Jumping To Conclusions

22,217 troops on that list. Excuse me, but big deal.

So it's moving goalposts, I see. First we argue that countries don't support us. Then when it's pointed out that they do, we argue that there aren't enough foreign troops.

By the way, if one is criticizing Bush for being poor at diplomacy, does it make sense to insult the countries that did support us?

How many troops *would* be a big deal to you, Mithras?

I can't think of an absolute bar, but less than 10% of the American presence there shouldn't be considered a big deal, with respect to troop numbers.

It IS a big deal in terms of diplomacy, but when people say that the United States is still the only major military presence in Iraq, they're still right.

Michael, if you mean "the US and the UK," then you're right -- but I wouldn't have expected anything different even if the UN had been behind us.

The only countries that have the logistical capabilities to put significant numbers of troops in the area are France (to an extent) and the surrounding countries. That's military reality. Very few countries have the ability to deploy troops at a distance. While I understand that some would like the surrounding countries to act as fig leaves by providing troops, I don't think the US should _want_ troops from any of those countries. Are the Saudis or Pakistanis or Egyptians likely to be good influences on the new Iraq? The only neighbors that wouldn't pose that problem are the Turks -- but for ethnic reasons, they'd be a bad choice.

In any case, Iraq today meets your 10% standard -- unless you're suggesting that each country must contribute a number equal to 10% of the American presence, which would be unreasonable in any context.

In any case, Iraq today meets your 10% standard -- unless you're suggesting that each country must contribute a number equal to 10% of the American presence, which would be unreasonable in any context.

You're right, it does -- I was recalling the number of troops in Iraq before "mission accomplished."

I think the point of the first post was that

(1) relative to US troop numbers, it's not a big deal, and

(2) in many respects, it's purely symbolic. Estonia sent 55 soldiers, Georgia 69. Moldova, New Zealand, Slovakia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania and Macedonia all sent 90 or fewer troops, but take up just as much space as Poland on a list of names. Moldova sent a couple dozen medics, yet I fail to get pumped up. Maybe it's just me.

I think it's just you; Moldova always gets me excited.

More seriously, I never expected anything more than symbolic help. I thought that was the point.

I hate NYTimes links:

http://bugmenot.com/view.php?url=www.nytimes.com

I think it's just you; Moldova always gets me excited.

The only thing I know about Moldova is that they make good wine. And apparently, they have medics.

More seriously, I never expected anything more than symbolic help. I thought that was the point.

See, I thought the point was to bring in tangible international military support to help bolster American security efforts as well as lend an air of credibility to U.S. efforts. I don't think anyone's looking at the number of non-combat personnel that're being volunteered and thinking that either is the case.