I’ll make a deal with you: when the ‘support’ amounts to more than lip service-- troops appear in the gulf or checks are signed-- from more than 2 other countries in Europe, I’ll accept the hyperboile of ‘vast’ and agree that Rummy is now correct, and that we have support.
Lip service is perhaps the most valuable support they can give. Realistically the US doesn’t really need any assistance from anyone but the UK - which has committed itself very heavily it seems (perhaps even more so that the USA when you take into account the size of the nations. Whatever else you think of the conflict I hope you realize what a valuable ally you have in Britain, which has really walked the walk with you on this), and there are very little any European country can supply that will not remain more that symbolic.
I don’t know much about what other countries has promised. Denmark has on request of the US pledged a naval ship, a submarine and some 75 special forces (commandoes from branches equivalent to your Green Berets and Navy Seals I guess). The Czechs, I think, will at least assist with their highly specialized chemical detection unit - supposedly the best in the world, which also partook in the first golf war.
But sure all this amount to just words for now, and you want the man on the ground, or the dollar in your pocket. So ok, we’ll see soon enough I guess.
Perhaps, if you’re wrong, you’ll accept to eat your hat as well?
I’m confused by this… maybe a language issue? In what way would lip service be more supportive than cash, or to offer actual soldiers? I agree we don’t need assistance, but the whole point of having a coalition is to show we’re not alone. If the coalition means we take all of the risk and expense and the other coalition members say ‘good job’ then I don’t think there’s much to their ‘support’.
Oh, I don’t know about that. I was mostly pointing out that the comment was absurd on its face about what people were saying then. I wouldn’t eat my hat over a change in circumstances. I agree it’s likely we’ll find out soon enough, but I don’t expect to be worrying about being right at the time. 
Here’s an excerpt from that link:
I’m not sure why you included the link, Win, but this was not billed as an editorial, and I therefore find the bias in the language offensive to my notion of what the news should be. Just for fun, I’ll rewrite the paragraph the way a rabid anti-war activist might:
Just because it’s published somewhere doen’t make it fact.
> I’m confused by this
I’m just saying that what the US needs most (seems to me) is: 1st) Moral or political or whatever support, to show you’re not alone. In the UN in particular, making it a UN decreed operation would make life so much easier for you 2nd) Military support – I don’t think anyone will dig into their pockets this time round.
> If the coalition means we take all of the risk and expense and the other coalition members say ‘good job’ then I don’t think there’s much to their ‘support’
Perhaps you’re right – it does sound somewhat dastardly. On the other hand, I would be insane to suggest that 75 commandoes and an old 2nd hand (diesel if I’m not mistaken) submarine are going to make much of a difference. But that is actually the entire Danish commando corps and half its submarine fleet (now how’s that for a fleet. The entire Danish military is already over extended, with troops and tanks in Bosnia and Kosovo, troops and planes in Afghanistan and involvement in Cyprus and Palestine and some other places) So I suggest, in a large operation like this, symbolic military contribution is the best you can hope for.
> I’m not sure why you included the link
I must shamefully admit, that I didn’t actually read the link. I just did a quick google to find a page that said something in English about the promised Danish military contribution – which is the only European I know anything about. The second from last paragraph.
”Denmark has sent military observers to be briefed by American military headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and has pledged a Corvette, a submarine, and special forces.”
> I wouldn’t eat my hat over a change in circumstances.
No I can see how that’s not fair. What about your baseball cap then 
– if ol’ Rummy boy was right after all ?