And this is interesting:
"Australia went to war on the cheap
By Michael Duffy
March 26, 2005
An American acquaintance - let's call him Hank - has been complaining for a while that the Australian forces in Iraq have suffered no fatalities, while America has lost more than 1500 killed in action. When I suggest this observation is in poor taste, Hank says, "What's in poor taste is the contrast between the tiny number of troops you guys gave and the credit your Government takes for being part of the coalition of the willing. There's a big gap there."
"Maybe," I wonder out loud, "we've just been lucky?" Hank snorts and tells me to go look at the numbers.
At the peak of their commitments to Iraq, Britain had 45,000 people there and the US about 150,000. Relative to population sizes, to match this Australia should have had between 10,000 and 15,000 people in the Middle East at some point. In fact we peaked at just 2000. There are now fewer than 600 Australians serving there, to be joined next month by another 450.
Some of these figures are approximate, as countries use different definitions to reach them. But I doubt this would affect the conclusion that Australia has relatively contributed about one-fifth of the effort that was put into freeing Iraq by Britain and America. Says Aldo Borgu, military analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, "There's no doubt our action on the ground doesn't match the Government's rhetoric."
It's an imbalance I've never seen referred to, but it ought to concern both the Government's supporters and its opponents. One would expect conservatives to be worried about the questions of honour and integrity raised by fighting war on the cheap. And those opposed to the war might ask themselves whether John Howard would have gone in if he'd had to pay the full price, not just in numbers but in putting Australian forces into situations of danger, which (as Hank gently points out) we have generally avoided so far.
This is a delicate subject. I don't wish to underrate the danger many Australians have faced in Iraq and the bravery with which they've dealt with it. Nor do I wish anyone dead. But there's a disturbing element of unreality in much of our debate about this war and occupation. Last year Labor wanted to bring the troops home, when in truth there were almost none to be brought home. The Prime Minister announced bravely that Australians don't cut and run. In fact we had already cut and run, back in April 2003 when we began to withdraw most of our modest force. So Australians on both sides have been posturing and pontificating on Iraq based on a national effort some might call shamefully modest. War deserves to be taken more seriously.
John Howard says the struggle against terrorism is a desperate fight requiring, and receiving, substantial resources. Announcing Australia's intention to contribute 1500 people to the invasion of Afghanistan, on October 17, 2001 he said: "There's nothing token about this contribution. This is a very significant and important contribution."
Explaining our involvement in the invasion of Iraq, on March 18, 2003, the Prime Minister said it was necessary for the long-term security of the world and described Australia's commitment of 2000 people as sizeable.
Five days earlier he had told the National Press Club he rejected the idea that Australia should leave the heavy lifting to others.
On May 19, 2004 at the CD Kemp Dinner in Melbourne, Mr Howard repeated his belief that "we should not leave it to the United States to do all the heavy lifting" and said: "To view the ADF presence as symbolic is not only factually inaccurate - it is plainly insulting." On February 22 this year he assured Lateline we are doing our fair share in a great cause.
But the figures given earlier suggest Australia has indeed allowed the Americans and British to do the heavy lifting. Michael O'Connor, former executive director of the Australian Defence Association, agrees: "To consider ours a militarily significant commitment is just ludicrous. We're not pulling our weight."
And our allies have been very aware of this. Borgu says that from the beginning of the war the British and American armed forces have asked Australia to do more. Even John Howard acknowledged on February 22 this year: "For the last two years both the Americans and the British would have expressed to their counterparts in the Australian Defence Force a desire for further Australian contributions." Borgu says that while our commitments in East Timor and the Solomons might have prevented us contributing more forces to the invasion, those commitments wound down some time ago and we could have done a lot more in Iraq since then.
O'Connor believes that even if we really couldn't do more for logistical reasons, it's the fault of governments, which have reduced the personnel in the regular and reserve armed forces by 30 per cent in the past decade or so. Strange behaviour in a nation dedicated to heavy lifting.
America's acceptance of the gap between Australian rhetoric and participation is interesting. It's as if there was a deal, whereby President George Bush had accepted token military effort as long as it was preceded by prompt and unstinted diplomatic support.
When Bush called Howard a "man of steel" who was "steady under fire" you wonder if it was the experience of cutting such a deal he was recalling. Or maybe the deal was never spelt out, and the President, who has a well-developed sense of honour, was simply being ironic about Australia's martial valour."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Australia-went-to-war-on-the-cheap/2005/03/25/1111692627173.html
But who cares about her? Who wants to know MORE about this fiasco? Poor old Daniel O'C! He must feel just wonderful after all this! 
This type of flattering rhetoric was used to support Howard & the Liberals during the last Australian election. Some folk get sucked in by this sort of stuff, apparently. 
