I heard someone (can't remember who) making a good point about the US presidential debates. The person in question piointed that Bush and Kerry's exchange on the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq had a Freudian undertone. The Democratic nominee took great pleasure in pointing out that "this president's father" assembled a much more impressive cast for his production "Gulf War 1" than the current occupant of the White House had managed for the sequel.
Bush 43 bridled at this suggestion that he, pushing sixty, still didn't measure up to Dad. OK, there's no France or Germany, and no Arab states this time, but hey, Mr. Kerry, "you forgot about Poland". Dubya seems to get particularly tetchy whenever someone has the temerity to question the worth of his little gang of regime changers.
But it doesn't matter how often he reels off the names of his hawkish buddies in London, Canberra or Rome. He can stamp his foot all he wants, but that won't change the fact that his coalition is willing for very little.
The harsh fact for Bush is that his so-called partners are decidedly half-hearted in their support. They simply don't see the war in Iraq as their fight. While an alarming number of Americans still believe that Saddam had some hand in 9-11, almost no-one else in the world does. From the start, citizens in coalition countries understood that war in Iraq was not the same as war against al-Qaida. Hence the much greater level of opposition to war in Iraq than to war in Afghanistan. People in Britain, Australia etc did not, in my opinion, feel threatened by Saddam's regime, so they don't see why they should pay the price, in blood and treasure, to replace him.
However some poeple in coalition countries do accept that, when the world's only superpower comes asking for help, it's hard to say no. South Korea is a good case in point. Many people here, rightly in my view, oppose the presence in Iraq of troops form the Republic of Korea (ROK). Others believe, to the contrary, that their country is right to support the US. And most, in my view, would rather that their country didn't send troops but believe that they just couldn't say no.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this view, though I don't share it myself. No other coalition member after all is technically at war with a neighbour whose army boasts a million men and several nuclear bombs. In this context, alienating your most important ally by refusing to send troops to the Middle East would have been a very difficult step. I still think President Roh should have refused the US request, but given the situation, I have some sympathy for his predicament. So his name is not spat from my lips with the same venom as other coalition leaders like Howard, Berlusconi, and most of all, the liar, Blair.
But even given South Korea's reliance on the US for security, its support for the war effort in Iraq is hardly fullsome. People here are assured by the government that their troops are not working in one of Iraq's hotspots. The ROK's contingent is stationed in the town of Ebril. Never heard of it, eh? Well, that's because, being in the tranquil Kurdish north, the town doesn't make the news very much.
Support for keeping troops in Iraq, such as it is, would melt away if the South Koreans were moved to Fallujah or Najaf. I witnessed first-hand the depth of anti-war feeling after the beheading of South Korean hostage Kim Sung-il this spring. People here have no desire to go through that every week.
Right across the coalition, the tendency to avoid the tough postings is the same. The Japanese, like the South Koreans, have been assured by their government that their troops have been placed in a peaceful part of Iraq. The Poles (don't forget about them) are planning to cut their troop numbers. For all John Howard's belligerent rhetoric, Australia withdrew most of its troops shortly after the fall of Baghdad.
Coalition members give only token support to the US war effort in Iraq. Coalition leaders send small number of troops to placate the White House; while ensuring that said troops stay out of harm's way, in orer to placate their highly sceptical publics.
The only country whose contribution goes beyond token is Britain. This is hardly surprising since the Birtish are not exactly shrinking violets when it comes to the whole war thing. Fighting wars is a constant of British national identiity. Yet even in good old belligerent Britain, supporters of the war are in the minority.
This is easily the most controversial of Britain's wars since Mrs. Eden imagined the Suez Canal to be running through her drawing room in 1956. None of the conflicts form that day to this - the Falklands, Gulf 1, Kosovo or Afghanistan - have generated anything like as much opposition in Britain.
What has stopped this anti-war feeling from reaching a critical mass thus far, is the fact that British troops have been stationed in the quiet south. Hence this week's huge brouhaha in Westminster over the revelation that the British government plans to move 850 troops north to fill in for US soldiers needed for the upcoming onslaught on Fallujah. In making this step, the government of Tony Blair is taking a huge risk.
In my opinion, if the British public percieved that their country's national interest depended on joining in the war in Iraq, they would pay the blood price for such involvement. But most don't see why their army is there in the first place.
And neither, Mr. Bush, do most people in your other "partner" countries. No, not even Poland.