Allied Participation in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom

by

Stephen A. Carney

Center of Military History

United States Army

Washington, D.C., 2011
CMH Pub 59–3–1

First Printing
iii

Contents

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Allied Participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom. . . . . . . . . . . 1

 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 Formation of the Coalition of the Willing, November 

 2002–March 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Major Combat Operations: Coalition Forces Land 

 Component Command, March–May 2003. . . . . . . . . . . 6

 Combined Joint Task Force–7, June 2003–May 2004. . . . . 12

 Multi-National Force–Iraq, May 2004–July 2009. . . . . . . . 18

 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix—Force Contributions by Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

 Albania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

 Armenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

 Azerbaijan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

 Bosnia-Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

 Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

 Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

 Dominican Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

 El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

 Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

 Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

 Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

 Kazakhstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

 Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

 Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

 Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

 Moldova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

 Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

 The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

 New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
iv 

Page

 Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

 Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

 Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

 Republic of Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

 Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

 Tonga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

 Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Further Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Map Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Tables

No.

 1. Coalition Partners in Iraq, 2003–2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f. 32

 2. U.K. Unit Rotations, 2003–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 

Charts

 1. Coalition Forces Land Component Command and U.S. 

 Combined Forces Special Operations Component 

 Command as of May 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 2. Combined Joint Task Force–7 as of June 2003. . . . . . . . . . . 15

 3. Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 4. Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 5. Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 6. Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Maps

 1. Operation Iraqi Freedom, 20–28 March 2003. . . . . . . . . . 10

 2. Operation Iraqi Freedom, 29 March–1 May 2003 . . . . . . 11

 3. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Combined Joint Task Force–7, 

 June 2003–May 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 4. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Multi-National Force–Iraq, 

 June 2004–May 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
v

No. Page

 5. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Multi-National Force–Iraq, 

 August 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

 6. Operation Iraqi Freedom, Multi-National Force–Iraq, 

 July 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Illustrations

General Tommy R. Franks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and Secretary of Defense Donald H. 

 Rumsfeld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and Secretary Rumsfeld. . . . . . . . . 14

General George W. Casey Jr .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

General David H. Petraeus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Soldiers from an Albanian Komando regiment provide security 

 along a roadside in Mosul. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Coalition forces commemorate the end of mission for the 

 Armenian contingent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Australian Army soldiers on patrol in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

An Azerbaijani soldier closes the gate at entry control 

 point 1, Hadithah dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Explosive ordnance disposal soldiers of the Army Forces of 

 Bosnia-Herzegovina prepare the day’s find for 

 detonation after a sweep near Tallil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Czech Republic soldiers explain to an Iraqi Army tank crew 

 member how to zero the T72 tank at the Besmaya 

 Gunnery Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

During a training exercise on the outskirts of Al Basrah, a 

 Danish Army soldier inspects a target vehicle as 

 other troops prepare to fire their weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Soldiers of El Salvador’s Cuscatlán Battalion wait to distribute 

 food at an Iraqi displaced persons camp near Al Kut. . . 58

A soldier from the 13th Georgian Army Light Infantry Battalion 

 provides security from behind a wall during a patrol 

 through Al Lej. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Hungarian troops greet Iraqi civilians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Italian and Iraqi soldiers provide security at a meeting between 

 Italian, Iraqi, and U.S. military leaders in An 

 Nasiriyah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

A Japan Air Self-Defense Force soldier salutes before opening 

 the gate to a flight line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
vi 

Page

Iraqi soldiers pass explosives down to the site of a controlled 

 detonation by Kazakh soldiers and Iraqi explosive 

 ordnance disposal trainees on Forward Operating 

 Base Delta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

U.S. Army and Latvian soldiers provide security for a convoy near 

 Tallil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

A Lithuanian soldier oversees activity in a market in the town of 

 Ad Dujayl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A soldier from the Netherlands provides force security at Tallil

 Air Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

New Zealand engineers busy at work on the At Tannumah 

 Bridge, Al Basrah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Norwegian Army troops on patrol in Iraq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

A Polish Army unit conducts a convoy briefing before heading 

 out on a mission from Camp Echo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

An Iraqi civilian, selected to receive free medical care, is cheered 

 on by soldiers from the Republic of Korea at Camp 

 Zaytun, Arbil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

The color guard for Romania’s 26th Infantry Battalion marches 

 during the end-of-mission ceremony at Camp Dracula. . . . 106

Spanish Army soldiers are among the multinational coalition 

 forces watching a ceremony at Camp Babylon. . . . . . . . . 111

Soldiers from a Ukrainian Army nuclear, biological, and chemical 

 unit discuss their techniques and equipment with coalition 

 partners at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

A British investigator with a joint U.S.-British bomb examination 

 team studies the wreckage from a car bombing near Camp

 Rashid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

All illustrations are from the files of the Department of Defense.
vii

Introduction

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003—Operation Iraqi 

Freedom—was controversial at its start. The United Nations 

was reluctant to provide a specific endorsement for direct U.S. 

military action. Without this authorization, a number of close 

allies refused to participate in the operation. In order to garner 

greater support and provide an international flavor to the intervention, President George W. Bush assembled a “coalition of 

the willing,” ultimately involving about sixty nations. Although 

some of these countries supplied little more than nominal assistance, fully thirty-seven of them furnished a total of around 

150,000 ground forces from the start of the operation through 

July 2009. These troops conducted security operations; provided reconstruction assistance; operated command-and-control 

headquarters; and fought, were wounded, and killed alongside 

U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. This temporary alliance was more than just a paper coalition; it involved substantial and important support from our international partners in 

helping achieve U.S. war aims. It is important that the United 

States Army and the American people know about and remember the sacrifices of these allies. 

Allied Participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom highlights 

a number of key aspects of allied support to the U.S.-led operation. The presence of ground forces from so many coalition 

partners allowed U.S. combat forces to focus their generally superior capabilities in more contested sections of the country. 

This division of labor served American ends while still ensuring that our partners performed vital work that fully justified 

their commitment to Iraq’s security. These combined operations 

also strengthened the ties between countries and improved the 

quality of interoperability between U.S. and coalition troops. 

Allied support played an important role in stabilizing the situation in Iraq.

This short study also underscores the significant challenges 

that U.S. Army planners faced in Iraqi Freedom in integrating 

a host of different military partners into U.S. operational plans. 

Similar issues of working together in a complex military environment will doubtless reoccur in future operations, but the 

benefits of assembling such coalitions will almost certainly outweigh the problems. The United States cannot fight alone in the 
viii

current operational environment, and improving the quantity 

and quality of our interaction with our international partners 

should continue to be a high priority. I commend this monograph to today’s Army to read, gain insight into such combined 

operations, and reflect on how much support our allies can provide in future military endeavors.

Washington, D.C. RICHARD W. STEWART

30 September 2011 Chief Historian
Allied Participation in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom

1

Overview

From the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 

until mid-2009, ground troops from thirty-seven countries 

deployed alongside U.S. forces, with some twenty other countries 

providing indirect support. Yet U.S. media and public opinion often 

regarded this “coalition of the willing” with either skepticism or 

disdain, believing that the United States was engaged in a lonely and, 

by implication, hopeless cause. On the contrary, many countries 

provided significant military support to the U.S. Army, performing 

vital missions to assist combat, intelligence, reconstruction, and 

support operations. The participation of these coalition partners 

proved critical to the success of the overall mission.

This monograph examines the achievements and contributions 

of the thirty-seven allied nations that supplied troops to the U.S.-

led coalition in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. The terms allies, 

coalition forces, coalition partners, and multinational forces are used 

interchangeably to refer to non-U.S. forces that deployed to Iraq 

under U.S. theater or regional command. These do not include 

forces deployed to Iraq under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) 

or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), whose troops 

were not officially part of the U.S. command-and-control structure.

Although the official number is unknown, about sixty nations 

provided support, both direct and indirect, to the coalition effort 

in Iraq. Examples of indirect assistance include basing rights, 

commercial shipping, overflights, and humanitarian aid, among 

many others. The White House, Department of State, and U.S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM) all maintained slightly different 

lists of supporting nations. This monograph, however, focuses 

on only the thirty-seven nations that furnished direct support 

in the operation and presents a framework for the more detailed 

histories to follow.

Current joint-defense doctrine defines multinational operations 

as those “conducted by forces of two or more nations . . . usually 

Allied Participation in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom 
2 

undertaken with[in] the structure of an alliance or coalition.” A 

coalition is defined as “an ad hoc arrangement between two or 

more nations for a common action,” but the doctrine paradoxically 

adds that “coalitions are formed by different nations with different 

objectives, usually for a single occasion or for longer cooperation 

in a narrow sector of interest.” No mention is made of multilateral 

treaty organizations or of unilateral agreements to support allied 

nations. Nor is any mention made of “host nation support” or formal 

basing agreements. Thus, although these doctrinal definitions are 

used throughout this monograph, they do not always provide an 

adequate basis for understanding the command arrangements 

adopted by coalition partners in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

1

This monograph also places allied military participation 

during the operation in context. The Iraqi Freedom experience 

reconfirms the necessity of coalition building in modern warfare, 

even when U.S. Army and Marine Corps ground forces shoulder 

the largest burden of the war. Such alliances proved integral for 

several reasons. First, coalition forces performed vital missions at 

numerous locations in Iraq, freeing American forces to employ 

their generally greater combat power in more contested areas of the 

country. Second, coalition forces often brought unique capabilities 

to specific operations. For example, Nicaraguan explosive 

ordnance disposal (EOD) teams demonstrated expertise in dealing 

with Soviet-era munitions. As a result, they not only destroyed 

undetonated Soviet explosives expeditiously, but also trained other 

allied and indigenous Iraqi teams in dealing with such munitions. 

Moreover, allied presences in Iraq provided diverse approaches 

to the battlefield, based on each nation’s unique experiences and 

skills. In the realm of civil-military operations, for example, the 

United Kingdom (U.K.) brought techniques refined in Northern 

Ireland and in former British colonies; the Dutch used different 

civil-military procedures based on their own colonial experiences. 

In many cases allied units tested these techniques and refined or 

modified them accordingly while making the techniques available 

to coalition partners, including their American allies. Overall, the 

great diversity of military participants essentially brought benefits 

1

 Joint Publication (JP) 3–16, Multinational Operations, 7 March 2007, pp. 

ix, I-1, Glossary-6. Available online at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3-16.

pdf. 
3

as well as the expected command-and-control challenges to 

Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In addition to the contributions coalition forces made to 

the operational and tactical environment in Iraq, their presence 

had obvious strategic implications that reached far beyond the 

theater of operations. Multinational operations strengthened 

and maintained long-standing alliances and reflected a general 

aura of international cooperation among U.S. allies. They also 

warded off charges of neocolonialism against the enterprise 

and imparted a genuine feeling of legitimacy to its aims. Japan’s 

participation in Iraq, its first military deployment since World 

War II, significantly reinforced its long-existing strategic 

ties with the United States. A similar bond resulted from El 

Salvador’s comparatively large and lengthy involvement in the 

war. In addition, partnerships forged in coalition operations 

helped foster new alliances and friendships. Georgia’s decision 

to send troops to Iraq, for example, created strong ties with the 

United States and other Western allies, as did the significant 

contributions of other eastern European and former Communist 

Bloc nations. Finally, multinational operations helped improve 

interoperability between U.S. and coalition forces, which will be 

essential in future combined operations.

The U.S. Central Command and U.S. Army planners 

faced various problems assembling these coalition forces and 

establishing a workable command-and-control system. One 

of the inherent difficulties of military coalition building is 

accommodating the diverse rules of engagement and national 

caveats that each allied partner brings to the battlefield. In 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, American doctrine officially 

recognized that such coalition partners “pick and choose if, when 

and where they will expend their national blood and treasure.”2

For each nation, the extent of its participation had deep domestic 

political repercussions, and the identification, appreciation, and 

accommodation of these constraints was critical for overall 

success. Thus, in Iraq, some national governments allowed their 

forces to conduct full-spectrum combat operations, while others 

significantly restricted the use of their troops. For example, 

special caveats prohibited some national forces from handling 

or interrogating detainees, while others restricted the use of 

2 JP 3–16, p. xiii.
4 

force to self-defense, or specified that troops could operate only 

with certain coalition partners. Still other coalition governments 

allowed their forces to operate only on forward operating bases 

(FOBs) or directed that their forces be used only for specific 

missions, such as ordnance disposal.

In order to deal with these variations, substantial planning 

was necessary to match the capabilities of each allied partner 

with another partner that could complement its capabilities and 

limitations. In 2004, for example, Japanese engineers, operating 

under significant limitations that prevented them from conducting 

self-defense, were partnered with Dutch forces authorized to 

take part in full-spectrum operations. By 2007, only the United 

Kingdom, Australia, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, 

and Macedonia authorized their forces to conduct full-spectrum 

operations. Romania and the Ukraine allowed limited off-base 

operations, while Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech 

Republic, Mongolia, and Tonga conducted only on-base security 

and patrols. Matching constraints with needed capabilities in 

specific geographical areas thus became more of an art than a 

science, one that had to be practiced regularly as the ground 

situation changed.

Coalition partners’ military capabilities varied considerably 

and impacted mission availability. Romania, for example, had 

only military intelligence experts on the ground, while Armenia, 

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, and Moldova focused on 

explosive ordnance disposal. Armenia also provided some 

transportation and medical support, and Kazakhstan offered 

water purification services as late as 2007. The Republic of Korea 

and El Salvador limited themselves to civil-military cooperation, 

and Japan provided only air support during 2007. Meanwhile, U.S. 

planners had to factor in the slowly growing capabilities of the 

Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.

While tailoring operations to take into account these 

differing capabilities and rules proved difficult, the results offered 

considerable advantages on the ground. Each coalition member 

provided additional combat power—force enablers in the jargon 

of the time—that allowed American soldiers to deploy in a more 

focused manner. 

In summary, the coalition forces brought with them 

additional resources and new capabilities and perspectives that 

were critical to the evolving war. As the partners became used to 
5

working together in a large international force and as they rotated 

participating forces in and out of the operation, alliances and 

individual friendships were cemented. The experience of operating 

in an international environment, which most participants were 

previously unaccustomed to, became a more normal and accepted 

part of their expanded professional horizons.

Formation of the Coalition of the Willing

November 2002–March 2003

In November 2002, President George W. Bush took part in 

a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit and announced 

that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the 

consequences at the hands of a United States–led “coalition of 

the willing.” President Bush based his announcement on the 

provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 

of 8 November 2002. While the resolution stopped short of 

authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, it did affirm 

that Iraq must disarm all of its weapons of mass destruction and 

long-range missiles. Between Bush’s announcement in November 

2002 and the commencement of major combat operations in 

March 2003, the United States built a coalition of allied partners 

willing to take part, in one form or another, in military operations 

against Iraq.

By March 2003, the term Coalition of the Willing had entered 

common usage to refer to those countries that supported Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and the U.S. presence in post-invasion Iraq. The 

initial publicly released list detailing coalition participants in 

March 2003 contained forty-nine nations. In late 2003, the White 

House revised this original list, decreasing the number to fortyeight at the request of Costa Rica. Costa Rica’s request reflected 

significant international opposition to military action against Iraq 

and foreshadowed how difficult it would be to keep such a large 

and diffuse group together.

In addition to the White House list, the U.S. Department of 

State and U.S. Senate also published separate sets of coalition 

members. On 18 March 2003, just prior to the start of Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, the State Department set the coalition number 

at thirty, while a week into the drive on Baghdad, the Senate put it 

at fifty. According to the State Department, its number included 

nations “allowing access, over-flight, or other participation in 
6

that way, or they may just have decided they want to be publicly 

associated with the effort to disarm Iraq.” The Senate list included 

members who had actually deployed military forces, issued a 

declaration stating the danger posed by Iraq, or had provided 

diplomatic and strategic support.

In actuality, only four nations sent troops for the initial 

invasion: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and 

Poland.3

 The lack of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force 

deterred others. The United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom 

introduced such a resolution on 7 March 2003, but the UN Security 

Council failed to pass it. As a result, some nations, such as Italy 

and Spain, deployed forces to the theater of operations without 

taking part in the initial attack.

Major Combat Operations: Coalition Forces Land

Component Command, March–May 2003

All multinational armed forces that participated in the 

invasion of Iraq were under the command and control of the 

commander of CENTCOM, General Tommy R. Franks, although 

national chains of command remained strong. CENTCOM, 

a U.S. regional combatant command established in 1983, had 

planning and operational control of U.S. operations in the 

Persian Gulf from Egypt to Pakistan. It was a U.S. joint command 

consisting of land, sea, air, and special operations forces. Each 

of these components was under the combined-forces command 

led by General Franks. American and other allied nations’ 

ground forces in CENTCOM served as part of the Coalition 

Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC), headed by Lt. 

Gen. David D. McKiernan. CFLCC consisted of two U.S. corpslevel headquarters: the U.S. Army V Corps and the I Marine 

Expeditionary Force. Allied forces, specifically the British 

1st Armoured Division, served directly under the I Marine 

Expeditionary Force during the ensuing operations. Meanwhile, 

special operations forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, and 

Poland (and Denmark, according to most reports) became part 

of the U.S. Combined Forces Special Operations Component 

3

 Denmark is widely thought to also have deployed special operations 

forces to assist in the initial attack but has never publicly acknowledged that fact.
General Franks (left) visits with 101st Airborne 

Division troops, 7 April 2003.
Secretary

of Defense

Combined Joint Special

Operations Task

Force–West

(lead: U.S.)

Australia; U.K.

Chart 1—COALITION FORCES LAND COMPONENT COMMAND

AND U.S. COMBINED FORCES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMPONENT COMMAND AS OF MAY 2003

U.S. Central

Command

Naval Task Force

(lead: U.S.)

Combined Joint Special

Operations Task

Force–North

(lead: U.S.)

I Marine Expeditionary

Force

(lead: U.S.)

V Corps

(lead: U.S.)

1st Armoured Division

(U.K.)

Coalition Forces Special

Operations

Component Command

(lead: U.S.)

Coalition Forces Land

Component Command

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 1—Coalition Forces Land Component Command and U.S. Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command as of May 2003
9

Command (CFSOCC), another subordinate headquarters of 

CENTCOM (Chart 1). 

Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 20 March 2003 at 0534 

local time with air strikes followed by a ground offensive into 

Iraq via Kuwait. While portions of the U.S. V Corps and I Marine 

Expeditionary Force drove north toward Baghdad, allied forces 

undertook supporting missions involving both conventional and 

special operations. On the conventional side, U.K. forces had 

the task of securing the southeastern city of Al Basrah and the 

surrounding area. At their first objective, Umm Qasr, a port city 

near the Iraq-Kuwait border, U.S. marines, along with British 

forces and Polish commandos, encountered unexpectedly heavy 

resistance. They gained control of the city after several days of 

fighting. Immediately, British engineers organized and repaired 

dock facilities so that supplies could flow into the region directly 

from ship rather than by road from Kuwait. 

British forces had significantly more difficulty capturing Iraq’s 

second-largest city, Al Basrah (Map 1). It was not until 6 April, 

after nearly two weeks of heavy fighting against both regular Iraqi 

forces and partisans, that they finally secured the urban area. 

Portions of the U.K. 1st Armoured Division then began advancing 

north, reaching the town of Al Amarah, some 150 kilometers from 

Al Basrah, on 9 April to secure a border area that had been hotly 

contested by Iraq and Iran in the past.

For special operations missions, CFSOCC created three 

Combined Joint Special Operations Task Forces (CJSOTFs): one 

to operate in northern Iraq (CJSOTF-N), another for western 

Iraq (CJSOTF-W), and a third, Naval Task Force, to work the 

southern coast. Australian and British commandos, operating 

in CJSOTF-W with U.S. units, secured Scud missile launch sites 

and blocked potential escape routes into Syria while preventing 

hostile foreign fighters from entering Iraq in that area. Meanwhile, 

Polish and U.K. special units in the Naval Task Force conducted 

operations around Umm Qasr and Al Basrah.

According to intelligence reports prior to the invasion, Iraqi forces 

had placed explosives on hundreds of oil wells located around Al Basrah 

and on the Al Faw peninsula. CENTCOM wanted the oil fields seized 

as rapidly as possible and any planned demolition prevented. Thus, at 

the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. marines, joined by British 

and Polish forces, and supported by Royal Navy, Polish Navy, and 

Royal Australian Navy warships, made an amphibious assault on the 
10 

Al Faw peninsula. Another British force, the 16th Air Assault Brigade, 

secured the oil fields in southern Iraq around Rumaylah, while Polish 

commandos captured offshore oil platforms near Umm Qasr. These 

forces completed all tasks successfully.

Shortly after the initial invasion, Spanish soldiers moved into 

southern Iraq from positions in Kuwait. Although they later served 

in a combat role alongside British and Australian forces, their first 

task was primarily humanitarian assistance behind the allied lines 

Tallil Air Base

H-3

H-1

X X

3

21 Mar

X X

1 Br

21 Mar

X X

3

23 Mar

X

173

26 Mar

X X

101

28 Mar

X X

21 Mar USMC

1

H ̧ adīthah Dam

BAGHDAD

Ar Rama ̄dı ̄

Al Fallu ̄jah

Karbala ̄ '

Al Ku ̄ t Al H ̧illah

An Najaf

Al Bas ̧rah

Dahu ̄ k

Mosul

Arbı ̄l 

Sulayma ̄n ̄yah ı

Kirku ̄ k

Tikr ̄tı

Sa ̄marra ̄ '

Ba ̄ shu ̄ r

As Sama ̄wah

Al Ku ̄fah

Al 'Ama ̄rah

'Ar 'ar

Ar Rut ̧bah

Ra ̄wah

Hı ̄t

SAUDI ARABIA

IRAN

TURKEY

SYRIA

KUWAI T

J O R D A N

Ground Assault

Air Assault

20–28 March 2003

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

0

0

100 Miles

100 Kilometers

Map 1
11

of advance. A number of other nations sent troops to Iraq during 

this phase; Albania, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, El 

Salvador, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, and Mongolia all deployed 

soldiers to Iraq from late March through April 2003 (Map 2). By 31 

April 2003, a total of eleven allied partners had committed nearly 

fifty thousand troops to the coalition effort.

Following coalition successes in southern, western, and 

northern Iraq, and the capture of Baghdad on 9 April 2003, 

Tallil Air Base

H-3

H-1

X X

1 Br

X X

3

29 Mar

X X

4

30 Apr

X

173

10 Apr

X X

2 Apr USMC

1

X X

82

29 Mar

CJSOTF-N

CJSOTF-W

III

3

25 Apr

X X

101

1 Apr

I I

3 75

6 Apr

R

H ̧adīthah Dam

BAGHDAD

Ar Rama ̄dı ̄

Al Fallu ̄jah

Karbala ̄ '

Al Ku ̄ t Al H ̧illah

An Najaf

Al Bas ̧rah

Dahu ̄ k

Mosul

Sulayma ̄nı ̄yah

Kirku ̄ k

Tikr ̄tı

Sa ̄marra ̄ '

Ba ̄ shu ̄ r

As Sama ̄wah

Al Ku ̄fah

Al 'Ama ̄rah

'Ar 'ar

Ar Rut ̧bah

Ra ̄wah

Hı ̄t

SAUDI ARABIA

IRA N

TURKEY

SYRIA

KUWAI T

J O R D A N

Ground Assault

Air Assault

29 March–1 May 2003

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

0

0

100 Miles

100 Kilometers

Map 2
12 

President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on 

1 May 2003. As a result, the number of allied troops in Iraq soon 

fell to twenty-one thousand; however, the number of allied nations 

participating in Iraq grew as the U.S.-led coalition transitioned to 

Phase IV occupation through the remainder of the year.4

Combined Joint Task Force–7, June 2003–May 2004

On 14 June 2003, after the declared end of major combat 

operations, Combined Joint Task Force–7 (CJTF-7) replaced 

CFLCC as the strategic, operational, and tactical headquarters 

for all ground forces in theater (Iraq and Kuwait). CFLCC, 

4

 Using the standard planning practice, the CENTCOM staff issued planning guidance specifying four phases of military operations for Operation Iraqi 

Freedom: Phase I, to deter and engage the enemy; Phase II, to seize the initiative; Phase III, to conduct decisive operations; and Phase IV, to transition to 

peace.

General Sanchez (right) walks with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who arrived at Baghdad International Airport, 6 December 2003.
13

however, tentatively remained the primary logisticical hub for 

the theater of operations in Kuwait. The primary element of 

CJTF-7, the U.S. Army’s V Corps, was commanded first by Lt. 

Gen. William S. Wallace and then, beginning in July, by Lt. Gen. 

Ricardo Sanchez. Generals Wallace and Sanchez commanded 

both CJTF-7 and V Corps. 

During the beginning of Phase IV operations, CJTF-7’s 

main task was to secure the establishment of an interim Iraqi 

government, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), and the 

Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the latter of which 

exercised executive, legislative, and judicial authority over 

the IGC from its establishment on 21 April 2003 until its 

dissolution on 28 June 2004. The CPA replaced the short-lived 

Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, headed 

by Lt. Gen. Jay Garner (USA, Ret.), when former Ambassador 

L. Paul Bremer took control of the CPA on 11 May 2003. Soon 

after, CJTF-7 assumed responsibility for organizing, training, 

and certifying a newly created indigenous security force when 

Ambassador Bremer mandated the disbandment of all Iraqi 

armed forces on 23 May.

To perform its diverse missions, CJTF-7 also had at least 

limited operational control of all forces within Iraq, including all 

multinational forces. After 1 May 2003, twenty countries deployed 

contingents to Iraq: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, 

Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 

Norway, Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, and Thailand. The 

influx brought the total number of allied partners in Iraq to 

thirty-three and increased the number of non-U.S. troops in Iraq 

to twenty-five thousand. Key to this second expansion was UN 

Security Council Resolution 1511, passed on 16 October, which 

officially authorized the creation of a multinational security force 

in Iraq and urged UN member states to contribute to the force 

and the reconstruction of Iraq. More nations sent troops after the 

UN approved the resolution because it provided international 

legitimacy to the effort. 

For command-and-control purposes, CJTF-7 divided Iraq 

into six divisional areas of responsibility: Multi-National Division–

North (MND-N), Multi-National Division–North Central (MNDNC), Multi-National Division–Baghdad (MND-B), Multi-National 

Division–West (MND-W), Multi-National Division–Center-South 
14

(MND-CS), and Multi-National Division–Southeast (MND-SE) 

(Chart 2). Later in 2004, MND-N split into Multi-National Force–

Northwest (MNF-NW) and Multi-National Division–Northeast 

(MND-NE).5

Allied partners played the major role in several of these multinational divisions. (See Map 3.) The British, who provided the 

5

 Future changes to the Multi-National Divisions included the following: In 

2006 MND-NC merged with MND-N. In 2007, with the surge of forces, MND-C 

(Center) formed. In 2008 MND-NE merged with MND-N, and MND-CS merged 

with MND-C. In 2009 MND-C merged with MND-SE, with the latter becoming 

MND-S later that year. In January 2010, Multi-National Divisions North, Baghdad, and South transitioned to U.S. Divisions North, Center, and South.

Retired General Garner (right) joins Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for a briefing at the Pentagon, 18 June 2003.
Secretary

of Defense

Multi-National Division–

North

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 2—COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE–7 AS OF JUNE 2003

U.S. Central

Command

Multi-National Division–

North Central

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Baghdad

(lead: U.S.)

Combined Joint

Task Force–7

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Center-South

(lead: Poland)

Multi-National Division–

Southeast

(lead: U.K.)

Multi-National Division–

West

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 2—Combined Joint Task Force–7 as of June 2003
16 

second-largest contingent of forces in Iraq, took the lead in MNDSE and provided command and control for a large number of 

coalition forces in southeastern Iraq, including those from Italy, 

Australia, Romania, Denmark, Portugal, Czech Republic, and 

Lithuania. Poland, the third-largest troop contributor, took the 

lead in MND-CS, which included troops from the Ukraine; the socalled Plus Ultra Brigade (MNB PU), also known as the Brigada 

Jun 2003–Jan 2004

Feb 2004–May 2004

MND-N

MND-NC

MND-NC

MND-N

MND-B

MNF-W

MND-CS

MND-SE

BAGHDAD

SAUDI ARABIA

IRA N

TURKEY

SYRIA

KUWAIT

J O R D A N

Military Boundary

June 2003–May 2004

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE–7

0

0

100 Miles

100 Kilometers

Military boundaries are approximate

Map 3
17

Hispanoamericana, composed of troops from Spain, Dominican 

Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua; as well as forces 

from Kazakhstan, Latvia, and Mongolia.6

 MND-NE, under the 

lead of the Republic of Korea, stood up in September 2004 after 

Seoul agreed to significantly increase its troop strength and undertake reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in northern Iraq.

On the operational front, allied forces experienced both 

successes and problems during CJTF-7’s tenure. During the 

summer and fall of 2003, coalition forces placed considerable 

emphasis on tracking and eliminating the remaining leaders of 

Saddam Hussein’s regime. The most notable event in this initial 

hunt occurred on 22 July when Saddam Hussein’s two sons, Uday 

and Qusay, died in a firefight with U.S. forces. In all, CJTF-7 

captured or killed some two hundred leaders of the regime 

relatively quickly. Coalition forces did not capture the fugitive 

dictator until December 2003. 

During this same period an insurgency against the coalition 

occupation began to take root. Ambassador Bremer’s decision 

to demobilize and institute a de-Ba’athification process greatly 

contributed to the rise of the insurgency. Disgruntled Iraqis 

began attacking coalition forces. Simple ambushes and snipers, 

mines, and indirect fire evolved into more sophisticated 

improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombings, 

larger and better-led hit-and-run attacks, and general acts of 

terror. The attackers often targeted Iraqi civilians of different 

ethnicities, tribal groups, religious sects, as well as coalition 

forces. As a result, counterinsurgency became a growing part of 

coalition Phase IV operations in Iraq.

In April 2004, CJTF-7 commanded 162,000 ground troops 

in Iraq, of which approximately 25,000 were coalition soldiers 

and a Japanese contingent that deployed to Iraq in February 

2004. A number of nations, however, withdrew their forces 

during this time. Nicaraguan forces left Iraq in February 2004 

due to funding constraints. Then, in the wake of the bombing of 

the Madrid commuter trains in March 2004 by terrorists, Spain 

withdrew its forces, as did the rest of the Plus Ultra Brigade 

except El Salvador. These withdrawals resulted in the number 

of allied nations with troops in Iraq falling to thirty. In part as 

6

 The term Plus Ultra, which is Latin for “further beyond,” is the national 

motto of Spain. 
18 

a response to the deteriorating situation, on 15 May, less than 

eleven months after CJTF-7 stood up, CENTCOM replaced it 

with two new commands: Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I) 

and Multi-National Corps–Iraq (MNCI). General Sanchez, 

the CJTF-7 commander, led MNF-I until 1 July, when General 

George W. Casey replaced him, while Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz 

took command of MNC-I.

Multi-National Force–Iraq, May 2004–July 2009

The deployment of allied forces under MNF-I falls into five 

stages. Each is tied to alterations in MNF-I multinational division 

General Casey arrives on Forward Operating Base Dagger in Tikrit, 8 August 2006.
19

boundaries or significant changes in U.S. or coalition deployments. 

Stage 1 (May 2004–May 2005) encompasses the creation and initial year of the MNF-I headquarters; Stage 2 (June 2005–December 2006) tracks several changes in the multinational division 

command-and-control structure; Stage 3 (January 2007–July 2008) 

covers both the U.S. troop surge and the increased numbers of welltrained and well-equipped Iraqi forces; Stage 4 (August–December 

2008) reflects continuation of the surge but with most remaining 

coalition partners withdrawing after the expiration of the UN mandate in Iraq; and, finally, Stage 5 (January–July 2009) refers to the 

period when the few remaining allied forces permanently left Iraq 

in accordance with agreements with Baghdad.

Multi-National Force–Iraq: Stage 1, May 2004–May 2005

Coalition leaders created MNF-I to overcome several 

fundamental problems with the CJTF-7 organization. CJTF-7 

had been responsible for all aspects of strategic, operational, 

and tactical control of all forces in Iraq, a mission too broad 

for a single organization. In place of CJTF-7, MNF-I provided 

theater-level strategic and operational planning while leaving 

three subordinate commands to handle more specific tasks: 

Multi-National Corps–Iraq planned and conducted day-today tactical operations; the Multi-National Security Transition 

Command–Iraq (MNSTC-I) coordinated coalition efforts to 

train and equip the new Iraqi Security Forces (ISF); and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division coordinated 

and supervised American reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This 

reorganization did not, however, solve the problem of unity of 

command. 

While MNSTC-I technically oversaw all coalition ISF 

training efforts, additional trainers came from the United Nations 

Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), formed by UN Security 

Council Resolution 1500 on 14 August 2003, and from the 

NATO Training Mission–Iraq (NTM-I) at the request of the Iraqi 

Interim Government under the provisions of UN Security Council 

Resolution 1546. Neither was part of the MNF-I force structure 

or under MNF-I command and control. In addition, many other 

trainers provided advice and assistance to the fledgling Iraqi 

governmental organization, including its police and security 

forces, while other agencies provided general assistance to the 

Iraqi economy and social infrastructure. Bringing the entire allied 
20 

assistance mission in Iraq under one roof remained an elusive goal 

throughout this period.

Shortly after standing up, MNF-I adjusted the boundaries 

of the multinational division areas of responsibility. The basic 

multinational division structure, however, remained relatively 

unchanged with MND-N, MND-NC, MNF-W, MND-B, MNDCS, and MND-SE (Chart 3). The only significant alteration was 

the creation of MND-NE, under the control of the Republic 

of Korea, from the MND-N area of responsibility. As a result, 

MNF-I truncated MND-N and renamed it Multi-National Force–

Northwest (MNF-NW) in September 2004. The United Kingdom 

Secretary

of Defense

Multi-National Security

Transition Command–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 3—MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE–IRAQ AS OF MAY 2004

U.S. Central

Command

Multi-National Force–Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Corps–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Gulf Region Division

U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Baghdad

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Center-South

(lead: Poland)

Multi-National Division–

Southeast

(lead: U.K.)

Multi-National Division–

North

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Force–

West

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

North Central

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 3—Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2004
21

and Poland continued to provide the lead in MND-SE and MNDCS, respectively (Map 4). 

During its first full year, MNF-I saw alterations in the allied 

nations serving in Iraq. Some nations withdrew their military forces 

after their mandates had expired or after they had accomplished 

the missions that their national governments had set. Norway 

and the Philippines withdrew their forces in June and July 2004, 

MNF-W

MND-CS

MND-NC

MND-NE

MND-SE

MNF-NW

MND-B

BAGHDAD

SAUDI ARABIA

IRAN

TURKEY

SYRIA

KUWAIT

J O R D A N

Military Boundary

June 2004–May 2005

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE–IRAQ

0

0

100 Miles

100 Kilometers

Military boundaries are approximate

Map 4
22 

respectively—the Philippines doing so in direct response to the 

kidnapping of a Filipino contractor by insurgents. After providing 

troops for one year, Thailand removed its forces in September 

2004 as did New Zealand in October 2004. Other members that 

pulled their troops out of Iraq included Hungary in December 

2004, and Portugal and the Netherlands in February and March 

2005, respectively. For the Dutch, their mission ended after the 

Coalition returned the province of Al Muthanna to Iraqi control 

and made it responsible for its own security. 

Meanwhile, a few smaller nations added their units to the 

mix. Tonga deployed a small contingent to Iraq in June 2004, and 

Armenia deployed its first forces, fifty personnel, in February 2005. 

Other nations added or subtracted from their deployed forces so 

that by May 2005, MNF-I maintained command and control over 

twenty-three thousand non-U.S. coalition soldiers. This was only 

two thousand fewer soldiers than before CJTF-7 stood down the 

previous year. While the number of allied partners in the Coalition 

decreased to twenty-five by May 2005, many of the remaining 

allied contingents actually increased in size.

Operationally, MNF-I directed major offensives against 

insurgent strongholds in Al Fallujah and Mosul in November 

2004. These offensives were conducted largely by U.S. troops, while 

allied forces focused on counterinsurgency and reconstruction. In 

conjunction with these military operations, the Iraqi indigenous 

administrations exercised limited sovereignty by supervising 

a series of elections throughout the year. One election, on 30 

January 2005, selected representatives for a newly formed national 

assembly, which crafted and ratified a new constitution on 15 

October 2005. The assembly also supervised a general election on 

15 December 2005 that created a permanent 275-member Iraqi 

Council of Representatives.

Multi-National Force–Iraq: Stage 2, June 2005–December 2006

As of June 2005, General Casey, the MNF-I commander, 

had made no additional alterations to the existing multinational 

division structure (Chart 4). Only later in 2005 did he eventually 

disband MND-NC and MNF-NW to re-create MND-N. There was 

also little fluctuation in the coalition command system or in the 

allied contributions to MNF-I during the next eighteen months. 

The number of participating coalition partners decreased to 

twenty-two after Bulgaria and Ukraine terminated their missions 
23

in December 2005, and Japan and Italy ended their deployments 

in July 2006. Still, the actual number of coalition forces remained 

fairly consistent: between 18,000 and 23,000 soldiers. It was 

not until December 2006 that the numbers of non-U.S. soldiers 

decreased to 15,000. 

At the strategic and operational level, MNF-I was confronted 

with an ever-growing number of insurgent incidents in 2005 and 

2006. In 2005 alone, 34,131 insurgent attacks took place, up significantly from 26,496 in 2004, reaching a crescendo on 22 February 

2006 with the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra. The 

attack on one of the holiest Shi’ite sites caused no injuries but led 

Secretary

of Defense

Multi-National Security

Transition Command–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

U.S. Central

Command

Multi-National Force–Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Corps–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Gulf Region Division

U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Center-South

(lead: Poland)

Multi-National Division–

Southeast

(lead: U.K.)

Multi-National Division–

Northeast

(lead: Republic of Korea)

Multi-National Force–

West

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

North Central

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Baghdad

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Force–

Northwest

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 4—Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2005
24 

to a wave of retaliatory violence throughout the region and across 

Iraq. To many observers, the country seemed poised to erupt in 

open civil strife based on religious, ethnic, and tribal differences. 

In response, MNF-I began planning for a significant surge of U.S. 

and allied forces in 2007.

Multi-National Force–Iraq: Stage 3, January 2007–July 2008 

(“The Surge”)

After significant study and debate in late 2006, President 

Bush decided to dramatically increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq, 

announcing his decision during a televised presidential address 

on 10 January 2007. The subsequent military “surge” included 

sending five additional Army brigades, some twenty thousand 

troops, to Iraq beginning in January 2007. To facilitate the 

troop surge, MNF-I created a new area of responsibility called 

Multi-National Division–Center (MND-C), which maintained 

responsibility from the outskirts of Baghdad to the Kuwait 

border and relieved MND-B forces of their role outside the city. 

In the old CJTF-7 and earlier MNF-I organizations, MND-B 

forces had been responsible not only for Baghdad proper but 

also the vast stretch of territory to the south; this change in 

roles enabled MND-B to focus more closely on the vital capital 

area (Chart 5). 

In February, MNF-I in conjunction with Iraqi forces launched 

a major operation to secure Baghdad, Operation Fardh alQanoon (“imposing law”), while coalition forces launched 

additional counterinsurgency operations across Iraq. For example, 

Operation Phantom Thunder, which began on 16 June 2007, 

targeted insurgents in Diyala and Al Anbar Provinces. Operations 

Phantom Strike and Phantom Phoenix targeted other areas 

aggressively.

During the surge, MNF-I counterinsurgency strategy 

changed significantly. New tactics were adopted to reduce civilian 

casualties, and commanders were encouraged to develop closer 

relations with local leaders and citizens. Such efforts required not 

only a more precise employment of combat power, but also more 

positive interaction between the local populace and small U.S. and 

allied units.

While the surge and the new tactics did not appear to decrease 

violence at first, the situation began to turn by September 2007. 

More security forces, better and closer relations with the people, 
25

a growing number of Sunnis taking up arms against al-Qaeda, 

and more aggressive operations against insurgent strongholds 

slowly began to reduce at least the outward manifestations of the 

insurgency. These trends continued into 2008. In addition, Iraqi 

Security Forces began assuming larger roles in combined alliedIraqi operations. As the number of trained, well-equipped, and 

experienced ISF personnel increased, the number of required 

coalition forces in any one area proportionally decreased.

During this period only two nations ended their deployments: 

Slovakia in February 2007 and Denmark in August 2007. Tonga 

redeployed forces to Iraq in 2007. Through much of that year, 

the number of allied soldiers in Iraq held at about 12,000. When 

U.S. forces began to draw down following the surge in early 2008, 

Secretary

of Defense

Multi-National Security

Transition Command–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 5—MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE–IRAQ AS OF JUNE 2007

U.S. Central

Command

Multi-National Force–Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Corps–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Gulf Region Division

U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Center-South

(lead: Poland)

Multi-National Division–

Southeast

(lead: U.K.)

Multi-National Division–

Northeast

(lead: Republic of Korea)

Multi-National Force–

West

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

North

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Baghdad

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Center

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 5—Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2007
26 

coalition forces also decreased, and by June 2008 only about 9,700 

allied troops remained in Iraq.

Multi-National Force–Iraq: Stage 4, August–December 2008

The expiration of UN Security Council Resolution 1790 

posed a significant obstacle to further coalition participation in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Originally passed on 18 December 

2007, the resolution extended the mandate for multinational 

forces to remain in Iraq until 31 December 2008. In fact, every 

year since 2004, the UN Security Council renewed the mandate 

General David H. Petraeus (second from left) arrives at 

Camp Gannon, 6 September 2008. General Petraeus 

was the Multi-National Force–Iraq commander in February 2007–September 2008.
27

for multinational forces at the request of the Iraqi government. 

In 2008, however, Iraqi officials signaled their desire to end the 

mandate. As a result, the resolution expired and a majority of the 

allied forces in Iraq withdrew by the end of that year, including a 

number of nations that had promised to remain in Iraq as long as 

U.S. forces stayed in country. National contingents from Albania, 

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech 

Republic, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, 

Mongolia, Poland, Republic of Korea, and Tonga all left the 

country. Georgia also unexpectedly withdrew its forces in August 

2008 because of its short but intense conflict with Russia (Map 5). 

In a final agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament on 4 

December 2008, the United States and Iraq entered into a new 

status-of-forces agreement. The “Agreement between the United 

States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal 

of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their 

Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq” allowed U.S. 

forces to remain in Iraq past the expiration of the UN mandate, 

with caveats. It required U.S. combat forces to relocate away from 

Iraqi urban areas by 30 June 2009 and the complete withdrawal of 

U.S. forces by 31 December 2011. The agreement also significantly 

limited the conduct of U.S. military operations in Iraq.

On 18 December, the Iraqi government signed bilateral 

agreements with other allied countries regarding the presence of 

their combat troops past the 31 December 2008 expiration of the 

UN mandate. Subsequently it made such agreements with Australia, 

El Salvador, Estonia, Romania, and the United Kingdom, allowing 

their forces to remain into 2009. By the end of 2008, the number 

of allied nations with forces in Iraq had thus decreased from 

twenty-one to five. In terms of troop numbers, allied personnel 

fell from 9,734 in July 2008 to about 5,000 by 31 December 2008. 

The withdrawal also required significant realignment of the MND 

structure. MNF-I dissolved MND-NE in late 2008 and MND-CS 

in early 2009, followed by the dissolution of MND-SE after the 

British withdrew from their area of responsibility in May 2009 

(although the last British troops did not depart until 28 July). This 

left only MND-N, MND-C, MND-S, and MNF-W.

Multi-National Force–Iraq: Stage 5, January–July 2009

In the first seven months of 2009, all the remaining allied 

nations withdrew their forces from Iraq in accordance with their 
28 

bilateral agreements with the Iraqi government. (See Chart 6.) The 

last Salvadoran troops departed Iraq on 22 January 2009; the forces 

had been deployed in Iraq since August 2003 and had remained 

even after the Spanish-led Plus Ultra Brigade left in early 2004. 

Estonia, which had personnel deployed to Iraq since June 2003, 

terminated its mission on 7 February 2009.

Romania, which originally had 730 soldiers deployed to Iraq, 

had pledged to stay with U.S. forces through 2011. When it became 

MND-N

MND-NE

MND-SE

MND-C

MNF-W

MND-CS

MND-B

BAGHDAD

SAUDI ARABIA

IRAN

TURKEY

KUWAIT

J O R D A N

SYRI A

Military Boundary

Military boundaries are approximate

August 2008

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

0

0

100 Miles

100 Kilometers

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE–IRAQ

Map 5
29

clear, however, that the Iraqi government would not approve 

coalition missions beyond 31 July 2009, Bucharest officially 

terminated its mission on 4 June 2009, and the last Romanian 

troops left Iraq on 23 July. (See Map 6.) 

An agreement between Canberra and Baghdad led to 

Australian forces withdrawing from Iraq on 28 July 2009. They 

previously served in the Al Muthanna Task Group, which replaced 

outgoing Dutch forces in Al Muthanna Province, in Overwatch 

Battle Group–West, and in specialist missions. The only remaining 

members of its security detachment were responsible for protecting 

the Australian Embassy in Baghdad.

Officially, British combat operations in Iraq ended on 30 

April 2009. The bulk of the remaining U.K. contingent, still 

some 3,300 strong, withdrew by the end of May 2009, with the 

last British forces leaving the country on 28 July. A number of 

British military personnel, however, relocated to Kuwait and 

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno (second from left) points out a location in downtown Ar Ramadi, 25 June 2007. 

General Odierno was the Multi-National Force–Iraq commander in September 2008–December 2009.
30 

remained in theater at the request of the Kuwaiti government. 

As a result of the British withdrawal, MND-SE was dissolved 

and replaced with a new Multi-National Division–South 

(MND-S), which was created by merging MND-CS and MNDSE. The withdrawals left only MND-B, MND-N, MND-S, and 

MNF-W intact, all manned by U.S. forces.

Analysis

For over five critical years, coalition military forces held down 

the southern region of Iraq, helped minimize the spread of the 

insurgency to that key area, and thereby protected the logistical 

base of the central, western, and northern multinational divisions. 

While the military forces of Great Britain and Poland took the lead 

in this area and provided command and control for MND-SE and 

Secretary

of Defense

Multi-National Security

Transition Command–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 6—MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE–IRAQ AS OF JUNE 2009

U.S. Central

Command

Multi-National Force–Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Corps–

Iraq

(lead: U.S.)

Gulf Region Division

U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

North

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

South

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Force–

West

(lead: U.S.)

Multi-National Division–

Baghdad

(lead: U.S.)

Chart 6—Multi-National Force–Iraq as of June 2009
31

MND-CS, many other partners filled in with vital security forces. 

Indeed, the number of allied nations that directly contributed soldiers to Iraq was consistent with the level of coalition partners in 

the Vietnam and first Gulf Wars.7

 (See Table 1.)

7 Thirty-seven nations contributed troops to the Vietnam conflict, while 

thirty-two allied partners took part in the first Gulf War.

MND-B

MND-S

MNF-W

MND-N

BAGHDAD

SAUDI ARABIA

IRAN

TURKEY

KUWAIT

J O R D A N

SYRI A

Military Boundary

Military boundaries are approximate

July 2009

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

0

0

100 Miles

100 Kilometers

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE–IRAQ

Map 6
32 

Another issue is also apparent. From 2005 on, critics of the 

war focused on the withdrawal of various national contingents, 

claiming that the Coalition of the Willing was crumbling and 

that America’s allies had lost faith in the Iraq mission. The 

departure of the Spanish and Italian contingents did, to a 

degree, reflect the unpopularity of the operation among their 

own national constituents; however, this view ignores a number 

of issues. Most allied partners deployed forces to Iraq with 

either an explicit mandate on the length of that deployment 

or with a specific mission to accomplish before departing. 

Thailand, for example, deployed forces to Iraq in September 

2003 with the understanding that its soldiers would remain in 

Iraq for one year, in two six-month deployments. Accordingly, 

Thai forces withdrew in September 2004, after satisfying the 

commitment. In contrast, the Netherlands deployed military 

forces with a specific mission. First arriving in August 2003, 

Dutch troops served in Al Muthanna Province with the 

explicit task of reconstructing the province and returning it 

to sovereign Iraqi control. Only in March 2005, after nineteen 

months of operations in the province and after Al Muthanna 

was judged “pacified” and under Iraqi authority, did the Dutch 

forces withdraw.

There were other reasons allied partners withdrew. Nicaragua, 

for example, ran out of funds to continue its overseas deployment. 

The Philippines pulled its forces out after insurgents threatened to 

kill a Filipino hostage. The military contingent from the Republic 

of Georgia raced back to its home country after violence erupted 

with Russia. After Spain withdrew following the Madrid bombings 

in March 2004, two nations in the Spanish-led Plus Ultra Brigade 

also left Iraq. Equally significant, many nations that withdrew their 

forces at the end of their national mandates in Iraq redistributed 

those forces to other missions. For example, a number of nations 

continued providing troops to the NATO Training Mission–Iraq 

or United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. Others removed 

troops from Iraq only to increase their participation in operations in 

Afghanistan. Examples of this redistribution of forces to Afghanistan 

include, but are not limited to, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, 

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, 

Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Mongolia, and Slovakia. 

The increase of capable Iraqi Security Forces also affected 

coalition troop levels in Iraq. After the Coalition Provisional 
33

Authority officially disbanded the Iraqi Army in May 2003, Iraq 

lacked any military capability, forcing the United States and its 

allied partners to satisfy even the most basic security missions. But, 

as more Iraqi Security Forces were created and sufficiently trained 

and equipped, the number of coalition forces needed for security 

missions fell dramatically. This enabled the latter to decrease their 

own force levels, especially in the south where most of the allied 

forces had been positioned.

Finally, the Iraqi government ruled against retaining allied 

forces in Iraq past 31 July 2009. As late as August 2008, forces from 

twenty-one allied nations remained, with many pledging to stay in 

Iraq as long as the U.S. military commitment lasted. Thus, rather 

than crumbling, the allied coalition remained remarkably vibrant. 

In the end it would also provide a firm foundation for greater military support for the related and somewhat similar tasks in Afghanistan as that conflict began to receive increased attention.
34 

Force Contributions by Nations

The remainder of this monograph focuses on the individual 

contributions of each of the thirty-seven allied partners that 

maintained troops in Iraq at some time between March 2003 and 

July 2009. The separate section on each coalition ally presents basic 

information about the deployed military forces and their general 

experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In some instances, 

the information available is an approximation at best. Sometimes 

the internal concerns of allied governments limited the amount 

of information obtainable; in other cases, such information was 

not yet in final form. Nevertheless, these sections provide valuable 

summaries of the important contributions made to the mission in 

Iraq by America’s international partners.

Appendix
35

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 1,320

Peak deployment: 240

Deployment dates: 6 April 2003–17 December 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-N

Lead: United States

Primary deployment location(s): Mosul Airfield

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 5 

Force overview: On 6 April 2003, Albania dispatched 70 soldiers 

to assist with peacekeeping in Iraq prior to the fall of Baghdad. 

The contingent increased to 120 in 2005, a level that Albania 

maintained into 2008. In September 2008, Albania increased its 

deployment to 240. After the United Nations’ mandate expired, 

Albania withdrew all of its forces on 18 December 2008. For most 

of its six-month deployment rotations, Albania contributed two 

special forces teams and one infantry company.

Albania
36 

Operations: The Albanian force’s primary role was security near 

Mosul Airfield, where it sought to minimize the threat to inbound 

and outbound aircraft. It was also responsible for escorting 

convoys, guarding checkpoints, maintaining public order, and 

conducting security patrols.

The Albanian contingent took part in many operations 

during its deployment. On 25 April 2003, for example, the initial 

force provided security for four convoys of the 101st Airborne 

Division headquarters, containing 318 vehicles. The forces 

also conducted numerous urban patrols to locate weapons and 

ammunition, apprehended persons possessing weapons caches, 

maintained order, and secured fuel stations and other critical 

infrastructure such as railroads. While Albania committed 

to maintaining troops in Iraq for as long as the United States 

maintained a presence there, it withdrew in December 2008 at 

the expiration of the UN mandate. 

Soldiers from an Albanian Komando regiment provide 

security along a roadside in Mosul, 29 March 2005.
37

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 372

Peak deployment: 50

Deployment dates: January 2005–October 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Delta, Al Kut

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: The Armenian Peacekeeping and Humanitarian 

Mission in Iraq began in January 2005 when the first contingent 

arrived in MND-CS and was stationed at Camp Delta, near Al 

Kut, Iraq. The Armenian contingent consisted of a transportation 

platoon, an engineer team, and a medical team. The transportation 

platoon provided twenty armored trucks and drivers for convoy 

missions within MND-CS and from Camp Delta to Kuwait. 

The engineer team performed road reconnaissance, storage 

and destruction of explosive materials, and road clearance of 

Armenia
38 

unexploded ordnance, as well as serving as part of the Camp Delta 

Quick Reaction Force with the Salvadoran Battalion. Additionally, 

the Armenian medical team worked in the Polish 2d Level Field 

Hospital at Camp Echo and provided medical assistance to the 

local Iraqis in Ad Diwaniyah and Al Kut.

Operations: The primary roles of the Armenian contingent 

were peace and stability. In addition, Armenia’s interests in Iraq 

included the welfare and security of the Armenian community 

in that country, estimated at thirty thousand Iraqis, who resided 

primarily in Baghdad, Al Basrah, and Mosul. All necessary 

information was communicated to the U.S. forces in the region to 

ensure the safety of the Armenian population in Iraq.

Armenia provided extensive assistance between 2005 and 

2008. In 2007, for example, the contingent performed 211 surgeries 

and provided ambulatory care for 680 civilians and 420 military 

personnel, while running 45 convoys and removing about 9,000 

rounds of unexploded ordnance. Armenia withdrew its troops in 

October 2008.

Coalition forces at Camp Victory commemorate the end of mission for the Armenian contingent, 6 October 2008.
39

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 2,400

Peak deployment: 515

Deployment dates: March–May 2003; June 2005–July 2009

Unit designation: Special Forces Task Group; Al Muthanna Task 

Group; Overwatch Battle Group–West

Order of battle: MND-SE

Lead: United Kingdom 

Primary deployment location(s): Al Muthanna; Tallil

Casualties (dead): 2

Casualties (wounded): 27

Force overview: Australia contributed forces to several phases of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Operation Falconer was their first 

deployment and participation in major combat operations. The 

ground force contribution to this operation was a Special Forces 

Task Group composed of five hundred special forces personnel 

from the 1st Squadron Group; Australian Special Air Service 

Regiment, 4th Battalion; Royal Australian Regiment (Commando), 

D Troop; and support units.

Australia
40 

Most Australian combat forces withdrew at the conclusion 

of combat operations in May 2003. However, in April 2005, 

Australia deployed the Al Muthanna Task Group (AMTG) that 

initially provided security for the Japan Ground Self-Defense 

Force reconstruction team. This highly mobile team consisted of 

a cavalry squadron, infantry company, training team, and support 

units, totaling 450 personnel, 40 Australian light armored vehicles, 

and 10 Bushmaster vehicles.

In July 2006, after the withdrawal of Japanese reconstruction 

troops, the AMTG relocated to Dhi Qar Province and was 

redesignated Overwatch Battle Group–West. OBG-W was located 

at Tallil Air Base to support Iraqi Security Forces. The battle group 

was assigned to MND-SE and grew to over five hundred personnel 

at the end of 2006. The force withdrew from Iraq in June 2008.

Operations: The primary role of Australia’s Special Forces Task 

Group during Operation Falconer (the initial invasion in March 

2003) was to secure an area of western Iraq to prevent possible 

Scud missile launches against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel. The 

Australian contingent also patrolled highways in western Iraq to 

block the escape of members of the Hussein regime and to prevent 

Australian Army soldiers on patrol in Iraq
41

foreign enemy fighters from entering Iraq. On 11 April 2003, the 

Australian special forces reconcentrated their units into a strike 

force and captured the Al Asad Air Base, where they seized some 

fifty MiG jets and millions of pounds of explosives. The forces 

remained at the base until the end of combat operations in May 

2003, when they withdrew or transferred to Baghdad to protect 

Australian diplomats.

Since Australia did not immediately contribute ground forces 

to the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, its contribution from May 

2003 to June 2005 was limited to a few specialists at the coalition 

headquarters in Baghdad and to units searching for weapons 

of mass destruction. Australia also supplied an army training 

force and a small medical detachment during this time. When 

Australia redeployed ground troops to Iraq in June 2005 as the Al 

Muthanna Task Group, they took on two new missions. First, the 

AMTG provided security for the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction 

and Support Group after the withdrawal of the Netherlands 

(which previously provided that support to the Japanese). The 

AMTG also assisted in the training of local Iraqi Army units.

The Australian mission changed again in July 2006 when the 

Al Muthanna Task Group moved to Tallil Air Base in July 2006 

and was designated Overwatch Battle Group–West. The primary 

mission of OBG-W was to provide security support if requested 

by the Iraqi government or Multi-National Force–Iraq. It was 

never called upon to act in this role; however, the battle group 

did provide basic training to Iraqi Army personnel at the Basic 

Training Centre in Tallil. Australia’s ground mission in Iraq came 

to an end in June 2008 when OBG-W withdrew. 

Through June 2009, Australia continued to deploy roughly 

three hundred personnel in Iraq, including a 110-member security 

detachment to protect the Australian Embassy in Baghdad, 95 

liaison officers, a few members of the Coalition Counter IED Task 

Force, and some support personnel. All Australian forces, except 

security detachment personnel, withdrew from Iraq on 28 July 2009.

Other military contributions: At the time of this writing, the Royal Australian Navy still deploys frigates to patrol the Persian Gulf. 

Also, the Royal Australian Air Force has maritime patrol aircraft 

and C–130 Hercules transport aircraft available to support Operation Iraqi Freedom.
42 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 1,100

Peak deployment: 175

Deployment dates: May 2003–December 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MNF-W

Lead: United States

Primary deployment location(s): Hadithah

Casualties (dead): 1

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: Azerbaijan supplied an infantry company of 

150 soldiers in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in May 

2003. Beginning with the second rotation, each Azerbaijani 

contingent completed six months of training in Azerbaijan, 

focusing on security, marksmanship, crowd control, and 

communications (including English-language study) prior to 

its deployment. Azerbaijani soldiers served either six months or 

one year in Iraq, depending on their enlistment contracts. On 

14 November 2008, Azerbaijan’s parliament voted to withdraw 

its force from Iraq, with its troops leaving in December 2008.

Azerbaijan
43

Operations: Since 15 August 2003, an Azerbaijani infantry 

company, which was embedded with a U.S. Marine detachment, 

protected the Hadithah hydroelectric dam, one of Baghdad’s main 

sources of electricity. Located on the western side of the country, it 

is the largest dam on the Euphrates River. The ten-story structure, 

designed by Soviet engineers in the 1980s, generates electrical 

power for the majority of Iraqis living in Al Anbar Province and 

as much as one-third of all Iraq’s power. About 300 Iraqi citizens 

work as full-time employees at the dam to maintain it. The dam is 

an essential element in Al Anbar’s economic development.

The Azerbaijani infantry company provided perimeter 

security and force protection for the dam in order to facilitate an 

uninterrupted power supply and irrigation for Al Anbar Province. 

An Azerbaijani soldier closes the gate at entry control point 1, Hadithah dam, 17 November 2008.
44 

The primary tasks of the Azerbaijan contingent included providing 

perimeter security for Camp Hadithah, conducting searches and 

processing of all Iraqi dam workers, escorting all Iraqi workers, 

and patrolling the tunnel systems within the Hadithah dam. From 

2003 on, Azerbaijan deployed over eleven hundred troops to Iraq 

in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. By providing security to 

one of Iraq’s key infrastructural components, Azerbaijani soldiers 

freed U.S. forces to conduct security and stability operations in the 

Hit-Hadithah corridor, as well as the rest of Al Anbar Province. 

Other military contributions: Strategically bordering the 

countries of Iran, Turkey, Russia, Armenia, and Georgia, 

Azerbaijan has continued to allow the United States use of its air 

bases. In addition to the contingent in Hadithah, Azerbaijan also 

had one liaison officer stationed at Camp Victory in Baghdad.
45

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 295

Peak deployment: 85

Deployment dates: June 2005–November 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS; MND-B

Lead: Poland; United States 

Primary deployment location(s): 36 soldiers involved in ordnance 

disposal in Ad Diwaniyah; 49 soldiers to help guard Camp Victory 

in Baghdad

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: Bosnia-Herzegovina sent an explosive ordnance 

disposal group of thirty-six men to Iraq on 10 June 2005. In 

August 2008, Bosnia-Herzegovina deployed an additional fortynine soldiers to guard Camp Victory in Baghdad, increasing its 

contribution to a total of eighty-five.

Operations: Bosnia-Herzegovina’s primary mission in Iraq 

was to provide ordnance disposal. Its mandate grew during the 

Bosnia-Herzegovina
46 

three years of its deployment to include force protection for its 

EOD personnel and to provide security at Camp Victory. BosniaHerzegovina’s initial EOD platoon deployed to Al Fallujah in June, 

where it served alongside U.S. marines. In December 2005, the 

contingent relocated to Tallil Air Base in An Nasiriyah to clear all 

conventional unexploded munitions from that site. The platoon 

completed its mission in An Nasiriyah in November 2006 and was 

reassigned to MND-CS and Camp Echo in Ad Diwaniyah to clear 

other locations of unexploded munitions. While the platoon was 

stationed at Ad Diwaniyah, the Bosnian government deployed 

an additional infantry platoon to Iraq in August 2008 to provide 

checkpoint security at Camp Victory. When sufficient numbers 

of Iraqi Security Force EOD teams became available, BosniaHerzegovina withdrew its forces in December 2008.

Explosive ordnance disposal soldiers of the Army 

Forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina prepare the day’s find for 

detonation after a sweep near Tallil, 21 March 2006.
47

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 1,110

Peak deployment: 496

Deployment dates: August 2003–December 2005; March 2006–

December 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland (after Polish withdrawal, United States) 

Primary deployment location(s): Ad Diwaniyah; Camp Grizzly, 

Ashraf

Casualties (dead): 13

Casualties (wounded): 64

Force overview: Bulgaria initially deployed 400 soldiers to Iraq 

in August 2003. They were withdrawn in December 2005, but 

the national leadership sent another 164 personnel in March 

2006. The new mission’s mandate was set to expire after a year, 

but it was extended to December 2008. Prior to deployment 

and in preparation for the tasks ahead, all Bulgarian contingents 

undertook two months of special training and a further two weeks 

Bulgaria
48 

of special preparation under the tutelage of U.S. Army instructors 

in military police and prison guard duties.

By June 2008, there were 154 Bulgarian personnel in Iraq. One 

infantry company was embedded with the U.S. Army at Camp 

Grizzly in Ashraf, Iraq, providing force protection to the camp, as 

well as to Camp Ashraf. All Bulgarian forces redeployed home in 

December 2008.

Operations: Bulgarian soldiers provided security for Camp 

Grizzly, a refugee camp on the border with Iran, and guards at 

Camp Ashraf, a temporary facility for interviewing and processing 

detainees. In addition, Bulgarian forces conducted several convoyescort missions and patrols. The soldiers patrolled the Tampa 

supply route, organized convoys, escorted people and cargo, and 

supported the 1st Battalion, 1st Division, of the Iraqi Army. 

Bulgaria’s force suffered thirteen deaths and sixty-four 

personnel wounded during its five-year deployment, including 

five deaths on 27 and 28 December 2003 in two separate car bomb 

attacks.

Other military contributions: As of this writing, the Bulgarian Army 

still provides four officers to the NATO Training Mission–Iraq.
49

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 2,000

Peak deployment: 357

Deployment dates: April 2003–December 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-SE

Lead: United Kingdom 

Primary deployment location(s): Az Zubayr; Al Basrah; Baghdad

Casualties (dead): 1

Casualties (wounded): Not applicable 

Force overview: The Czech Republic first deployed troops to Iraq 

in April 2003. The original Czech contingent consisted of three 

hundred troops and three civilians. The group established and 

operated the 7th Field Hospital, just outside of Al Basrah. In addition 

to the hospital personnel deployed in Iraq, a unit from the 1st CzechSlovak Battalion of Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection 

was positioned in Kuwait at the start of combat operations in case 

the Iraqi military unleashed such weapons. The 7th Field Hospital 

was later replaced by a contingent of eighty military police assigned 

Czech Republic
50 

to the Shaibah Base, where they operated under the command of the 

U.K. in what would become MND-SE. Beginning in January 2007, 

the Czech contingent began force protection operations at the Al 

Basrah Air Station at vehicle checkpoints. By December 2007, the 

contingent was reduced to 100 and then reduced again to 17 during 

the summer of 2008. All remaining Czech troops were withdrawn 

from Iraq by the end of 2008.

Operations: During the initial Czech deployment at the 7th Field 

Hospital, Czech personnel struggled to construct the hospital 

and ensure sufficient quantities of fresh water in the marshy land 

around Al Basrah. Once the hospital was operational, they treated 

large numbers of coalition and Iraqi casualties.

The second Czech rotation, composed of military police 

personnel, worked at the Shaibah Base to construct checkpoints, 

Coalition force soldiers from the Czech Republic 

explain to an Iraqi Army tank crew member how to 

zero the T72 tank at the Besmaya Gunnery Range, 27 October 2008.
51

supervise local police, help train Iraqi local constabulary at the 

national academy at Az Zubayr, and contribute security support to 

MND-SE. The military police continued that role until December 

2006 when the police academy shut down.

After the closure of the police academy at Az Zubayr, followon Czech contingents provided traffic control into and out of the 

Shaibah Base, force protection of that base, and mentoring to the 

Iraqi police staff in Al Basrah. The contingent was embedded with 

the British Royal Air Force–Force Protection Wing at Contingency 

Operating Base Al Basrah. 

During the nearly six years of their deployment, the Czech 

medics and military police sought to ensure Iraqi police were 

ready to handle their country’s security. The Czech contributions 

to MND-SE were significant. 

Other military contributions: The Czech Republic provided five 

personnel in support of the NATO Training Mission–Iraq.
52 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 5,500

Peak deployment: 545

Deployment dates: April 2003–December 2007

Unit designation: Dancon/Irak mission

Order of battle: MND-SE

Lead: United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Eden; Camp Danevang, 

Al Basrah

Casualties (dead): 7

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: The first Danish troop deployment consisted of 

380 personnel, including medical, military police, and infantry 

forces. Another 42 soldiers arrived in August 2003, bringing the 

total force to 422. By February 2005, the contingent consisted of 

545 soldiers and remained at that level until March 2007, when it 

fell to 460. In mid-2005, Denmark also sent a detachment of four 

Fennec helicopters to Iraq for reconnaissance and transportation 

Denmark
53

as part of the British Joint Helicopter Detachment that performed 

nightly surveillance missions. In June 2007, fifty-five Danish air 

force personnel replaced the ground contingent. 

Operations: The Danes were responsible for a variety of 

missions: conducting transport and mission support, searching 

for biological weapons, monitoring prisoners at the Camp Eden 

detention facility, and completing civilian reconstruction projects. 

Denmark’s initial deployment was to Camp Eden, where its forces 

remained for fourteen months before moving to Camp Danevang, 

near Al Basrah. Since 2003, Danish forces completed more than 

680 reconstruction projects with an overall budget of $3.2 million.

On 31 July 2007, Denmark transferred responsibilities for 

its missions to U.K. forces in the region. In August of that year, 

During a training exercise on the outskirts of Al 

Basrah, a Danish Army soldier inspects a target vehicle as other troops prepare to fire their weapons, 5 August 2005.
54 

Denmark withdrew the majority of its soldiers but kept its four 

Fennec helicopters and support personnel at Al Basrah Air Station 

until December 2007.

Other military contributions: Denmark also provided frigates 

and submarines to patrol the Persian Gulf; deployed thirty-five 

soldiers to serve as guards for the United Nations in Baghdad; and 

beginning in 2005, contributed ten instructors and seven guards to 

assist the NATO Training Mission–Iraq. 
55

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 600

Peak deployment: 302

Deployment dates: April 2003–May 2004

Unit designation: Part of Multi-National Brigade Plus Ultra

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland (under direct Spanish control) 

Primary deployment location(s): An Najaf

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: The Dominican Republic deployed 302 soldiers 

from April 2003 until May 2004. Its forces joined those of Spain, El 

Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua in the Plus Ultra Brigade, or 

Brigada Hispanoamericana, which consisted of some 2,500 troops 

at its peak. The Dominican troops manned Base Santo Domingo 

in An Najaf.

Operations: The Dominican Republic was one of the first nations 

to send troops to Iraq after the close of major combat operations. 

Dominican Republic
56 

Dominican soldiers provided humanitarian assistance and helped 

to rebuild city infrastructure in An Najaf. The troops faced frequent 

mortar and rocket attacks against their base during the course of 

the deployment but suffered no casualties. In 2004, the Dominican 

government withdrew its forces about one month after Spain and 

Honduras, citing domestic opposition to its military involvement.
57

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 5,800

Peak deployment: 380

Deployment dates: August 2003–22 January 2009

Unit designation: Cuscatlán Battalion; part of Multi-National 

Brigade Plus Ultra from August 2003 to April 2004

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland (under direct Spanish control from August 2003 to 

April 2004) 

Primary deployment location(s): Base El Salvador, An Najaf 

Casualties (dead): 5

Casualties (wounded): 20

Force overview: El Salvador sent a light infantry battalion 

(the Cuscatlán Battalion) to Iraq in August 2003. The first 

contingent was composed of 360 soldiers and joined the Plus 

Ultra Brigade.

In May 2004, after Spain and the other nations of the Plus Ultra 

Brigade withdrew from Iraq, El Salvador increased its contribution 

El Salvador
58 

to 380 troops and maintained that strength until 2008. It was the 

only Central or South American country that sustained its forces 

in Iraq throughout the entire coalition involvement. Salvadoran 

personnel withdrew from Iraq on 22 January 2009.

Operations: Most of the duties of the Salvadoran force 

focused on humanitarian missions and the rebuilding of the 

Iraqi infrastructure. For example, during its four months of 

deployment in 2003, it supervised 130 humanitarian missions, 

including the distribution of food and clothing and the 

reconstruction of schools, roads, medical facilities, and watertreatment plants, while also leading security patrols and escorting 

convoys. After defending one such convoy that included U.S. and 

coalition members caught in an ambush in 2004 near An Najaf, 

Soldiers of El Salvador’s Cuscatlán Battalion wait to 

distribute food at an Iraqi displaced persons camp near Al Kut, 14 August 2008.
59

six Salvadoran soldiers were awarded the U.S. Bronze Star by 

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on 12 November of 

that year.

El Salvador’s President Antonio Saca explained his nation’s 

participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom in a speech, noting 

that “during the 1980s El Salvador fought a prolonged war 

against terrorist organizations sponsored by the now-defunct 

Soviet Union through its proxy, Cuba . . . [and] prevailed . . . but

that achievement could not have been accomplished without the 

support of the international community and mainly of the United 

States. For us, participating in Iraq is more than just payback. 

Being in Iraq is a way of telling the Iraqi people, ‘It is possible to 

overcome; it is possible to rebuild your country even from the 

ashes and to procure a future for your children and generations 

to come.’”
60 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 240 

Peak deployment: 40

Deployment dates: 20 June 2003–7 February 2009

Unit designation: Estonian Light Infantry Platoon (the “Stone 

Platoon”)

Order of battle: MND-B

Lead: United States

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Cook, At Taji

Casualties (dead): 2 

Casualties (wounded): 20 

Force overview: The initial Estonian unit that deployed to Iraq, 

which departed Tallinn on 20 June 2003 aboard a U.S. Air Force 

C–17, consisted of an infantry platoon equipped with small arms 

manufactured by Israel, Germany, Sweden, and the United States, 

along with three unarmored Unimog trucks. The platoon of thirtyfour men arrived at the At Taji Military Training Base just north of 

Baghdad, where it was tasked with patrolling, conducting cordonEstonia
61

and-search operations, and providing quick-reaction forces under 

the command of MND-B. The final Estonian forces withdrew from 

Iraq on 7 February 2009.

Operations: The Estonian parliament issued a mandate for its 

participation in international peace-support operations in Iraq in 

May 2003. Under the aegis of this mandate, the Estonian soldiers 

were authorized to conduct operations against the former regime 

extremists and foreign terrorists and assist in the organizing, 

training, and supplying of the Iraqi armed forces. As conceived 

in 2003, the mission was for peace support but transitioned into

counterinsurgency. The Estonian government continued its 

support of the Coalition with no significant change until the start 

of 2009.

The Estonian contingent took part in regular operations in 

MND-B’s area of responsibility, securing its sector and acting as 

a quick-reaction force. The unit earned the nickname the “Stone 

Platoon” during operations in Al Fallujah in November 2004 as 

the Estonian soldiers moved through the besieged city driving 

their unarmored Unimogs, while most coalition forces had uparmored vehicles; however, Estonian defense-force technicians 

soon outfitted their Unimog trucks with armored machine-gun 

turrets and bulletproof glass windows.

The Estonian contingent took part in numerous operations. 

During Operation Big Dig (January 2005) in the Latifiyah area 

of northern Babil Province, just south of Baghdad, members of 

the Stone Platoon uncovered a cache of seven 1,000-kilogram 

warheads. In 2007 alone, the Stone Platoon conducted some 15 

cordon-and-search operations, over 300 combat patrols and 350 

external patrols, as well as detained 28 insurgents and located 

15 caches of weapons, including hundreds of rockets and other 

explosives.

Other military contributions: Three Estonian staff officers served 

with NATO Training Mission–Iraq to help train Iraqi Security 

Forces.
62 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 10,000

Peak deployment: 1,850

Deployment dates: 3 August 2003–10 August 2008

Unit designation: 3d Infantry Brigade

Order of battle: MND-B; MND-C 

Lead: United States

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Delta, Al Kut; FOB 

Warhorse; FOB Caldwell; FOB Gabe 

Casualties (dead): 5

Casualties (wounded): 27

Force overview: The first Georgian contingent, composed of seventy 

military medical personnel and special forces, arrived in Iraq on 3 

August 2003. The special forces detachment deployed to Bayji, 130 

miles north of Baghdad, while the medical team moved to Balad, a 

primarily Shi’ite town in the Sunni Triangle. In 2004, the Georgian 

presence increased to three hundred personnel with the arrival of 

the 16th Mountain Battalion and the 12th Commando Brigade.

Georgia
63

Both deployed to Ba’qubah, northeast of Baghdad and just outside 

the Sunni Triangle, an area of heavy insurgent activity. In 2005, 

the number of Georgian troops stationed in Iraq again increased 

to over 850 and, between 2005 and 2007, the Georgian forces split 

their operations between Ba’qubah and the International Zone 

(IZ) in Baghdad. On 15 July 2007, the Georgian military presence 

increased to over 2000, with 150 troops providing security for the 

UN compound in Baghdad and the remaining 1,850 deployed to 

Al Kut, southeast of Baghdad, at Camp Delta. In January 2008, the 

Georgian 3d Infantry Brigade was replaced by the 1st Brigade.

Operations: From 2003 to 2007, the Georgian mission focused on 

key infrastructure security, checkpoints, base protection, patrols, 

A soldier from the 13th Georgian Army Light Infantry 

Battalion provides security from behind a wall during a patrol through Al Lej, 7 March 2008.
64 

and security in the International Zone, including the UN compound 

in Baghdad (see below). The mission changed considerably, 

however, in 2007 when the 3d Infantry Brigade deployed to Al 

Kut near the Iranian border. While about one hundred troops 

remained in the IZ for security, the 3d Brigade’s mission was to 

interdict supplies being smuggled to Shi’ite extremists from Iran. 

During this time, the Georgians established six patrol bases and 

began to patrol intensively along the Iraq-Iran border.

Georgian forces withdrew from Iraq on 10 August 2008 

in response to the outbreak of fighting with Russia in the 

breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia. The Georgians 

were replaced by Iraqi National Police and the 32d Iraqi Army 

Brigade. While the Georgian departure was unexpected, the 

response of Iraqi replacements highlighted the increasing 

capabilities of the Iraqi Army.

Other military contributions: Georgia furnished several battalions, up to 558 troops per deployment, to provide security for the 

UN compound in Baghdad. Units that participated included the 

13th (Shavnabada) Light Infantry, 21st Light Infantry, 22d Light 

Infantry, and 33d Light Infantry Battalions. By 2007, the mission 

was reduced to a single company of 150 soldiers securing the compound.
65

Honduras

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 736

Peak deployment: 368

Deployment dates: August 2003–April 2004

Unit designation: Part of Multi-National Brigade Plus Ultra

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland (under direct Spanish control)

Primary deployment location(s): Base Tegucigalpa, An Najaf

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: In August 2003, Honduras deployed 312 soldiers 

to join the Plus Ultra Brigade, or Brigada Hispanoamericana, 

which included forces from Spain, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the 

Dominican Republic. Honduras increased its troop contribution 

to 368 soldiers and manned Base Tegucigalpa in An Najaf.

Operations: The Honduran mission focused on reconstruction 

in and around An Najaf. The Honduran government ordered its 

troops to withdraw from Iraq in April 2004, citing both a lack of 

domestic public support and the completion of its reconstruction 

mission in An Najaf.
66 

Hungary

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 600

Peak deployment: 300

Deployment dates: August 2003–December 2004

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): Al Hillah

Casualties (dead): 1

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: In July 2003, Hungary deployed a military 

transport battalion composed of 300 troops to Iraq. The battalion 

joined the Polish multinational division in what became MND-CS 

in Al Hillah.

Operations: The Hungarian contingent specialized in logistics 

and the distribution of humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians. The 

force lost one soldier in June 2004 when an IED exploded near a 

Hungarian convoy.
67

In December 2004, the Hungarian parliament decided to 

withdraw its troops rather than wait for the Iraqi elections in 

January 2005. However, in late 2005, Hungary sent troops to 

support the NATO Training Mission–Iraq (see below).

Other military contributions: In December 2002, the Hungarian 

government made available an air base at Taszár to train exiled 

Iraqi opposition leaders. Hungary provided 150 trainers and 

security personnel for the NTM-I mission in December 2005, and 

as of early 2009 had 17 trainers with the mission.

Hungarian troops greet Iraqi civilians.
68 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 7,800

Peak deployment: 2,600

Deployment dates: July 2003–November 2006

Unit designation: Garibaldi Brigade

Order of battle: MND-SE

Lead: United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): An Nasiriyah

Casualties (dead): 33

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: Italy deployed its first contingent, some 2,400 

personnel, in July 2003. The Garibaldi Brigade consisted of 

mechanized infantry, helicopters, and Carabinieri (the national 

gendarmerie, or police of Italy). It served primarily in southern 

Iraq, near An Nasiriyah, as part of the British-led multinational 

division, which later became MND-SE. The Italian contingent 

also coordinated missions with a Romanian mechanized infantry 

battalion, a Romanian military police company, and a Portuguese 

security company.

Italy
69

Starting in July 2005, the Italian government began to 

withdraw soldiers from Iraq at a measured pace, leaving about 

1,600 personnel by June 2006, with the rest leaving Iraq by 

November 2006.

Operations: The Italians provided humanitarian aid to the Iraqi 

people, training for local police forces, and military police support 

for MND-SE. During their deployment, Italian forces suffered 

their most serious losses since World War II on 12 November 2003, 

when suicide bombers in two explosive-laden vehicles crashed 

through the main gate at the Italian Carabinieri headquarters in 

An Nasiriyah. The ensuing blast leveled the building, killing twelve 

Carabinieri, five Italian soldiers, and two Italian civilians.

Italian and Iraqi soldiers provide security at a meeting 

between Italian, Iraqi, and U.S. military leaders at An Nasiriyah, 16 March 2005.
70 

Despite the losses, Italian forces conducted many successful 

operations in 2003 and 2004. For example, in Dhi Qar Province, 

Italian patrols located large caches of hidden weapons and 

munitions. During Operation Gathering Security, they seized 

a significant number of mortars, mines, and rocket-propelled 

grenades that were being fabricated into IEDs. 

Other military contributions: Italy continues to contribute trainers to the NATO Training Mission–Iraq.
71

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 6,100 

Peak deployment: 600

Deployment dates: 3 February 2004–25 July 2006

Unit designation: Iraqi Reconstruction Support Group 

Order of battle: MND-SE 

Lead: United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): As Samawah, Al Muthanna 

Province

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: The Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force’s 

(JGSDF) Iraqi Reconstruction Support Group deployed in 

February 2004 to Multi-National Division–Southeast under the 

direction of the United Kingdom. Japan’s force consisted of some 

six hundred personnel at its peak, primarily engineers and medical 

staff. While security for the contingent was generally undertaken 

by Dutch and later Australian troops due to restrictive Japanese 

rules of engagement, a few soldiers from the Japanese Special 

Japan
72 

Operations Group (Tokushu Sakusen Gun), Western Infantry 

Army Regiment, and the 1st Airborne Brigade provided security. 

The Japanese also deployed a Planning and Liaison Unit (16 

January 2004–25 July 2006) and a Redeployment Support Unit (26 

June–9 September 2006) to assist in the initial troop deployments 

to Iraq and their return to Japan.

Operations: The role of the JGSDF forces in Iraq was entirely 

humanitarian. During its seventeen-month deployment, the 

JGSDF assisted four Iraqi hospitals, including As Samawah 

General Hospital, in training local doctors in diagnostic methods 

and provided pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. One of 

Japan’s significant medical accomplishments was to reduce the 

mortality rate of newborn infants in As Samawah by nearly onethird by the end of its deployment.

The JGSDF’s engineers also undertook numerous civil works 

projects, many of which involved repairing public facilities and 

A Japan Air Self-Defense Force soldier salutes before opening the gate to a flight line, 21 June 2006.
73

infrastructure. For example, during their deployment, the Japanese 

repaired thirty-six local schools, comprising nearly one-third of 

those in Al Muthanna Province; improved and paved thirty-one 

roads; and repaired medical clinics, nursing facilities, and lowincome residential housing units in As Samawah. The JGSDF 

also worked on several cultural sites, including the ruins of Uruk 

(also known as Erech) and the Olympic Stadium. Additionally, the 

JGSDF provided vehicles to deliver fresh water to much of the As 

Samawah camp, constructed a water purification facility near the 

camp, and rebuilt water purification facilities in the nearby towns 

of Warka and Ar Rumaythah. In the process, many local citizens 

were recruited for jobs at the JGSDF As Samawah camp and on 

many JGSDF-led public works projects. In the end, the Japanese 

were employing an average of nearly eleven hundred Iraqis per 

day.

Other military contributions: The Iraq Reconstruction Support 

Airlift Wing (IRSAW) conducted airlift operations from Ali Al 

Salem Air Base in Kuwait to Tallil, Iraq, beginning in March 2004. 

After the JGSDF redeployment in July 2006, the Japan Air SelfDefense Force continued to provide airlift support to the United 

Nations and multinational forces in Iraq, with flights from Ali Al 

Salem to Tallil, Baghdad (beginning on 31 July 2006), and Arbil via 

Baghdad, primarily for UN personnel and goods (beginning on 6 

September 2006). As of 31 January 2008, IRSAW had conducted 656 

airlifts, transporting 587 tons of goods and materials. The mission 

expired along with the UN mandate at the end of December 2008.
74 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 320

Peak deployment: 29

Deployment dates: September 2003–October 2008

Unit designation: Kazbat Peacekeeping Battalion

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): FOB Kalsu, Al Kut, Wasit Province

Casualties (dead): 1

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: Beginning September 2003 and running for more 

than five years, Kazakhstan kept twenty-seven sappers in Iraq to aid 

multinational forces in disarming explosive devices. The contingent 

included EOD experts, engineers, and medical personnel.

Operations: From September 2003 to October 2008, Kazakhstan’s 

military engineers were tasked with searching for and destroying 

unexploded ordnance in and around the city of Al Kut. In addition, 

the Kazakh EOD soldiers destroyed or disarmed all ammunition 

Kazakhstan
75

captured in regional raids, amounting to nearly 5 million rounds 

of ordnance. The Kazakh success was not without costs, however. 

In 2005, a Kazakh EOD engineer and four Ukrainian soldiers were 

killed when an insurgent-rigged IED exploded.

The Kazakhstan contingent also operated a water purification 

system; provided medical aid, with assistance from the Polish 

contingent, to nearly five thousand Iraqis; and trained Iraqi 

engineers and sappers in EOD techniques and practices. By 

October 2008, with enough Iraqi personnel trained in ordnance 

disposal, the Kazakhs handed control over to the Iraqi Security 

Forces and withdrew along with the Polish forces.

Iraqi soldiers pass explosives down to the site of a 

controlled detonation by Kazakh soldiers and Iraqi 

explosive ordnance disposal trainees on Forward Operating Base Delta, 25 September 2008.
76 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 1,150

Peak deployment: 126

Deployment dates: May 2003–November 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland 

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Echo, Ad Diwaniyah

Casualties (killed): 3 

Casualties (wounded): 5

Force overview: Latvia’s initial contingent was deployed to Iraq in 

May 2003. It consisted of a small EOD team and a logistics platoon 

but quickly grew to 126 soldiers. By the end of June 2007, all Latvian 

soldiers had departed, leaving only three officers who continued to 

work in intelligence analysis and operational planning at MNDCS and at Headquarters, Multi-National Corps–Iraq. Those final 

liaison officers withdrew from Iraq in November 2008, shortly 

after Poland’s withdrawal.

Operations: Latvia’s official mission in Iraq was to assist the 

Iraqi government and the newly established Iraqi forces to take 

responsibility for their own security. Initially deployed to Kirkuk 

Latvia
77

for one year, the contingent was transferred to Camp Charlie 

in Al Hillah the following May, then later to Camp Delta in Al 

Kut. Finally, Latvian forces were stationed at Camp Echo in Ad 

Diwaniyah, where they remained until June 2007. Aside from their 

EOD mission, Latvian infantrymen were tasked with providing a 

quick-reaction force, convoy escorts, combined joint operations, 

force protection, law-enforcement training, infrastructure 

development, and local security patrols.

During Latvia’s five and a half years in Iraq, its forces suffered 

three casualties, two of which occurred on the forces’ final 

deployment while patrolling outside of Camp Echo. In June 2007, 

Latvia withdrew its contingent from Iraq while simultaneously 

increasing its commitment to Afghanistan. 

U.S. Army and Latvian soldiers provide security for a convoy near Tallil, 6 March 2007.
78 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 850

Peak deployment: 750

Deployment dates: August 2003–July 2007; October 2007–August 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS; MND-SE; MND-C 

Lead: Poland; United Kingdom; United States

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Echo, Al Hillah; Al Basrah 

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: Starting in 2003, Lithuania provided a total of 

850 troops to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Its 

original contribution, an infantry platoon, was first deployed to Al 

Hillah in the south and then to Al Basrah in August 2003. The Al 

Hillah detachment was part of MND-CS, under Polish control and 

stationed at Camp Echo. A second contingent deployed to MNDSE in Al Basrah, where it served primarily with Danish troops. 

In October 2007, Lithuania deployed a new contingent of forty 

Lithuania
79

mounted infantry troops to serve in MND-C under U.S. control, 

later withdrawing in August 2008.

Operations: Lithuanian missions included combat patrols, 

checkpoint security, quick-reaction force, support to reconstruction 

projects, and medical assistance to local Iraqi civilians. In July 

2007, Lithuania initially recalled its forces when Denmark 

withdrew from Iraq, but several months later, in October, it sent a 

unit of forty soldiers to serve for another six months. In June 2008, 

eleven soldiers from this contingent left and the remainder stayed 

for two more months. The Iron Wolf Mechanized Infantry Brigade 

chose to remain in Iraq rather than withdrawing, so an additional 

two months were added to the mission. On 1 August 2008, the 

remaining Lithuanian soldiers returned home.

Other military contributions: Lithuania continues to provide 

four personnel to the NATO Training Mission–Iraq.

A Lithuanian soldier oversees activity in a market in the town of Ad Dujayl, 20 May 2008.
80 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 420

Peak deployment: 80

Deployment dates: June 2003–December 2008

Unit designation: Wolves, Scorpions

Order of battle: MND-B

Lead: United States

Primary deployment location(s): At Taji

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: Since its initial deployment in June 2003, the 

Macedonian contingent alternated between members of the 

nation’s Ranger Battalion and Special Forces Battalion (known 

as the Wolves Battalion). Its troops conducted full-spectrum 

operations, operating independently or with U.S. troops, under 

MND-B in At Taji, sixty miles north of Baghdad in the heart of the 

violent Sunni Triangle.

The Macedonian Rangers secured the perimeter around Camp 

Taji, capturing insurgents, securing communication lines, and 

confiscating weapons. Meanwhile, a “Wolves” platoon took part 

Macedonia
81

in over two hundred missions, including Operations Peninsula

Strike and Ivy Typhoon.

Operations: The Macedonian forces conducted a variety of missions while embedded with the U.S. Army’s MND-B. These missions included raids, reconnaissance, establishing and manning 

checkpoints, counter-mortar and counter-rocket patrols, combat 

patrols, sniper missions and ambushes, quick-reaction force, intelligence gathering, and training of Iraqi Army units. A contingent of Wolves Special Forces personnel participated in Operation 

Peninsula Strike on 12 June 2003. The Macedonians conducted 

a sweep that extended from Ad Duluiyah to Tikrit. During the operation, the Wolves arrested three “high-priority individuals” who 

were on the coalition’s list of the “55 most wanted.” In Operation 

Ivy Typhoon, in January 2004, the Wolves platoon carried out 

raids to locate weapons caches in the area, relying on a combination of local intelligence and reconnaissance. In one instance the 

Macedonians, supporting the U.S. 5th Engineer Battalion, located 

and seized a substantial weapons cache and a factory for the construction of IEDs. By July 2007, Macedonian special forces were 

also participating in air assault operations while continuing their 

training mission. They trained more than five hundred Iraqi soldiers in 2007 alone.

Other military contributions: Macedonia allowed the United 

States use of its airspace to fly support and combat missions. 

In addition, Macedonia provided medical teams to assist in the 

postwar reconstruction of Iraq.
82 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 110

Peak deployment: 20

Deployment dates: September 2003–December 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-N

Lead: United States

Primary deployment location(s): Mosul

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: The Moldovan humanitarian mission in Iraq 

began in September 2003, when its first contingent of twelve 

personnel, composed of one infantry platoon and an EOD team, 

was attached to the U.S. 4th Infantry Division’s 29th Field Artillery 

Battalion (Task Force Pacesetter), at Samarra East Airfield. In 2006, 

the Moldovan contingent relocated to Camp Grizzly, just outside 

of Ashraf, and in August 2008, Moldova increased its contribution 

to twenty personnel by sending additional engineers.

Operations: The essential tasks provided by the Moldovan 

contingent consisted primarily of detecting, identifying, collecting, 

Moldova
83

and disposing of unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive 

devices. The troops also supplied mine-awareness training to all 

multinational forces, EOD training to Iraqi Army personnel, and 

special demolition of military fortifications. During a three-month 

period in 2007 alone, they conducted missions with two U.S. 

Army military police brigades in MND-N, locating and disposing 

of over 20,300 rounds of unexploded ordnance. During their five 

years of service in Iraq, Moldovan EOD personnel destroyed over 

400,000 rounds of ammunition. With an increasing number of 

Iraqi Security Forces trained in EOD operations, Moldova handed 

over those duties to the Iraqis and withdrew its forces from Iraq in 

December 2008.
84 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 1,128

Peak deployment: 180

Deployment dates: September 2003–September 2008

Unit designation: Desert Lions

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Charlie, Al Hillah; 

Camp Echo

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: The first Mongolian contingent of 180 troops 

arrived in Iraq in September 2003. The force was assigned to the 

Polish multinational division and initially deployed to Camp 

Charlie at Al Hillah in Babil Province. The Mongolian forces moved 

to Camp Echo in Ad Diwaniyah in 2006, where they remained 

until they withdrew from Iraq in September 2008. The contingent 

was reduced to one hundred personnel in 2007 and remained at 

that level until September 2008. The force included an infantry 

company, military engineers, and medical teams.

Operations: Mongolian troops were deployed in Iraq for over 

five years, generally in 100-man infantry companies. Their initial 

Mongolia
85

mission was providing security for Camp Charlie, located in the 

city of Al Hillah, south of Baghdad. In February 2004, Mongolian 

soldiers on guard duty at Camp Echo shot and killed an insurgent 

attempting to drive a vehicle loaded with explosives onto the base. 

Because of the soldiers’ rapid response, the driver did not penetrate 

the checkpoint and the explosives detonated early, limiting the 

number of casualties in the attack.
86 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 7,564

Peak deployment: 1,345

Deployment dates: 1 August 2003–7 March 2005

Unit designation: Battlegroup Stabilization Force Iraq (SFIR) 

Order of battle: MND-SE 

Lead: United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): As Samawah, Al Muthanna 

Province

Casualties (dead): 2

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: The Netherlands deployed military forces to 

Iraq in August 2003 under the auspices of the United Nations–

sponsored Stabilization Force Iraq. Designated as Battlegroup 

Stabilization Force Iraq, the Dutch soldiers served in the Britishled MND-SE. The joint SFIR consisted of 1,345 personnel at its 

peak, including contingents from the Royal Netherlands Army 

forces (a commando squad, logistics team, and field hospital), 

Marines (part of the Royal Netherlands Navy), Air Force (Chinook, 

Cougar, and Dutch Apache helicopters), and military police (the 

The Netherlands
87

independent Royal Marechaussee, or Royal Constabulary). The 

Dutch deployed to three main locations within the province of Al 

Muthanna: As Samawah, Ar Rumaythah, and Al Khidr. Its rotarywing assets were located at Tallil Air Base. The Netherlands also 

positioned military personnel at the coalition headquarters in Al 

Basrah and Baghdad.

Operations: As Samawah, Al Muthanna Province, had been under 

American control since the 82d Airborne Division captured the 

city in March 2003. It was later secured by the U.S. 1st Marine 

Division. The Dutch SFIR took possession of the region from 

the U.S. marines in August 2003. Its mission was to rebuild the 

local Iraqi infrastructure and to supply security for the region, 

including the archeological site at Uruk (also known as Erech). 

Supporting tasks included training and equipping Iraqi Security 

Forces, mentoring Iraqi government officials, and rebuilding the 

economy, public utilities, and infrastructure. Initially the Dutch 

SFIR focused on restoring public utilities, including water, sewage, 

electricity, gas, and communications.

Beginning in January 2004, the Dutch force also became 

responsible for protecting Japanese forces in As Samawah, 

since the Japanese rules of engagement prevented them from 

conducting their own security. Nevertheless, the security situation 

in As Samawah appeared stable, with few signs of strife. In order to 

prepare for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, initially scheduled 

for June 2004, the Dutch SFIR focused on building up sufficient 

security forces and security infrastructure during the first half 

of the year. It helped establish the Provincial Joint Coordination 

Center in As Samawah, where the Dutch worked continually with 

local Iraqi officials and security forces, training some 2,800 Iraqi 

soldiers and police. Continuous daylight and nighttime patrols 

enabled the Dutch soldiers to maintain public order and interact 

with the population. 

Initial “kinetic” operations focused on stopping looters who 

targeted fuel dumps along main supply routes Jackson and Tampa. 

In April and May 2004, however, the force faced an insurrection 

among followers of Moqtada al-Sadr that resulted in increased 

mortar attacks and ambushes. As a result, the battlegroup was 

reinforced with three counterbattery radars to locate insurgent 

mortar positions and six Dutch Apache helicopters to provide 

quick responses. The situation seemed to stabilize in June and 
88 

July, after sovereignty was returned to the Iraqis but flared up in 

August when insurgents attacked a Dutch military police patrol in 

the city of Ar Rumaythah, killing one warrant officer. The rapidresponse force dispatched to relieve the patrol also came under 

heavy insurgent fire but managed to reach the besieged units and 

establish a defensive perimeter. The attackers fled when the Apache 

gunships arrived. The SFIR command responded to the attack with 

A soldier from the Netherlands provides force security at Tallil Air Base, 28 August 2003.
89

increased patrols in the major provincial cities and redoubling 

intelligence gathering. The battlegroup was also reinforced with 

two additional infantry platoons. With the additional manpower, 

the Dutch increased the number of patrols as well as the number 

of civil-military projects, and by November 2004 the security 

situation in the province returned to normal. 

When the Netherlands’ forces withdrew from Al Muthanna in 

March 2005, the United Kingdom and Australia provided security 

for a short time in the province before turning full control over to 

the Iraqi government. Al Muthanna was the first province to be 

fully independent and responsible for its own security, with much 

of the credit going to the Netherlands Stabilization Force during its 

nineteen-month deployment. 

Other military contributions: The Netherlands also provided six 

instructors to train the Iraqi coast guard (Iraqi Coastal Defense 

Force) in Umm Qasr as part of a larger group of eighty-five 

instructors, primarily from the United Kingdom.

The Netherlands also provided personnel to the NATO-sponsored operation to train the Iraqi Security Forces’ noncommissioned officers and officers.
90 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 250

Peak deployment: 161

Deployment dates: September 2003–September 2004

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-SE

Lead: United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): Al Basrah

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: New Zealand responded quickly to the 

humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people following the conclusion 

of major combat operations. After the UN Security Council passed 

Resolution 1483 on 22 May 2003, New Zealand sent sixty-one 

military engineers to work alongside British forces in southern 

Iraq, near Al Basrah. The engineers completed their mission in Iraq 

and left the country in September 2004. The initial deployment 

also included two New Zealand Defense Force personnel as part 

of the UN Mine Action Service operation.

New Zealand
91

Operations: The New Zealand engineers were responsible 

for repairing and maintaining water systems, power facilities, 

bridges, and other infrastructure around Al Basrah. Specifically, 

the New Zealand engineers built two bridges, the Cullingworth 

and At Tannumah, connecting Al Basrah to its northeast bank 

across the Shatt al-Arab, the major river that runs through the 

city. These structures provided access to the main trade routes 

between the rural villages and Al Basrah’s markets. The Linton’s 

2d Engineer Regiment also worked with the U.K.’s 77th Armoured 

Engineer Squadron to construct a reverse osmosis water plant in 

At Tannumah, supplying over 200,000 people around Al Basrah 

New Zealand engineers busy at work on the At 

Tannumah Bridge, Al Basrah, October 2003
92 

with fresh drinking water. Finally, the engineers also installed 

fresh-water tanks at schools throughout Al Basrah, so that 

students could have regular access to fresh water.

Other military contributions: New Zealand has one military 

liaison officer attached to the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq.
93

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 115

Peak deployment: 115

Deployment dates: September 2003–February 2004

Unit designation: Part of Multi-National Brigade Plus Ultra

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland (under direct Spanish control)

Primary deployment location(s): Base España, Ad Diwaniyah

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: In September 2003, Nicaragua deployed 115 

soldiers to serve in the Plus Ultra Brigade. The Nicaraguan troops 

were stationed in Ad Diwaniyah at Base España, along with the 

bulk of the large Spanish military contingent. Most of the troops 

in Nicaragua’s detachment were trained sappers with experience 

in disarming and destroying unexploded ordnance. 

Operations: The primary mission of the Nicaraguan military 

engineers was to disarm unexploded artillery. During their single 

deployment, the sappers destroyed over twenty-two thousand 

Nicaragua
94 

tons of explosives and provided expertise to other coalition troops 

regarding Soviet-era weapons and munitions.

Due to a lack of funding, the contingent withdrew in February 

2004, well before Spain and several of the other nations in the Plus 

Ultra Brigade.
95

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 300

Peak deployment: 150

Deployment dates: July 2003–June 2004 

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-SE 

Lead: United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): Al Basrah

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: Norway deployed a company of 150 military 

engineers and bomb disposal experts in July 2003. The contingent 

deployed to Al Basrah, supervised by MND-SE, and the troops 

were recalled in June 2004.

Operations: The primary responsibility of Norwegian forces in 

Iraq was to dispose of unexploded ordnance. In addition, they 

provided engineer services.

Norway
96 

Other military contributions: Norway sent ten liaison officers to 

serve at MND-SE and MND-CS from June 2005 to August 2006. Ten 

Norwegian military instructors were sent to help train Iraqi military 

in December 2004 under the NATO Training Mission–Iraq.

Norwegian Army troops on patrol in Iraq, 2003
97

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 100

Peak deployment: 51

Deployment dates: July 2003–July 2004

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): MND-CS

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: The Philippines deployed fifty-one soldiers to 

Iraq in July 2003. The contingent included engineers, as well as 

medical and security personnel. The soldiers were assigned to the 

Polish multinational division, which became the core of MND-CS.

Operations: The Filipino contingent’s mission was to provide 

humanitarian relief. Its forces also trained Iraqi police and military 

personnel, patrolled with U.S. and Polish military police, and 

conducted extensive medical outreach programs. In July 2004, 

Filipino President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo recalled the soldiers 

after a Filipino contractor had been kidnapped by insurgents and 

threatened with beheading if the Philippines did not withdraw.

Philippines
98 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 13,900

Peak deployment: 2,400

Deployment dates: March 2003–October 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): Karbala; Ad Diwaniyah

Casualties (dead): 23

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: Poland was one of only five nations to have 

ground forces involved in major combat operations, with its 

troops participating in the initial invasion. The first contingent 

consisted of 125 soldiers from the elite GROM commando unit 

and 24 “Marine Division,” along with 74 chemical and biological 

warfare troops from 4 Brodnicki Pułk Chemiczny. In August 

2003, a new contingent of 2,400 mechanized infantry soldiers 

replaced the original units. During their remaining tenure in 

Iraq, Polish rotations alternated between mechanized infantry 

Poland
99

and cavalry units. In 2005 Poland reduced its troop strength to 

1,500 and in 2006 to 900 soldiers. The contingent remained at 

that level until Poland withdrew in October 2008.

From August 2003 to the end of its deployment, Poland 

commanded multinational forces in southern Iraq that were 

subsequently dubbed Multi-National Division–Center-South. 

Initially, the area of Polish responsibility included Babil, 

Karbala, Wasit, An Najaf, and Al Qadisiyah Provinces. After 

the creation of MND-CS in 2004, the area was reduced to 

the provinces of Babil, Wasit, and Al Qadisiyah. The biggest 

challenge was integrating troops from twenty-one nations into 

a cohesive force. MND-CS included troops from Armenia, 

Bulgaria, Denmark, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and the Ukraine, all with 

different specializations, equipment, and doctrines, and all 

A Polish Army unit conducts a convoy briefing before heading out on a mission from Camp Echo, 30 December 2007.
100 

with different instructions from their governments that limited 

what the forces could do. 

Beginning with its deployment in August 2003, the Polish force 

was composed of a Polish Brigade Combat Team, which included 

an infantry maneuver group, aviation group, military police, and 

other support units.

Operations: During initial combat operations, Polish commandos 

took part in security operations to prevent the destruction of Iraqi 

oil platforms. Polish special forces also assisted in securing the port 

of Umm Qasr. With the establishment of the Polish multinational 

division in August 2003, the Polish contingent and the various 

coalition forces assigned to MND-CS provided security to the Iraqi 

inhabitants in their zone, restored infrastructure and facilities, 

delivered humanitarian aid, and trained units of the Iraqi Army 

and police. In 2007 alone, the Polish contingent was involved in 

over 227 reconstruction projects.

Polish leadership and operations allowed the provinces under 

MND-CS to be rebuilt quickly and returned to Iraqi control. When 

Polish forces withdrew in October 2008, the significance of their 

contributions showed in many ways, including the high quality of 

the Iraqi forces they helped train.
101

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 256

Peak deployment: 128

Deployment dates: October 2003–February 2005

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-SE

Lead: United Kingdom (served under Italian Carabinieri)

Primary deployment location(s): An Nasiriyah

Casualties (killed): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: In October 2003, Portugal deployed 128 military 

police to An Nasiriyah, where they were stationed along with Italian 

Carabinieri personnel. Despite domestic pressure to withdraw the 

force at the end of its initial twelve-month deployment, Portugal 

maintained its military presence in Iraq until the January 2005 

elections, after which it withdrew. 

Other military contributions: From early 2006 to 2009, Portugal 

maintained a team of six to eight trainers as part of the NATO 

Training Mission–Iraq.

Portugal
102 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 20,000

Peak deployment: 3,600

Deployment dates: April 2003–December 2008

Unit designation: Zaytun Division

Order of battle: MND-NE 

Lead: Republic of Korea

Primary deployment location(s): Arbil

Casualties (dead): 1

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: The Republic of Korea initially dispatched a 

contingent of 600 military medics and engineers (known as the 

Seohee and Jema units, respectively) to southern Iraq in April 2003. 

In September 2003, responding to a U.S. request, Korea agreed to 

increase its contingent, sending the newly formed Zaytun Division 

(zaytun is Arabic for olive). This division, composed initially of the 

11th and 12th Infantry Brigades as well as division support forces, 

eventually deployed some 2,200 troops, including engineers and 

security forces, to Arbil in the Kurdish Autonomous Region of 

northern Iraq in September 2004. The addition of the Seohee 

Republic of Korea
103

and Jema medical units brought the division’s strength to 2,800 

soldiers. Another 800 soldiers were dispatched to reinforce the 

existing troops in Arbil in November 2004, further increasing the 

size of the Korean contingent to 3,600.

In March 2006, Korea withdrew 1,300 troops, followed by 

another 1,200 troops in March 2007, dropping the strength of 

the Korean contribution to 1,100. By December 2007, the Korean 

force was reduced to six hundred personnel, where it remained 

until the withdrawal of its forces at the end of 2008.

Operations: The main mission of the Korean troops was 

humanitarian. Their tasks included providing medical services and 

building and repairing roads, schools, power lines, and other public 

infrastructure. Under MND-NE, the Zaytun Division worked 

closely with the Kurdish Regional Government and provided 

security and escort for UNAMI personnel. The contingent also 

An Iraqi civilian, selected to receive free medical care, 

is cheered on by soldiers from the Republic of Korea at Camp Zaytun, Arbil, 24 May 2005.
104 

aided the Iraqi Security Forces by supplying facilities, equipment, 

and training; operating the Zaytun Vocational Training Center 

to conduct reconstruction support projects; and assisting local 

education and medical care facilities. It also supported the Zaytun 

hospital by providing medical supplies and equipment, internship 

training programs for local doctors and nurses, and mobile clinic 

services to remote towns. The Koreans treated over forty thousand 

Iraqis in their five-year engagement with Iraq.
105

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 6,600

Peak deployment: 730

Deployment dates: July 2003–23 July 2009

Unit designation: Black Wolves, Red Scorpions, Carpathian Hawks

Order of battle: MND-B; MND-CS; MND-SE

Lead: United States; Poland; United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): An Nasiriyah; Tallil

Casualties (dead): 3

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: In July 2003, Romania deployed one infantry 

battalion with 550 soldiers to serve as part of the Italian Garibaldi 

Brigade in An Nasiriyah. In November 2004, the force grew to 730 

personnel. While at that level, the Romanian force consisted of 

roughly 400 infantrymen, 100 military police, 150 EOD specialists, 

30 medics, and 50 intelligence officers. At the peak of their 

deployment, Romanian soldiers were assigned to MND-B, MNDCS, and MND-SE. In July 2006, Romanian forces were reduced to 

about six hundred personnel. Romania formally terminated its Iraq 

Romania
106 

mission on 4 June 2009, and its last troops left the country on 23 

July 2009.

Operations: Because Romanian forces were deployed to three 

multinational divisions simultaneously, their missions were diverse. 

They provided intelligence support to MND-C and MND-CS by 

conducting human intelligence gathering, interrogations, and 

reconnaissance and surveillance, as well as operating unmanned 

aerial vehicles in order to support near-real-time intelligence. In 

MND-SE, Romanian forces provided security to the base at Tallil 

and the major supply routes, as well as serving as a quick-reaction 

force at Tallil. In addition, the Romanians conducted mechanized 

combat patrols and bridge security. Finally, Romanian Army 

medics ran a hospital providing emergency medical treatment for 

detainees and military personnel at Camps Cropper and Bucca.

The color guard for Romania’s 26th Infantry Battalion 

marches during the end-of-mission ceremony at Camp Dracula, 4 June 2009.
107

Like other coalition contingents, Romanian troops undertook 

many civil works projects, including refurbishing schools and 

supporting Iraqi hospitals, in addition to rebuilding watersanitation facilities, pumping stations, and communication lines.
108 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 425

Peak deployment: 85

Deployment dates: 8 June 2003–February 2007

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): Ad Diwaniyah

Casualties (dead): 4

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: On 8 June 2003, eighty-five Slovakian military 

engineers were sent to aid multinational forces in Iraq. All were 

stationed at Camp Echo, near Ad Diwaniyah, with MND-CS.

Operations: Slovakia’s primary military mission involved antimining operations. Its engineers performed survey reconnaissance, 

removal and demolition of unexploded ordnance, manual and 

mechanical de-mining, ground excavation, and construction of 

fortifications. Slovakia redeployed the engineering unit home in 

February 2007 after seven rotations.

Slovakia
109

In total, during their time in Iraq, Slovakian engineers cleared 

2.5 million square meters of land, cleared 850,000 square meters of 

transportation routes, manually de-mined 1 million square meters 

of land, destroyed 1 million pieces of ordnance, and detonated 700 

tons of other explosives.

Eight staff officers remained with Multi-National Force–Iraq 

and Multi-National Corps–Iraq after February 2007, but Slovakia 

eventually withdrew its last liaison officers from Camp Victory, 

Baghdad, in December of that year.
110 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 4,100

Peak deployment: 1,300

Deployment dates: 21 March 2003–23 April 2004

Unit designation: Multi-National Brigade Plus Ultra

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): Ad Diwaniyah; An Najaf

Casualties (dead): 11

Casualties (wounded): Unknown

Force overview: Spain deployed approximately nine hundred 

troops to Iraq shortly after the start of the conflict. The original 

contingent focused on humanitarian missions, and the soldiers 

were generally medical personnel, engineers, and logistical units. 

After the troops’ first rotation, however, the Spanish government 

decided to send a more robust combat force of 1,300 troops, 

including contingents from the Spanish legionnaires (2d Spanish 

Legion Brigade) and special operations forces (from the Mando de 

Operaciones Especiales).

Spain
111

Beginning in July 2003, the Spanish military leader also 

commanded what became known as the Plus Ultra Brigade, or 

Brigada Hispanoamericana. The brigade consisted of Spain’s 

contingent plus soldiers from the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua. The Central American countries 

contributed 1,200 soldiers, so in total the Plus Ultra Brigade had 

some 2,500 troops at its peak.

Multi-National Brigade Plus Ultra had five operational bases, 

two of which were located in Ad Diwaniyah Province while the 

other three were in An Najaf Province. In Ad Diwaniyah, Base 

España was the brigade’s command post and housed a majority 

of the Spanish and Nicaraguan contingents. The other, Base Santo 

Domingo, was manned by forces from the Dominican Republic. 

In An Najaf, Base El Salvador was home to the Salvadoran troops, 

while Base Tegucigalpa accommodated the Honduran soldiers. 

Spanish Army soldiers (seated front row center) are 

among the multinational coalition forces watching a 

ceremony at Camp Babylon, 3 September 2003.
112 

The Al Andalus base was the site of MNB PU’s alternate command 

post and the An Najaf Coalition Provisional Authority.

Operations: The Spanish contingent focused on providing 

humanitarian relief, medical aid, infrastructure repair, community 

outreach, and security in south-central Iraq. 

Plus Ultra’s area of responsibility was the provinces of Al 

Qadisiyah and An Najaf, two largely Shi’ite regions, each with 

about 1 million inhabitants. 

During its deployment, the brigade’s five camps were hit 

by mortar and other small arms attacks. In an ambush on 11 

November 2003, five Spanish soldiers were killed in action. 

The Plus Ultra Brigade dissolved in April 2004. At that time, 

the newly elected Spanish prime minister had ordered Spain’s 

troops home as rapidly as possible in response to the lack of 

public support and in the aftermath of the Madrid train bombing 

in March 2004. The other members of Plus Ultra withdrew at the 

same time, except for El Salvador, which sustained its combat 

presence in Iraq until 2009.
113

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 866

Peak deployment: 433

Deployment dates: 30 September 2003–30 September 2004

Unit designation: Thai Humanitarian Assistance Task Force 976–

Iraq

Order of battle: MND-CS

Lead: Poland

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Lima, Karbala

Casualties (dead): 2

Casualties (wounded): 5

Force overview: Thailand’s Task Force 976–Iraq consisted of an 

engineer battalion, six medical service teams, a force security 

platoon, and a support platoon. The task force served under Polish 

command in MND-CS.

Operations: The Thai force deployed to Camp Lima in Karbala 

in September 2003 to provide engineering support, civil-military 

operations, and humanitarian assistance. It rebuilt local hospitals 

and clinics, renovated and reopened schools, and repaired other 

Thailand
114 

infrastructure facilities. The Thai engineers also assisted in 

constructing and repairing MND-CS installations around Karbala, 

while the medical service teams administered medical care to locals 

and provided physicians to support the Polish medical company. 

On 27 December 2003, suicide bombers struck Camp Lima,

some 100 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, along with another 

coalition installation and an Iraqi police station (all in Karbala). 

The Camp Lima attacker rammed his vehicle into the post’s wall, 

killing two guards from the Thai security platoon and wounding 

five other Thai soldiers. In all, six coalition troops were killed (the 

other four being Bulgarians) and thirty-seven coalition troops 

were wounded. At least six civilians were killed and many more 

wounded. The attack was atypical, as a majority of the violence at 

the time was centered on the Sunni Triangle area around Baghdad. 

Despite domestic pressure to remove the troops after the attack, 

the Thai government decided to keep the task force deployed until 

its original mandate expired on 30 September 2004.
115

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 200

Peak deployment: 55

Deployment dates: 13 June–December 2004; 18 August–

November 2008

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-B

Lead: United States

Primary deployment location(s): Camp Blue Diamond, 

Ar Ramadi; Al Faw Palace, Baghdad

Casualties (dead): 0

Casualties (wounded): 0

Force overview: During their first Iraq deployment in 2004, 

forty-five Tongan Royal Marines augmented the U.S. I Marine 

Expeditionary Force in Al Anbar Province, performing security 

duties at Camp Blue Diamond. With their second deployment in 

2007, fifty-five Tongan Royal Marines provided security for the 

multinational forces headquarters at Al Faw Palace, Baghdad.

Operations: At its peak deployment in Iraq, the Tongan 

contribution amounted to over 10 percent of that country’s total 

military force of 450 soldiers.

Tonga
116 

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 7,000

Peak deployment: 1,630

Deployment dates: March 2003–22 December 2005

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-CS 

Lead: Poland 

Primary deployment location(s): Al Kut, Wasit Province

Casualties (dead): 18

Casualties (wounded): 32

Force overview: The initial Ukrainian deployment consisted 

of 448 soldiers of a chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare 

battalion to support the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. They were 

replaced on 28 August 2003 by 1,621 troops from the 5th Separate 

Mechanized Brigade, followed by rotations of the 6th and 7th 

Separate Mechanized Brigades. All served with MND-CS around 

Wasit Province. The Ukrainian force began to draw down on 7 

May 2005 when the 7th Brigade was replaced by the 81st Tactical 

Group, dropping the force to nine hundred infantrymen. During 

this final deployment, the Ukrainian force slowly reduced its troop 

Ukraine
117

commitment, with its final forty-four troops leaving Iraq on 22 

December 2005.

Operations: The first Ukrainian forces were chemical and 

biological weapons specialists in case Iraq employed those weapons 

during the initial invasion. The Ukrainian troops that deployed to 

Iraq provided security to convoys and checkpoints, as well as local 

government and religious officials. They also protected bridges 

and historical sites.

During their security missions, Ukrainian forces apprehended 

some fourteen thousand suspects, seized nine hundred weapons 

and thirteen thousand rounds of ammunition, and took part in 

disposing of some two million rounds of ammunition. Additionally, 

they trained three Iraqi infantry brigades and six thousand Iraqi 

Soldiers from a Ukrainian Army nuclear, biological, and chemical unit discuss their techniques and 

equipment with coalition partners at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, 3 August 2003.
118 

military and police personnel. The Ukrainian contingent also 

participated in many larger combined-combat operations, such as 

Cascade (to detect and seize the leadership of the Al-Sadr party); 

Chamberlain (to block illegal immigration and trafficking of 

weapons and drugs across the border); and Election 2005 (to 

secure the area of responsibility during Iraqi elections). Ukrainian 

soldiers also prepared and conducted joint operations Fairwater, 

Corridor, and Border with Iraqi armed forces, police, and 

border patrol along the Iraq-Iran border. 

Other military contributions: Ukraine continues to provide 

personnel to the NATO Training Mission–Iraq and United Nations 

Assistance Mission for Iraq.
119

Ground troops deployed (cumulative): 102,000

Peak deployment: 46,000

Deployment dates: 20 March 2003–28 July 2009

Unit designation: Not applicable

Order of battle: MND-SE

Lead: United Kingdom

Primary deployment location(s): Al Basrah

Casualties (dead): 179

Casualties (wounded): 1,747

Force overview: Operation Telic (literally “purposeful action”) 

was the code name of all British operations in Iraq. About 46,000 

troops from the British military branches were committed to 

Telic I, which encompassed the March invasion through the end 

of major combat operations in June 2003. During this phase, some 

26,000 British Army soldiers, 4,000 Royal Marines, 5,000 Royal 

Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary sailors, and 8,100 Royal Air Force 

airmen were actively involved in the operation. After the end of 

Telic I, the United Kingdom made twelve rotations, or roulements

of troops (a term used by the British Army to signify deployments 

of major combat units).

United Kingdom
120 

The British 1st Armoured Division headed Telic I, a force 

of three army brigades: the 16th Air Assault Brigade, the 7th 

Armoured Brigade, and the 102d Logistics Brigade. The Royal 

Marines 3d Commando Brigade was also under the operational 

command of the division.

Additional rotations began shortly after the declared end of 

major combat operations in 2003. The 3d Commando Brigade and 

the 16th Air Assault Brigade largely withdrew in May, and the 101st 

Logistics Brigade relieved the 102d Logistics Brigade in late May. 

The 19th Mechanised Brigade relieved the 7th Armoured Brigade 

in June 2003, and the 3d Division replaced the 1st Armoured 

Division on 11 July 2003, signaling the start of Telic II. The 3d 

Division controlled numerous other coalition forces in southeast 

Iraq, including contingents from Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, 

the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Norway, and New Zealand. (See 

Table 2 for additional rotations.) 

The United Kingdom officially terminated combat operations on 30 April 2009, with the last of its troops leaving Iraq 

on 28 July 2009.

Operations: During their nearly six-year involvement in Operation 

Telic, U.K. forces performed diverse roles and missions in support 

of coalition efforts. The initial mission provided full-spectrum forces 

Table 2—U.K. Unit Rotations, 2003–2007 

Date Units in Theater

 November 2003 19th Mechanised Bde

 April 2004 20th Armoured Bde

 October 2004 1st Mechanised Bde

 May 2005 4th Armoured Bde

 October 2005 7th Armoured Bde

 April 2006 20th Armoured Bde

 June 2007 1st Mechanised Bde

 December 2007 4th Mechanised Bde

 June 2008 7th Armoured Bde
121

for the liberation of Iraq. With the end of major combat, the British 

shifted their focus to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their country 

after years of neglect and conflict. The United Kingdom supported 

reconstruction in southeast Iraq, assisting the Iraqis build their 

economy and have an economic stake in the future. U.K. forces also 

helped train the new Iraqi Army and other security forces.

Aside from the United States and the current Iraqi Security 

Forces, the United Kingdom consistently contributed more 

resources and troops to the Iraq mission than any other coalition 

partner. U.K. forces took part in many operations that are far 

beyond the scope of this study. Of special interest, however, is the 

United Kingdom’s role during Telic I and its contribution to the 

early success of the major combat phase of the conflict. 

The land offensive began on 20 March 2003, less than twentyfour hours after the air campaign started. The 1st Armoured 

A British investigator with a joint U.S.-British bomb 

examination team studies the wreckage from a car bombing near Camp Rashid, 1 August 2004.
122 

Division’s initial objective was to seize the Al Faw peninsula and 

secure the vitally important port of Umm Qasr. Simultaneously, 

forty Commando (Royal Marines) and other coalition forces 

launched an amphibious helicopter assault to seize key Iraqi oil 

infrastructure on the Al Faw peninsula. The assault was supported 

by the U.K. Joint Helicopter Command, a variety of landing craft, 

and three Royal Navy frigates providing fire support.

The securing of the Al Faw peninsula and the Rumaylah oil 

fields in southeast Iraq by U.K. and U.S. forces allowed coalition 

personnel to race north. The United Kingdom’s attention then 

turned to securing Al Basrah, Iraq’s second-largest city, to 

prevent Iraqi forces from staging attacks on coalition logistical 

lines of communications. Despite encountering significant Iraqi 

resistance, U.K. forces seized Al Basrah’s airport in four days and 

began expanding their area of control in the surrounding region.

After several days of probes, U.K. forces took the town of Az 

Zubayr, southwest of Al Basrah, and on 6 April 2003 entered Al 

Basrah in strength. After encountering pockets of resistance, the 

forces stormed the Ba’ath Party headquarters. Although there was 

some initial looting in the town, the situation quickly returned 

to normal. The U.K. commanders established contact with local 

leaders and assisted in restoring a functioning police force. The 

first joint U.K.-Iraqi police patrols took place just one week after 

Al Basrah had been liberated. The British success in southeast 

Iraq enabled U.S. troops to push swiftly toward Baghdad and take 

control of most of that city between 8 and 9 April 2003.

After conducting thousands of operations aimed at securing 

the region in the years since major combat operations ended, in 

2007 British forces changed focus to assist and advise the Iraqi 

Security Forces. The British presence in southeast Iraq, however, 

was not without its difficulties. In early 2007, the British were 

preparing to hand Al Basrah over to Iraqi Security Forces. By 

February 2007, the British maintained only two bases in the 

city. The largest contingent of some five thousand soldiers was 

located at the Al Basrah airport on the outskirts of town. The only 

contingent left inside the city was a small force of seven hundred 

soldiers at the Al Basrah palace. Beginning on 27 February, several 

Iraqi enemy militia forces, including the Mahdi Army (followers 

of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr), began operations against British 

forces in the area. The well-organized insurgent tactics included 

mortar and rocket attacks against the Al Basrah airport, as well as 
123

ambushes and IED attacks against British patrols and convoys that 

attempted to resupply the Al Basrah palace garrison. In short, the 

insurgents prevented the British from launching anything more 

than limited raids and critical resupply missions and essentially 

grounded most U.K. rotary-wing aircraft for fear of losing them to 

heavy ground fire.

As the situation worsened, British forces abandoned their Al 

Basrah palace garrison on the night of 3 September and withdrew 

to their larger airport base. By doing so, they ceded control of the 

city to insurgents. Insurgent attacks then turned from targeting 

the British and focused on Iraqi police and other militias, leading 

to complete lawlessness in the city. Finally, in March 2008, Iraqi 

Army forces began major operations in Al Basrah to regain control 

of the area.

Although the Al Basrah situation between 2007 and 2008 

represented a major setback during the British engagement in 

Iraq, the United Kingdom’s other successes and contributions to 

the conflict were significant. The U.K. presence generally allowed 

U.S. forces to employ their combat power elsewhere in Iraq, and 

the United Kingdom was quickly able to secure and prepare several 

key provinces for their return to Iraqi control.

Other military contributions: The Royal Navy and Air Force 

also undertook numerous missions to support Operation Telic. 

Thereafter, the Royal Navy maintained a continuous presence in 

the North Arabian Gulf to defend Iraqi oil rigs and ensure the 

safe flow of supplies in and out of the region, as well as train Iraqi 

maritime security forces. The Royal Air Force flew thousands of 

sorties every year and also assisted in reconstruction of the Al 

Basrah area.

In April 2006, the United Kingdom established the Al Basrah 

Provincial Reconstruction Team with British, Danish, Australian, 

and Canadian participants. Its main activities centered on 

reestablishing local jurisdiction, civic institutions, and economic 

and social development. The team also attempted to build the 

capacity of the provincial government to manage public finances 

and the economy, including planning and development of 

budgets, with the overall aim of rebuilding local infrastructure 

and providing essential services such as sanitation, health care, 

and education. 

125

Further Readings

Brown, Todd S. Battleground Iraq: Journal of a Company Commander.

Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 2008.

Fontenot, Gregory; E. J. Degen; and David Tohn. On Point: US Army 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: Combat 

Studies Institute Press, 2004.

Hoffman, John T., gen. ed. Tip of the Spear: U.S. Army Small-Unit 

Action in Iraq, 2004–2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center 

of Military History, 2009. 

Joint Staff. Joint Publication 3–16, Multinational Operations. 7 

 March 2007.

Wright, Donald P., and Timothy R. Reese. On Point II: Transition to 

the New Campaign: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, May 2003–January 2005. Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: 

Combat Studies Institute Press, 2008.

In addition to the volumes listed above, consult Congressional 

Research Service studies, Department of State Weekly Update 

briefings, Multi-National Force–Iraq briefings and press releases, 

and U.S. Central Command and Department of Defense briefings.

127

Abbreviations

AMTG Al Muthanna Task Group

Br British

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command

CFLCC Coalition Forces Land Component Command

CFSOCC Combined Forces Special Operations 

 Component Command

CJSOTF Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force

CJSOTF-N Combined Joint Special Operations Task 

 Force–North 

CJSOTF-W Combined Joint Special Operations Task 

 Force–West 

CJTF-7 Combined Joint Task Force–7

CPA Coalition Provisional Authority

EOD explosive ordnance disposal

FOB forward operating base

IED improvised explosive device

IGC Iraqi Governing Council

IRSAW Iraq Reconstruction Support Airlift Wing

ISF Iraqi Security Forces

IZ International Zone

JGSDF Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force

MNB PU Multi-National Brigade Plus Ultra

MND-B Multi-National Division–Baghdad

MND-C Multi-National Division–Center

MND-CS Multi-National Division–Center-South

MND-N Multi-National Division–North

MND-NC Multi-National Division–North Central

MND-NE Multi-National Division–Northeast

MND-S Multi-National Division–South

MND-SE Multi-National Division–Southeast

MND-W Multi-National Division–West

MNF-I Multi-National Force–Iraq

MNF-NW Multi-National Force–Northwest

MNF-W Multi-National Force–West
128 

MNSTC-I Multi-National Security Transition Command–

 Iraq

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NTM-I North Atlantic Treaty Organization Training 

 Mission–Iraq

SFIR Stabilization Force Iraq

U.K. United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNAMI United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq
129

Map Symbols

Function

Armor 

Cavalry (Armored)

Infantry 

Infantry (Air Assault)

Infantry (Airborne)

Infantry (Mechanized)

Marine Corps USMC

Size Symbols

Battalion or Cavalry Squadron I I

Regiment or Group III

Brigade X

Division X X

Examples

3d Infantry Division (Mechanized) X X

3

82d Airborne Division X X

82

101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) X X

101

173d Airborne Brigade X

173

3d Armored Cavalry Regiment III

3

3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment I I

3 75 R

Military Units