 66% national turnout with the draft ratified by 79%. forces augmented Iraqi security elements by providing intelligence, quick-reaction capabilities, and perimeter defenses, which deterred major disruptions in volatile areas like western where insurgent strongholds posed high risks. These measures built on prior efforts from the January 30, 2005, transitional assembly elections, where MNF-I supported nationwide polling security amid over 300 attacks, facilitating the selection of a 275-member that drafted the . MNF-I's security framework extended to the December 15, 2005, elections for a permanent , where joint operations with expanded Iraqi forces—numbering over 200,000 by late 2005—protected approximately 6,500 polling sites, resulting in 12 million voters and the United Iraqi Alliance's plurality win. This environment persisted into 2006, enabling protracted negotiations among Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish blocs to form Iraq's first enduring elected government on May 20, with as prime minister, despite sectarian tensions that delayed seating by four months. By training and partnering with to assume lead roles, MNF-I transitioned responsibilities progressively, as outlined in bilateral agreements, fostering institutional legitimacy without which factional violence could have derailed governance.

Controversies and Criticisms

The legal authority for the Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) stemmed from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, adopted unanimously on June 8, 2004, which authorized the force to undertake "all necessary measures" to maintain security and stability at the explicit request of Iraq's interim government, with the mandate subject to annual review or earlier Iraqi request for termination.) This resolution marked the formal end of coalition occupation status following the June 30, 2004, transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government, transitioning MNF-I operations to a supportive role under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, extended by subsequent resolutions such as 1637 (October 11, 2005) and 1723 (November 20, 2006).)) Critics, including some scholars, contended that Resolution 1546 did not retroactively legitimize the preceding 2003 invasion—lacking explicit Security Council authorization—and argued the interim Iraqi government's request was undermined by its formation under coalition influence, potentially rendering the MNF-I presence a continuation of occupation rather than consensual assistance. Proponents, drawing from state practice and UN endorsement, maintained the resolution provided a robust post-sovereignty framework, evidenced by its unanimous adoption and alignment with intervention-by-invitation principles under , despite ongoing insurgent challenges to Iraqi sovereignty claims. Ethically, debates centered on the application of just war principles, particularly proportionality and distinction in operations, with incidents like the November 19, —where U.S. Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians amid an alleged insurgent attack—prompting accusations of excessive force and ROE violations that prioritized over civilian safeguards. Defenders emphasized that ROE, which permitted in or to protect civilians from imminent threats, were calibrated for where insurgents exploited civilian proximity, and investigations often found actions lawful under the circumstances, though training gaps contributed to perceptions of ethical lapses. The September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shooting by Blackwater contractors, resulting in 17 Iraqi deaths, intensified scrutiny over private military firms' accountability, as their immunity under CPA Order 17 shielded them from Iraqi prosecution, raising questions of in lethal operations without equivalent oversight to uniformed forces. Broader ethical concerns invoked obligations during occupation-like phases, with groups alleging systemic detainee mistreatment at facilities like , though empirical data from MNF-I reports indicated over 90% of some 100,000 detainees processed by 2009 were released without charges, suggesting selective rather than indiscriminate abuses. These debates were compounded by source biases, as and NGO accounts often amplified unverified insurgent claims of atrocities while underreporting verified reductions in civilian casualties post-2007 surge tactics, which integrated ethical restraints with empirical force adjustments to achieve a 90% drop in violence metrics by 2008.

Casualties, Costs, and Domestic Opposition

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) operations resulted in substantial coalition military casualties, with the reporting 4,431 total U.S. service member deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2003 to 2011, including 3,481 from hostile action. Non-U.S. coalition partners suffered approximately 318 military fatalities, comprising 179 British troops and 139 from other nations such as , , and . U.S. wounded-in-action cases exceeded 32,000, contributing to long-term medical and disability burdens. Iraqi casualties dwarfed those of coalition forces, with Iraq Body Count documenting between 187,499 and 211,046 civilian deaths from violence between the 2003 and the end of 2023, the majority occurring during the MNF-I period through amid and sectarian conflict. Estimates for killed range from 15,000 to 20,000 during the same timeframe, based on compilations from official Iraqi reports and coalition records, while insurgent deaths totaled over 26,000. These figures reflect underreporting challenges, as conservative documentation methods like Iraq Body Count rely on media-verified incidents, potentially excluding unconfirmed cases in remote or chaotic areas. Financial costs to the for the , encompassing MNF-I contributions, surpassed $2 trillion by 2023 when accounting for direct appropriations, interest on debt-financed spending, and veterans' , according to analyses from University's Costs of War project. The U.S. Congress authorized over $800 billion in supplemental funding specifically for operations through 2011. Allied contributions added billions more; the expended roughly £8.4 billion (equivalent to about $13 billion at contemporaneous rates) on its commitment, straining defense budgets and prompting parliamentary scrutiny. Domestic and MNF-I participation grew markedly in key coalition countries, fueled by rising casualties, perceived strategic failures, and intelligence controversies like the UK's "dodgy dossier." In the United States, Gallup polls showed initial support near 70% in March 2003 dropping to 36% approval by 2008, with anti-war protests peaking at events like the 500,000-person Washington, D.C., march in September 2005. In the , opposition manifested in record protests, including over 1 million demonstrators in on , 2003—the largest in British history—correlating with a poll shift from 40% support to majority opposition by mid-2003, ultimately contributing to Tony Blair's resignation in 2007. Such dissent influenced policy, accelerating drawdown timelines amid electoral pressures, though it varied by nation with less intensity in countries like where support remained higher due to alliance commitments.
Coalition Military Fatalities (2003-2011)Number
United States4,431
United Kingdom179
Other Partners (e.g., Australia, Poland)139
Total~4,749

Alleged Abuses and Media Narratives

The Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I) faced allegations of detainee mistreatment and civilian casualties, primarily involving U.S. personnel, with investigations revealing a mix of verified criminal acts by individuals and unproven claims of systemic policy-driven abuse. Official Department of Defense (DoD) reviews, such as the August 2004 Final Report on U.S. detention operations in Iraq, documented five detainee deaths from abuse during interrogations amid over 25,000 held, attributing most issues to lapses in oversight rather than authorized practices, while emphasizing natural causes and illnesses accounted for the majority of fatalities. Subsequent probes, including the 2006 Formica Report on Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula, examined specific abuse claims and found instances of unauthorized techniques like stress positions but no evidence of command-directed torture. Prominent cases included the November 2005 Haditha incident, where U.S. Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED attack that claimed one Marine's life and wounded two others; initial media reports alleged a deliberate massacre, but military investigations concluded the deaths occurred during house-to-house fighting against suspected insurgents, resulting in charges against one Marine (later dropped) and convictions limited to dereliction of duty for officers failing to report promptly. In contrast, the March 12, 2006, Mahmudiyah killings involved five U.S. soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Regiment who gang-raped and murdered 14-year-old Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, then killed her family; courts-martial convicted all perpetrators, with leader Steven Green receiving in 2009, confirming these as isolated war crimes stemming from personal breakdown rather than operational orders. Media narratives often amplified these events to imply widespread, policy-endorsed brutality, with outlets like linking Abu Ghraib-era abuses (pre-MNF-I formalization but investigated under its umbrella) to higher-level intelligence directives despite DoD findings isolating responsibility to rogue actors. Such coverage, critiqued in analyses of reporting for prioritizing over context like insurgent tactics, contributed to domestic opposition but overlooked parallel DoD data showing over 100 courts-martial for abuses by 2005, indicating accountability mechanisms at work. Investigations consistently rejected claims of institutionalized , attributing verified incidents to individual failures amid high-stress combat, while human rights groups' broader assertions of routine post-Abu Ghraib mistreatment relied on anecdotal accounts without corroborating command . This discrepancy highlights how mainstream media, prone to adversarial framing against U.S. policy, sometimes outpaced empirical verification from primary military sources.

Dissolution and Legacy

Final Withdrawals and Handover

On January 1, 2010, Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I) was inactivated and reorganized as (USF-I), consolidating MNF-I with Multi-National Corps–Iraq, Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq, and other subordinate commands into a streamlined U.S.-only structure. This transition, marked by a ceremony at in attended by General David H. Petraeus and General , reflected the departure of most non-U.S. coalition partners and shifted emphasis from combat operations to advising and facilitating drawdown. USF-I's mission prioritized transitioning full security responsibility to Iraqi forces while supporting the U.S. drawdown mandated by the 2008 U.S.- (SOFA), which required withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011. Under the SOFA, U.S. forces completed withdrawal from Iraqi urban areas by June 30, 2009, handing operational control of cities and villages to , with U.S. troops repositioned to rural bases for support roles. The combat phase, Operation Iraqi Freedom, concluded on August 31, 2010, reducing U.S. troop levels from approximately 142,000 in 2008 to about 50,000 under the new Operation New Dawn, focused on stability, training, and assistance rather than direct combat. During this period, USF-I transferred over 500 bases, millions of pieces of equipment, and operational authority to Iraqi counterparts, enabling Iraqi army and police units to assume lead roles in internal security amid declining violence levels. In October 2011, President announced the full withdrawal of remaining U.S. troops by year's end, citing Iraqi forces' readiness to maintain without a post-2011 U.S. troop presence, as negotiations for a renewed SOFA failed over issues like for U.S. personnel. The final culminated on December 15, 2011, with a flag-lowering ceremony at , symbolizing the transfer of authority, followed by the departure of the last armored convoy—comprising about 2,500 troops and 110 vehicles—crossing into on December 18, 2011, ending the U.S. military mission in . At that point, approximately 39,000 U.S. troops had been withdrawn in the prior year, leaving with primary responsibility for national defense against ongoing insurgent threats.

Long-Term Regional Impacts

The dissolution of the Multi-National Force – Iraq in 2009 and the subsequent full U.S. withdrawal in December 2011 left a fragile Iraqi security apparatus, exacerbating sectarian divisions and enabling the resurgence of Sunni extremist groups. The power vacuum, compounded by Nouri al-Maliki's sectarian governance that marginalized Sunnis through arrests and exclusion from power, allowed the and al-Sham (ISIS) to rapidly expand from 2013 onward, capturing on June 10, 2014, and declaring a across parts of and . This evolution traced back to , formed in response to the 2003 invasion's disruption of Ba'athist structures and the Provisional Authority's de-Ba'athification and army disbandment orders in May 2003, which displaced hundreds of thousands of Sunni officers and fueled insurgency. By 2014, ISIS controlled approximately 40% of 's territory and 30% of its population, displacing over 3 million Iraqis and spilling violence into , where it exploited the civil war to establish cross-border operations. Iran emerged as a primary of the post-invasion order, leveraging the empowerment of Iraq's Shia majority to extend political, economic, and military influence. The removal of in 2003 eliminated Iraq's Sunni-led counterweight to , allowing pro-ian Shia parties like the to dominate elections and integrate Iranian-backed militias, such as , into Iraq's security framework. By 2011, following the U.S. drawdown, Iran supplied arms, training, and funding to these groups, which grew to over 100,000 fighters by 2014, countering ISIS but embedding Tehran's veto power over Iraqi policy through the formalized in 2016. This shift strained Iraq's sovereignty, with Iranian advisors influencing Baghdad's decisions and economic ties, including oil swaps and trade exceeding $10 billion annually by the mid-2010s, fostering dependency amid U.S. absence. Regionally, the instability propagated refugee flows, terrorist exports, and proxy conflicts, undermining stability in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. Over 4.7 million Iraqis were displaced internally or externally by 2016, with spillover militants bolstering jihadist networks in Syria's war from 2011, where ISIS seized Raqqa in 2013. The conflict's legacy also empowered Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq, with the Peshmerga controlling oil-rich Kirkuk by 2014, heightening tensions with Baghdad and Turkey, while Iran's gains prompted Saudi Arabia and Gulf states to increase support for Sunni factions, perpetuating sectarian proxy rivalries. Overall, the MNF-Iraq era's incomplete stabilization contributed to a Middle East where extremism and Iranian hegemony persisted, with Iraq's governance failures post-2011 cited in analyses as causal factors in sustained volatility rather than isolated events.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.