An important distinction, but not terribly so. Occupational duties are obviously of a different nature than traditional combat duties. A country may be able to make a usefull contribution, in terms of light infantry and whatnot, once the main fighting has died down.
But when we and GB are sending in however many of the world’s finest tanks (Abrams and Challengers), just what do we expect Eritrea to follow with? Our troops ride to battle in UH-60 Blackhawks and M-2 Bradleys; what will the Albanians ride to battle?
Also, I noticed that the list I linked to is a bit out of date (May). Poland has already deployed a division to Iraq, and Italy has forces there. (Not sure how many.) There may be other information on the list that is out of date.
Maybe if **Hydrocortisone ** ever came beck to his threads it would be worth fighting with him. but since he doesn’t i’ll just laugh at how he is using Brutus to fight his battles for him.
Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands of course are going to be on the list, they are U.S. protectorates. It’s kind of like saying Kansas is in the Coalition.
Of course it was not unilateral in the strict sense of the word. All that was needed to make that true was for one single other country (eg. UK) to support the invasion.
The point was that the invasion bypassed the UN Security Council which was hitherto starting to look like the means by which civilised industrial democracies decided on matters of international security.
Those promising threads now hang in tatters. I think that the word “unilateral” is a perfectly acceptable description of an action which is not sanctioned by the UNSC, not matter how many votes of confidence it may have received. In the same way, an action which a majority had voted against may be called “undemocratic” even though some people had voted for it.
Countries in Eastern Europe were under considerable more preassure from Germany and France than they ever were from America. Nor ideed is Amerca the only nation that master The Elephant in the China Shop move . After England, I believe Poland is the European country that has given most to the coalition. I’ve before heard these insinuations on SDMB that America bought Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe). And to tell you the truth, I find it more than a little bit condesenting and arrogant (also I find it a bit ironic that it’s most often on the left wing such opinions are to be found). Also I can assure you such sentiments are not shared by the Poles. Poland is a proud country which, the rest of Europe has just leared to her dismay (EU constitution and crash and burn), is not easy at all to pressure to do anything.
Being Dane I’ll speak for Denmark (hah!). While many things went into the consideration to support the coalition forces, I can assure you American pressure wasn’t one of them. Again I’d say pressure from other European countries were considerable more intense (not that that had much effect either).
. . . .
Talking of arrogance: “With the Solomon Islands on our side, none can stand before us!” etc.
Just because a country doesn’t have overwhelming military might, does not mean their backing isn’t sincere or heartfelt. Whether that’s the case for the Solomon Islands or Micronesia, Eritriea, Rwanda, etc. I have no idea - lets just not wave them away because they can’t flex their militry muscles to your satisfaction. (btw. Denmarks proud contribution to the war consisted mostly of a submarine. To a desert war )
SentientMeat, we all know that the Kosovo intervention also bypassed the UN Security Counsil. Would you classify that one as unilateral as well? If so I’d say it’s a term that can be carried with honor.
Oh, almost forgot: Ben Hicks : :rolleyes: (and I say that as official spokesperson from Denmark).
Look, sport, the Solomon Islands doesn’t have any military might, it doesn’t have any money, and the government that exists there does so because it’s held up by the Australian military.
The Long Road’s CIA cite has this to say about the government of the Solomon Islands:
So whose sincere and heartfelt support do you suppose is represented here?
A Georgian spokesperson "“I don’t know,” he says. “We don’t have an official line yet. I’ll have to get someone to call you”
A Colombian spokesperson “Number one, I don’t think they need to fly over Colombia in order to get to Iraq. Looking at that list, I think the countries involved might offer primarily intelligence information, if there is any, or moral support. Other than that, I’m not sure that there’s much we can do from the other side of the world.”
A Nicaraguan spokesman “Physical support or moral support?” Either. “Well.” He laughs. “To my knowledge we’re not sending any troops. But we do support fully the US, the UK and Spain.”
Actually the listing of the Solomon Islands is deceitful. They were one of the small nations listed without either consultation or consent, presumably as their “support” was taken for granted. Some nations found out to their surprise they were a member of the coalition of the “willing” only when the list was published.
The Solomon Islands objected strongly to being drafted:
Winston, yes I actually did think that the Kosovo military campaign should have awaited UNSC clearance, which I am confident it would eventually have received given its clearly-stated humanitarian/regime-changing aims and the verifiable ongoing oppression of an ethnic minority.
Had humanitarian regime change been offered as the reason for the Iraqi invasion I would have supported it, so long as the UNSC further sanctioned it.
I am not yet convinced that the invasion was not primarily in US interests, specifically those of the present administration who needed a “victory” to present to the electorate.
Look, lass, I was merely arguing against this arrogant waving aside countries as being irrelevant based on their military might. We probably agree Solomon Island’s inclusion in this list is absurd - but not because of lack of military might.
Interesting historical sidebar: According to a recent book I read, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, reputedly one of the most inspiring messages that England received at the very start of World War 2 was one direct to the Prime Minister, which said something along the lines of “Do not fear - Barbados is with you!” From what the book said, it was actually quite inspiring, as some of the Commonwealth countries had been very much waffling as to whether to oppose Germany.
I see the Netherlands made it onto this list as well. Fair enough, our PM did say we would support the US “morally”, though the opposition made him jump through 27 flaming hoops the same day, when he promised that our “moral” support would never escalate in “military” support for the war.
Of course, it should also be noted that when the war was over, or at least declared over, we were one of the first countries to enter Iraq under the UN flag.
I guess what all of this means is that our PM is a weaseling lapdog just like Tony Blair, but luckily, our opposition is sharp enough to ensure that our participation is actually as peace keepers rather than invaders.
But sure, put us on the “Coalition of the Willing” list. What-fucking-ever.
)