Mitch:

Let's just take a second to weigh insults.

Kwasneiwski's point would seem to be that John Kerry insulted Poland and various other coalition countries by suggesting that the Coalition of the Willing is "just the United States, Great Britain and Australia".

The troop commitments of Coalition forces other than the United States, Great Britain, and Australia total approximately 16,000 troops.

On the other hand, George W. Bush insulted France (and the insults, in the case of France, have been much less ambiguous), which contributed 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missile cruiser, 3 destroyers, and 4 frigates to Operation Desert Storm.

By way of comparison, Poland contributed 1 hospital ship to the Operation Desert Storm.

Riggght. Our egregious insults to that bastion of enlightenment, peace and human rights, France.

Oh. Wait.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html

"The report says oil was given to key countries: 'The regime gave priority to Russia, China and France. This was because they were permanent members of, and hence had the ability to influence decisions made by, the UN Security Council. The regime . . . allocated ‘private oil’ to individuals or political parties that sympathised in some way with the regime.'"

"A French oil company teamed up with the regime to bribe a UN-appointed inspector monitoring exports of Iraqi oil. The inspector, a Portuguese national working for Saybolt, a Dutch firm, was paid a total of £58,000 in cash to forge export documents. The French firm is linked to a close associate of Jacques Chirac, the country’s president. A spokesman for Saybolt said it would be investigating the allegations."

That France, man. They're so noble. Pity we had to go and "insult" them.

Can anyone highlight the actual mission contributions of the French in Desert Storm? If my memory serves, we didn't even count on them showing up most of the time (speaking just of the air guys--don't know about the ground guys!). Mirage 2000, decent jet, runs away really fast, mostly used for recon escort for photo birds...but that was a long time ago!

Joshua,

You weighed the insults wrong.

Kwasniewski objected mainly to being called "Coerced and Bribed", as well as ignored.

I've written many times on this blog about the inability of most nations - NATO, UN or otherwise - to either deploy troops outside of their own immediate area of influence without *massive* US assistance:

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/004062.html

Further, even then they are unable to *fight* alongside the US effectively; except for the UK and Australia, they are not trained or equipped to anything like US standards;

Citing raw numbers of troops sent overseas is not especially meangingful; most western armies are not capable of deploying significant troops overseas, with or without US support. Given a choice between shipping highly capable, well-trained and equipped US troops or less-capable, ill-trained and poorly equipped foreign troops (who don't exist in especially great numbers in the first place), I think the choice is fairly clear.

France contributed a light armored division among other troops to Desert Storm, with the help of *massive* US logistical assistance. The 6th Light Armored Division served as flank guards, like a big Armored Cavalry regiment. Even thenl, they couldn't keep up with the pace of advance of the US troops to whom they were attached; the US troops had to slow their advance to avoid having their flank exposed where the "light, fast" French were supposed to be; they were neither equipped nor trained to fight alongside the US troops. They were there largely for symbolic purposes. This is not to mock their contributions, or their sacrifice in Desert Storm; but there's no reason not to be realistic about the capabilities we'd get for what French military cooperation would cost. The miserable performance of the French military in the Ivory Coast is certainly of interest. They contributed planes and ships - most of them obsolete, by the way. Since you're into researching TO&Es, Joshua, see how many of the units the French sent to the Gulf in '91 are still in commission, much less capable of going overseas. Hint: Few.

Tired of military wonkery? OK. Let's be honest; given the whoring France has done for Hussein over the decades, and the depth to which France was in bed via the Oil for Food program, some level of insult is called for.

"By way of comparison, Poland contributed 1 hospital ship to the Operation Desert Storm."

Let's try to compare apples and apples? The Cold War had just ended, Poland was *very* newly democratic, the Polish military was in disarray (no source of spare parts for its soviet-era gear, and no money to buy it anyway) AND was configured purely to attack Western Europe, and had *zero* ground troops to send outside of Poland, to say nothing of the political wherewithal; in 1990-91 Poland was rebuilding in absolutely every way. Comparisons of their contributions 13 years ago are meaningless. Today's Polish Army is, by most accounts, a better bet in action unit for unit than any non-special French force.

I'm not going to exhaustively cite the above; the information is there, and if it becomes vital to my sense of well-being, I'll post it; I've posted much of it in the past few years. Suffice to say that if you think the contributions of other forces to the current coalition in Iraq are token and meaningless, you'd be amazed at the make-up of a typical UN operation (and that's without analyzing the many, many problems of the UN's military structure and doctrine).

Fingers: French ground forces contributions listed above.

French sent a SAG/escort group, which was there mainly for AA and interdiction, if memory serves. They had Mirage 2000s, F1s and Jaguars in the Gulf - I'd be the last guy qualified to tell you what any of them can do...

Ryan:

That's cute and everything, but it doesn't address my point, which is that France has contributed more troops to the international struggle against Saddam Hussein than the allies Kerry supposedly insulted by not mentioning (all 29 of them) in his 2 minute debate window.

If you insist on deflecting the discussion to questions of moral rectitude, it seems curious to me that you didn't bring up Haliburton's interests in Iraq, or the Bush administration's ties to same. Evidently that's just another standard you'll hold everybody EXCEPT the United States to.

Mitch:

"Suffice to say that if you think the contributions of other forces to the current coalition in Iraq are token and… [snip] …doctrine)."

I'm sorry Mitch, what's your point here? That the token useless symbolic French contribution to Desert Storm is no less token, useless, or symbolic than the contributions of the current coalition?

That's not very compelling.

"Kwasniewski objected mainly to being called 'Coerced and Bribed', as well as ignored."

Huh. I just read through his comments and I don't see anything about him objecting to being called 'coerced and bribed'. Not that I imagine he was pleased with it, but don't go taking license.

"Given the whoring France has done for Hussein over the decades, and the depth to which France was in bed via the Oil for Food program, some level of insult is called for."

See above re: Haliburton.

"I'm sorry Mitch, what's your point here?"

Save the cutesy theatrics for your own site, Josh.

" That the token useless symbolic French contribution to Desert Storm is no less token, useless, or symbolic than the contributions of the current coalition?"

The point was you were setting up the Frogs as a huge contributor in 1991; I was trying to give the casual reader some historical context by which to judge that claim.

"That's not very compelling. "

Or, as luck would have it, anywhere close to the point.

"Huh. I just read through his comments and I don't see anything about him objecting to being called 'coerced and bribed'. Not that I imagine he was pleased with it, but don't go taking license. "

Sorry, didn't know you followed Polish public opinion so closely. Kwasniewski's remarks were on the record in front of the press; he's no idiot. Senior Polish officials have expressed umbrage at Kerry's remarks. Looking for cites in the Polish media?

"See above re: Haliburton."

Try to keep it relevant, would you? I cited the well-documented UNSCAM Oil for Graft scandal, in which billions of dollars in "humanitarian" aid was traded directly for influence with foreign goverments, in violation of both UN rules and "international law", some of which went directly to support terrorism. You're referring to fever-swamp insinuations about the *perfectly legal* operation of a legitimate business that is, as it happens, one of very few companies capable of doing much of what it's contracted to do.

"Save the cutesy theatrics for your own site, Josh."

That wasn't cutesy theatrics. I honestly wasn't clear on which point you were trying to make. But it's nice to see you so ready to cop NIMBY.

"The point was you were setting up the Frogs as a huge contributor in 1991;"

Now you're putting words in my mouth. And, hey, some of those words are even racial epithets.

I wasn't "setting up" anything. My point was right up front. To repeat:

"my point… is that France has contributed more troops to the international struggle against Saddam Hussein than the allies Kerry supposedly insulted by not mentioning (all 29 of them) in his 2 minute debate window."

And here's a gimme for you: the French contingent in Desert Storm represented less than 3% of the total U.N. task force. I know that. Hell, I ran down some of these numbers with Ryan just last week. So again, please don't start arguing with me about stuff I didn't say.

"Sorry, didn't know you followed Polish public opinion so closely."

Here again, I'm not entirely clear what your point is.

"I cited the well-documented UNSCAM Oil for Graft scandal, in which billions of dollars in 'humanitarian' aid was traded directly for influence with foreign governments"

The scam in question has implicated French businesses but not, as yet (as far as I know), the French *government*. To generalize the motives of a few French businesses to "the French" (as I believe Ryan did), is like generalizing the motives of Haliburton (which has been popped repeatedly for overcharging in Iraq) to "America". That was the relevance of my comment.

And while I appreciate the phrase "fever-swamp insinuations" from a purely artistic perspective, you might want to reconsider using language like that in a comment that begins with an admonishment about "cutesy theatrics". It might be mistake for some kind of elaborate irony.

Whoops. Missing an "n" there.

Mitch,
Thanks for the info. I knew they contributed on the ground and wasn't sure to what extent. I can tell you that you are spot on when it comes to trying to work with other countries as a coalition. And here is why....

Because most other countries of the world spend so little on military modernization, our regular forces have walked away from them (excepting possibly the Brits and to some extent the Aussies) technologically. As we have moved from 20th century equipment and employment doctrine into our 21st century 'net centric' philosophy other countries have fallen behind as exponentially as the explosion in computer technology has advanced. Our capability to collect, process and use information is incredible! Because of the required doctrinal changes that come with our new capabilities we have essentially left most of our "allies" in the stone age.
If you think the French slowed us down in WW Storm, just think of what it is like now! It is a difficult thing to try to make the politicians (and their listeners) understand that, in the end, it is safer (eg. less casualties because of...) for us to employ relatively unilaterally than it is to attempt to hamstring our capability to the lowest common denonminator to ensure 'unity of effort' and 'mass of force.'
In my humble opinion, this even applies to the Urban Warfare of our peacekeeping/making mission now that major hostilities have ceased.