I figured it was the fact I haven't had lunch yet that my first reading of the italicized

DENMARK: 10 trainers and seven soldiers for force protection.

I read as

DENMARK: 10 trainers and seven soldiers for farce protection.

But it still makes sense that way, doesn't it?

Excuse, I need to hunt down a sandwich or something ...

Posted by: Darleen at February 28, 2005 03:43 PM

Denmark has had FIGHTING troops nd on the scene since DAY ONE. Still do.

TAKE THEM OFF THE LIST.

Posted by: reliapundit at February 28, 2005 03:55 PM

You are way too kind! It is not even 10% of their kickbacks from the Food for Oil program!

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 28, 2005 04:12 PM

Stephen,

You realize that Ottolenghi is restricting his observations to NATO contributions, right? According to Central Command a number of those nations have contributed a lot more to help out in Iraq than he notes. The Netherlands has furnished more troops in Iraq than the Ozzies to date.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 28, 2005 05:05 PM

Rick - Not to belittle the valuable contributions of the Netherlands, but that's not correct. Australia had more troops in Iraq initially (around 2000), but about half of them have since returned home. (We're sending another 450 right now.)

Also, Australia's contribution included ships, transport and patrol planes, helicopters, armoured vehicles, and a squadron of F/A-18s, and it was there from the very start.

Well, just nitpicking, really. Good on the Dutch, and the Danes too. Boo to the French, Germans and Belgians.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 28, 2005 05:26 PM

Note to Denmark: If you need a pistol, you probably don't need binoculars to tell you why...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 28, 2005 06:51 PM

Pixy Misa,

I couldn't quite figure out the total Oz contribution from the Centcom site - I was going on that last bit where half had come home and the 450 had yet to arrive. I actually picked it up from Sered's POV and he's giving the Ozzie's a plug. As do I.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at February 28, 2005 07:43 PM

The Danes do have troops on the ground - approximately 500 - and I am, indeed, thankful that they're there. I understand your larger point, but in at least one case it's unfair.

Posted by: Myopist at February 28, 2005 08:57 PM

How rich! The Euroweenies complained that we should do away with the Oil For Food restrictions (since it harmed the poor Iraqi people), but now that the Iraqi's need help desperately....not one of them wants to contribute more than "token" gestures. Guess now that they can't scam the OFF program, why bother with appearances.

Posted by: GC at February 28, 2005 09:51 PM

As for the number of boots on the ground, the only Western European nations with militaries of any size are the Brits, Frogs and Germans. Post Cold War has seen drastic downsizing of Euro militaries and the smaller nations force potential is insignifcant in terms of force projection. The militaries of the Danes and Belgians, are militaries are essentially upgunned SWAT teams much like the Italian forces.

I'm not belittling them by any means. From a counterterrorism or small insurgency standpoint, these guys are pound for pound solid troops but not built or trained for sustained combat operations. They have no heavy armor and logistically would be strained to the gills to try and support more. On the other hand, the French can put 10,000 troops on the ground and not suffer (see Ivory Coast) The Danes for example have a peacetime army of around 15,000 troops. That equates to about one US heavy division.

But what it boils down to is that the Danes have backed us while the French and Germans who have significant forces to make a difference won't.

Posted by: Steve at February 28, 2005 09:53 PM

Get Denmark and the Netherlands off your list, Vodkaman. They've had troops inside Iraq for two years now. Luxembourg has no army and pays much more money (compared to its size) than either France or Belgium. Blame those two and their German friends.

Posted by: Peter at March 1, 2005 01:56 AM

Steve:
Italian forces an upgunned SWAT team?
Annual military expenditure $23.294 billion
Army includes 8 projection combat brigades, 6 projection support brigades, 3 home brigades.
OK, it's not the US armed forces, or even in the same class as the UK or France, but it's a damn sight more than a SWAT team.
How many SWAT teams operate 435 main battle tanks?

Current Italian contribution in Iraq:
Troops in Iraq: 3,085
Total Troops: 3,169
Fatalities: 19
Financial Support Offered: $18M
Delivered: $16.2M

France, Germany and Belgium are not equivalent to Europe.
For that matter, the policies of Schroder's government are not necessarily a permanent state of things in Germany.

Don't fall into the French trap of equating French policy with Europe.

(In, fact, even France can be cooperative. Look at current US/French coordination re. Lebanon.)

Posted by: John F at March 1, 2005 03:06 AM

Well there's still a big problem with Germany using her military. The relaunch of the luftwaffe in action in Kosovo was a big event.

The French and Germans were not politically inclined to invade Iraq as the citizens were against such action. Also France had many economic ties with Saddm's Iraq, and was trading oil in euros, which had that taken to other countries would have devalued the dollar into an american recession. Venezuela also was agreeing to trade oil for euros and it too got attacked by the US... coincidence?
Britain was 50:50, and contributed a sizeable chunk of our forces to Iraq.

Posted by: Monjo at March 1, 2005 05:49 AM