What? There are Italians? In Iraq? Since when?

Not sure if this has GD-worthy questions, or it is just a pit-worthy rant.

Here goes:

I’m probably typical of many dopers here. I get my news from a wide variety of sources. For me, it includes NPR, cnn, the Washington Post, Drudge, fark.com, and sometimes even Fox. I even listen to daytime talk on occaision. I feel well informed. I’ve been paying special attention to the events in Iraq. I know there are Polish forces there.

But it turns out there were a bunch of Italians, too.

Huh. How about that?

Now I’m angry that so many people were killed. And I’m angry that things aren’t going as well in Iraq as they might. But I’m also angry I didn’t know this seemingly crucial part of the picture that is the situation in Iraq.

Who’s to blame? Was I not paying enough attention to the news? Is the news I am consuming not covering the right aspects of the situation in Iraq? Is the Bush Administration not highlighting other countries contributions adequately?

Or am I the only one here that missed the fact that there were Italian carabinieri serving in Iraq until their barracks was bombed?

You didn’t know this because most of the press reports (and many liberal commentators and liberal press organs report) that “all of the world was against” the US going to war in Iraq(basing that conclusion on the fact that the UN didn’t support the war).
Not only have Italians died. A Pole was killed within the past week, and several Britons were killed early in the war. There are quite a number of other countries with troops in Iraq who have not have troops die. It is sad that it takes the death of soldiers to examine the facts.

Indeed, this seems to be a big issue among the talk radio circuits. My understanding is that about 37 countries are represented in “the coalition”, but they are never mentioned in the mainstream media. I’m unclear as to what their involvement is or the extent of their responsibilities.

I guess another option is that the countries involved want to downplay their involvement.

schplebordnik: While I don’t what to get into the hackneyed debate over the so-called liberal media, I didn’t notice this peice of information from sources such as Fox, either.

Best,
Dev

>> My understanding is that about 37 countries are represented in “the coalition”,

This is misleading because “the coalition” would be countries which supplied forces for the invasion. Many countries which were not part of the invasion force now have peacekeeping forces in Irak. Italy would be one of those. Many countries which were against the invasion now recognise the reality that a mess has been created and Iraq has been destabilized and something needs to be done about it.

Poland and Spain also have forces in Iraq. Spain has had a couple of people killed in Iraq and about 60 Spanish military were killed in a single airplane accident in their return trip home. The airplane was landing in some ex-soviet republic when it crashed killing all on board.

Some countries which did not rush to send troops are now reconsidering their promises to do so. It is easier to not get in than to get out once you are in.

I agree that American news tends to have a rather provincial approach byut this is a circular problem because there is a large segment of the public which demands that kind of coverage.

What matters is not how few paid lip service to the invasion… but how many actually have troops there. From what I understand besides the anglo saxon coalition you have small groups of: Polish, Spaniards and Italians for sure. (What else is to be found in Iraq ?

The US is pressuring Korea to send troops too…

These are some other related stories:

The Japanese that are US allies don’t want to send troops: Japan halts Iraq troop dispatch

The Koreans naturally are reluctant to send cannon fodder:
Korea eyes limited Iraq force

(This strikes me as particularly mean… after all why not take US troops from Korea instead ? Naturally Bush prefers to give the so called coalition more diversity to give it some pretense of legitimacy… plus endangering less americans.)

Sailor, I think you are conflating Iraq and Afghanistan here.

Anyway, after some poking around news.google.com, there are:

US
British
Polish
Spanish
Nicaraguan
Danish
Ukrainian
Slovak
Latvian
Hungarian
Bulgarian
Romanian
Portuguese

soldiers in Iraq. The lists I came across never mentioned Italians.

Despite many searches, I could not find and up-to-date listing of who is in fact deployed in Iraq.

So, did you all know there were Italians on the ground in Iraq and I am the ignorant one among you?

Best,
J-

Dev Null, the airplane accident was on a trip returning from Afghanistan but pain ahs been moving forces around between the two countries (and the Balkans too).

At any rate, it should also be pointed out those Italians were police and not soldiers. If you also include civilians which are there in reconstruction efforts then the list of countries grows even more.

Japan had promised to send peacekeepers to Iraq but seeing how things are developing has decided to wait.

Well, Italy and (especially) Spain were the two large European countries that I always heard as being in the “coalition of the willing” (other than the uK, of course). I don’t remember specifically hearing about Italian troops, but I did assume they sent at least a token force.

Interestingly, even the Official US government site on the Coalition does not make it clear that Italian troops are on the ground in Iraq.

Here’s a good page from the BBC on foreign troops in Iraq. Looks like 10 countries currently have troops there. The reason you probably haven’t heard of most of them is that they are pretty small forces compared to the U.S., U.K., and Poland.

As I said, the Italians were not military troops. They were police.