The U.S. is almost alone in its war

I know that some American politicians, both in the Republican and the Democratic party are staunchly anti-Mexican.

French military prowess is the stuff of humor, though they've managed to sell a lot of military hardware to Saddam.

Care to share any of your military intelligence with us? I know very little about specific military matters, but I know France is one of the handful of states in the world with nuclear weapons, and that it is considered the second best armed country in Europe.

The fact is that the most effective fighting forces in the world today ARE engaged in doing what the UN could not, would not do.

Is Australia one of "the most effective fighting forces in the world"? If not, then I assume you are talking of the US and Britain only? "Most" being 2 out of 2 or 2 out of 3 then?

In that case I agree with you: in this war the "coalition of the willing" consists of the two - or two of the three - best armed countries in the world fighting a war of their choice, against the will of most of the rest of the world, backed only by a small number of countries (Albania, Latvia) that would generally not be counted among the "effective fighting forces" of this world. And that sounds suspiciously like an attempt to implement political hegemony, which is exactly the thing that worries me about all this.

As the end approaches for Saddam and his band of cutthroats, many more countries will want to climb on the bandwagon.

French military prowess is the stuff of humor, though they've managed to sell a lot of military hardware to Saddam.

The fact is that the most effective fighting forces in the world today ARE engaged in doing what the UN could not, would not do.

As the end approaches for Saddam and his band of cutthroats, many more countries will want to climb on the bandwagon.

French aerospace technology is among the finest in the world. They are way ahead of the rest of Europe in military spending, and highly competitive in military and nuclear exports. The effectiveness of their military remains unproven.

'New' Europe distances itself from war
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
01 April 2003


With troops locked in a bloody and unpredictable struggle in Iraq, leaders from "new" Europe are distancing themselves from the war that the US claims they back.

The conflict in the Gulf is unpopular with voters, and support for Washington and London has declined as casualties have mounted. Meanwhile, some countries that never backed war have vented their anger at being listed among America's 45-nation coalition of allies.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minster, began his political retreat before a shot was fired. Mr Berlusconi was a signatory of the Anglo-Spanish letter that backed the US before the conflict begun. That did not translate into concrete military support, however. Last week, Mr Berlusconi was at pains to insist that the deployment in northern Iraq of 1,000 US paratroopers who had been stationed in Italy did not break a pledge that Italian bases would not be used for direct attacks on Saddam Hussein.

Denmark, which has backed the action, had to scale back its small military deployment because of parliamentary opposition. The Netherlands, which did not sign the Anglo-Spanish letter but was sympathetic, has ruled out military involvement, fearful of destabilising negotiations to form a coalition government.

Countries which took a tough, pro-American line are encountering political difficulties. Jose Maria Aznar, the Prime Minister of Spain, which has dispatched 9,000 troops to Iraq for humanitarian work, is under intense pressure from domestic opposition.

The publication of pictures of elite Polish troops posing for photos with US soldiers in Iraq provoked a backlash in Poland. Although Warsaw remains a firm supporter of the US, surveys suggest only 20 per cent of Poles think their troops should be involved in fighting.

The weight of public opposition has forced countries to face in opposite directions. Ireland has made Shannon airport available to the US, but failed to endorse the war.

Across the ex-Communist nations of Europe, identified by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, as part of the "coalition of the willing", sentiment has proved ambivalent. One explanation is that the Anglo-Spanish letter endorsed by three of the applicant nations, and a subsequent declaration by a further 10 eastern European states, did not commit them to supporting hostilities. Some leaders went along with the formulation on the basis that taking a tough line might force President Saddam to back down.

In others the politics have changed: in Czech Republic, which is included in Washington's list of coalition nations, the Anglo-Spanish letter was signed by the outgoing president, Vaclav Havel.

His successor Vaclav Klaus has warned that using force to impose democracy on Iraq is a notion "from another universe" and sets a dangerous precedent.

Several nations provided logistical support because failing to do so would have provoked a diplomatic schism with Washington. Yet these nuances have been brushed aside by a Pentagon in its efforts to present the image of broad support.

Croatia was presented as part of the "coalition of the willing" on the basis that it opened its airspace and bases to US civilian aircraft. But Stipe Mesic, the President, denounced the war as "illegitimate" because it lacked UN backing. Slovenia has also rejected the idea that it backs the conflict.