In case you have not noticed, US forces are being joined by troops from Great Britain. Not only have RAF planes been helping patrol the no fly zones for years, British ground forces are beside our forces in large numbers. In addition, a ship just sailed from Australia to take part. Even a small number of Czeck soldiers are in Kuwait to help, primarily in the chemical, biological, and nuclear areana. There may well be forces from other nations there as well but I don't know for certain at the moment. We aren't going in alone.
On the other hand, most countries don't have a military capable enough to effectively operate beside US forces. Their equipment often isn't compatible with ours, their training may not be up to our standards, and they really have little to contribute to the fight. More likely, they'd just be in the way. A broad coalition on the battlefield complicates command and control, makes for more difficult logistics support, and throws too many political factors into the planning process.
Logistics support like what Japan offered for operations in Afghanistan is one thing (and highly welcome), but active combat forces are something quite different.
Current Events » in reply to BroszWorld
A broad coalition is of limited use on the battlefield
The whole thread (52 posts)
- U.S. evidence on Iraq questioned.
- Re: U.S. evidence on Iraq questioned.
- That acorn didn't fall far from the tree
- Does this mean you are calling Bush a nut?...........n/t (n/t)
- But Sadam did have a Nuclear bomb manufacturing program then...
- God help me, I love it so....
- Unrequited love
- And now, from the Department of Really Slow Learners, we have...
- Things like what actually happened are wasted on Lindy et al. § (n/t)
- Your pal Saddam appreciates you very much.
