This should be on Happy News.. although its absolutely none of my business what they post on there :)

'Willing' to leave IraqRod Nordland and Timothy Williams, Baghdad
July 30, 2009
FROM tomorrow there will be no ‘‘multi’’ in Iraq’s multinational force.

As Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, the United States is the last of the coalition of the willing the Bush administration brought together six years ago.

Remaining British combat troops are expected to withdraw to Kuwait by tomorrow with the Australians, leaving about 100 soldiers guarding Australian officials in Baghdad. The Romanians left a week ago.

NATO will keep a small training presence in Iraq, but its troops were never considered part of the multinational force because of opposition to the war from many NATO countries.

US military officials have acknowledged the need for a name change: it will officially become US force-Iraq from January 1, the deputy coalition spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Stewart, said.

‘‘This is done to reflect the new bilateral relationship between US forces and our Iraqi hosts,’’ he said.

Even this relationship is on the wane as the American military goes through the complexities of withdrawing 130,000 soldiers in the next two years while shifting much of its attention to Afghanistan. As one marine officer in Anbar province said: ‘‘We’re so out of here.’’

The phrase ‘‘coalition of the willing’’ became widespread after it was used by secretary of state Colin Powell before the American invasion, but it never got much respect. When it became clear that the UN was unwilling to back military action against Iraq, Mr Powell named 30 countries that would pitch in.

Countries contributing troops included Tonga, Mongolia, Nicaragua and Latvia. In all, 38 sent soldiers, typically in groups numbering in the low hundreds, in rotations that were usually brief and sometimes even furtive. Japan sent a force but said it would not fight. Australian and Dutch troops had to be used just to guard it.

Iceland sent the smallest contingent, even before it cut its force in half, which left only one Icelandic soldier in Iraq.

Many coalition contributors



lost soldiers in Iraq. Britain had the most casualties, 179 killed, because its troops were in the restive southern province of Basra. The other 37 contributors lost a total of 139 soldiers. American fatalities have been 13 times those of all the others together, exceeding 4300.

The lower number of coalition casualties reflects their role. Their chief utility was to free American soldiers from routine duties.

Georgia’s contingent manned the checkpoints in the fortified Green Zone of Baghdad, for instance, and brooked no arguments from people trying to enter, especially since few of the soldiers spoke anything but Russian or Georgian.

Its contribution grew to a peak of 2000, until the soldiers were withdrawn in August and rushed home to defend Tbilisi after the Russians invaded.

Britain stayed despite growing criticism at home, but its forces were steadily diminished until only 100 remained this month.

The security agreement with Britain was stalled in the Iraqi Parliament by opposition from the Sadrist bloc, followers of the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Parliament will not reconvene until September 8. A British diplomat suggested the Government might grant an extension, but Iraqi Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said this would not be possible.

In Baghdad this week, armed men broke into a bank, killed eight security guards and stole $6.3 million in Iraqi dinars that the US military fears insurgents might use to recruit members and buy weapons.

NEW YORK TIMES