Hmmm… now where could that lack of context I mentioned be, I wonder?
I’m sure that Japan, with the 2nd largest economy and 4th largest military budget in the world, would just love to hear you lump it in with a ‘gaggle of bit players’. Or Italy, which has a GDP 50% bigger than the UK’s.
You can make your point without resorting to hyperbole. Especially if you want to sneer at other people for taking things out of context.
Insults aside, I think the point is that comparing the sizes of coalitions today to those of history is misleading, and in the case of those public figures who use it to prove the legitimacy of their actions, deliberately so.
It’s rather like saying that Gulf War I caused ‘The most damage ever’, because it caused $30 Billion in property damage, and WWI caused $9 Billion. If you consider inflation, the price of WWI goes up tremendously, and trying to pass off GWI war as more destructive simply because of the price is clearly not appropriate. (I made those numbers up… I dont know the real values)
As has been mentioned, Eritrea didn’t exist just a few years ago (it was under Ethiopian control, as I recall)… it certainly wouldn’t have been on any coalition in the past. There are plenty of countries like this in the world. Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, and many more are in the same situation.
As for the OP, according to the CBC Radio just a few minutes ago:
Gulf War I: 16 countries sent troops.
Gulf War II: USA, Britain, Australia send troops.
The numbers in yesterday’s National Post newspaper give 250,000 American troops, 30,000 from UK, 2,000 Australian this time around. This gives about 87% American troops.
For last time, they giv a breakdown of which troops came from which countries. Troop numbers quoted here do not appear to include ship crews or air force personnel in support of air operations. Adding up the mubers, I get:
425,000 American troops, 245,681 troops from other countries.
This gives about 63% American troops.
It should be noted that many of the countries who contributed to the 1991 coalition are not included in my ‘other troops’ number, since it looks like only ground trops were counted in the Post’s totals.
For example, the British entry is “<7th Army brigade [and some other army stuff] (42,000 troops); 58 warplanes (Tornado and Jaguar fighter-bombers); 17 warships.”
And the Italian entry is “10 Tornado fighter-bombers; 5 warships.”
This suggests they aren’t counting the air or naval personnel as ‘troops’.
While I’m at it, let’s consider this:
Taking the U.S. out of the equation, the rest of the world has a GDP of about 20 trillion dollars. The coalition, not including the U.S., has a GDP of half of that amount.
Total world military spending, not including the U.S., is about 450 billion dollars. The military spending of the coalition, not including the U.S., is about 180 billion dollars, or almost half of the entire non-US military budget of the world.
And, today five more countries joined the list, and there are 15 countries who are ‘silent supporters’.
So a more accurate statement to make would be that the MAJORITY of the world supports the U.S., considering economic output and military spending. A majority of the world opposes the U.S. when considered by population.
I’d still like to see a credible justification for the inclusion of Japan in the list of coalition members.
Hyperbole rarely helps, but one excuse for marginalising the contribution of Japan might be the extreme restrictions placed on their contribution by their own constitution. As I understand it, they can’t participate directly in offensive actions, but they can (in the government’s present interpretation) promise to help in the reconstruction, or send ships to indirectly help by freeing up American ships from other missions. Apparently the Japanese public isn’t too pleased with the idea, though.
Big GDP or no, I don’t expect there will be Japanese missiles landing in Baghdad, or Japanese troops marching in the desert. (Chances are, most of the hardware used in the war will have been ‘Made in Japan’, though, so I guess they are major players ;))
Sam Stone
Just a niggle.
Have you a link to the figures that show the Italian GDP to be 50% more than the UK. I’m a great Italophile but I do find that figure rather difficult to swallow.
Isn’t that just like Bush to support a wealthy minority against a poor majority? Tax cut anyone? 
Candida: I was using the figures on the list linked on the previous page, which showed the UK’s GDP at just over 1 trillion, and Italy’s at almost 1.5 trillion.
Wolf:
I doubt our military gets much hardware from Japan. Pure speculation on my part, but it really wouldn’t make sense.
Yeah, you’re probably right. I bet the military tries to buy as much as it can from American companies, and the fancy weapons it uses were probably mostly developed and built in the US. It was just a joke… you know, “American components, Russian components, all made in TAIWAN!” 
Ahh.
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
**They also serve who only stand and wait.**"
That seems a bit of a stretch for a wartime partnership.
I think this is pretty accurate. Countries “for” are in bold.
Did I miss anyone?
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Great Britain (U.K.)
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Northern Ireland (U.K.)
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian State*
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
The Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Scotland (U.K.)
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City (Holy See)
Venezuela
Vietnam
Wales (U.K.)
Western Sahara*
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe
- Proposed States
Opps. I forgot to bold United States
I believe the official policy of Japan is that export of weapons are prohibited. However Japan has a substantial defense industry and most weapons owned by the Self Defence Force are produced in Japan, including F-15 fighters manufactured under license. And of course multi-purpose vehicles, electronic components and communications equipment are exported and used for military applications. This article gives a detailed (if somewhat outdated) description of Japan’s defence industry. In addition to that, Japan is planning to launch its first spy satellite next week.
I think Japan’s contribution to the Iraq conflict will be minimal, and limited to logistical support at most. North Korea will be a different matter. I wouldn’t be surprised if attacking North Korea will be justified as a defensive action.
If some of the members of the coalition are continuing to critize the war, how willing are they, really?
Whatever the numbers, I think that Rumsfeld is being misleading to say that Operation Iraqi Freedom is even bigger than the one behind Operation Desert Storm. Plenty of people, including Republicans and former Reagan administration officials are on record as thinking that description goes way too far, and gives a very false picture of the situation we confront. In 1991, our diplomacy in gathering together the coalition was widely praised. Even those who are part of our Coalition this time are critical this time around. We had 28-32 countries sending troops then, instead of just giving us transport rights, clean-up help, and emergency services. And there weren’t anywhere as many that were grousing, publicaly ambivalent and divided about it either.
And unlike that war:
-No Arab nations are sending troops, and even those that are helping us are fairly ambivalent
-We are footing most of the bill
-We have no decisive UN vote for war
Also, there are only two nations where the majority of the population supports war: the U.S. and Israel.
This shouldn’t be a strictly partisan issue, where we have to inflate the importance of the coalition to sell the war. Even people who support the war should be concerned about these sorts of differences, and the lack of attention the administration is paying, at least publically, to the wide dissent, is not a good thing. It represents something we have to work on, not something to dismissively brush under the rug.
The point to having this big coalition isn’t to get them to provide military hardware. The U.S. doesn’t need, or probably even want it. At some point, having 500 soldiers from Romania would just complicate the battle plan.
No, the point to having that coalition is political. After the war, there will be a rebuilding. That requires money. And from that standpoint, the combined GDP of this countries IS highly relevant. Allies with a combined GDP of 10 trillion dollars makes a big difference.
Having this big a coalition also makes a big difference politically. The more countries you have in your ‘corner’, the easier it is to gain world support for subsequent actions.
Just curious, is there a list anywhere of nations that have actually come out against the war?
—The point to having this big coalition isn’t to get them to provide military hardware.—
That’s partly true, but not exactly the point. In 1991, most of the Arab nations that fielded troops didn’t actually go into Iraq and fight. But they stood with us, guarding borders, securing positions that were under threat of missle attacks, and so on. It was a major statement of support from the Arab world that we are lacking this time around. I think that’s significant.
—Having this big a coalition also makes a big difference politically.—
So… are you really suggesting that the current sans-U.N. coalition is, in terms of being backed by wide political support, as good or better than the 1991 U.N.-led coalition? Because an attempt to compare the current coalition to that past one seems pretty silly. The current list seems a far more unofficial collection of nations, many of them jumping on and off the list as their governments fight over what they mean by “support.”