Tanker Schreiber, a former Army Armor Officer, sent me some very interesting information about coalitions - specifically, our U.N. coalition in the Korean War versus the one we have now. Maureen Dowd's column, today, offended him and stirred him to action.
Here's what Dowd has to say:
...You wonder how many votes he scared off with that testosterone festival: the taunting message, the self-righteous geographic litany of support? The Philippines. Thailand. Italy. Spain. Poland. Denmark. Bulgaria. Ukraine. Romania. The Netherlands. Norway. El Salvador.So let us take a look at previous coalitions, shall we? Tanker Schrieber does some checking:
Can you believe President Bush is still pushing the cockamamie claim that we went to war in Iraq with a real coalition rather than a gaggle of poodles and lackeys?
Here's a rough comparison of Bush's "poodles and lackeys" in Iraq as of September 2003, and the UN's multilateral masterpiece in Korea.
If you take out the South Korean troops who fought in Korea, and the Iraqi troops we have trained after the war, these are the percentages for foreign troops in each conflict.
Korean War: 303,000 US - 39,474 Foreign - 339,474 Total - 88% US
Iraq War: 130,000 US - 21,350 Foreign - 151,350 Total - 86% US
I posted about the breakdown of forces in Iraq (the Japanese weren't there when I posted the numbers).
Here's the breakdown of UN forces in the Korean War:
Australia 2,282Tanker Schreiber also sent this money quote about D-Day and our "coalition" there:
New Zealand 1,385
South Africa 826
South Korea 590,911
United Kingdom 14,198
United States 302,483
There were over 150,000 allied troops who landed on D-Day. Know how many were French?He's right.
About 160 "Commandoes."
Here are some others that are taking a look at the Coalition of the Willing:
Citizen Smash has a great post on the "poodles and lackeys" comment and has links to some other related posts as well.