Does anyone remember back in the months moving up to the Iraq War Version BushII.

[The Backlash Cometh]

How did we go from a unilateral strike to a Coalition of the Willing?

I remember the unilateral strategy because a year into the Iraq War, someone who supported it in the beginning was whining because other nations weren't coming in to do their part. I looked at him in disbelief and said, "You do know what unilateral means, don't you?"

Then not too much after that, Bush was telling us to remember Poland. How did we go from Point A to Point B? Was it a diplomatic move because the unilateral strategy wasn't working in the global theater?

[midnight]

1. It's a mess.... And Jeb and all the Bush's should be reminded.

This info. needs to stay afloat.... Other nations didn't want to help in illegal war that is still going on... Why should we lay down our lives for this illegal war?

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Wasn't Colin Powell responsible for getting other nations onboard?

I seem to remember him being a sort of glorified bargaining chip for the Bush II Administration.

[Lurks Often]

3. Are you referring to the diplomatic aspects or the

military aspects?

There were four countries involved in the initial invasion: US, UK, Australia and Poland*.

More countries contributed military forces after the initial invasion.


*Elements of their special forces unit GROM, from what little is publicly available, they have a very good reputation>

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Then where did the unilateral argument come from?

[Lurks Often]

5. No clue

there were a number of countries that supported the US is either militarily or diplomatically, or both.

On edit: Maybe there were people in government and the press, both here and overseas, who let their emotions and biases cloud their view of what actually occurred.

It does not fit the narrative if Bush had Congressional approval and military and diplomatic cooperation from other countries.

[Incitatus]

6. It was mostly the US and UK.

Many other countries sent a token number of troops (perhaps due to coercion or quid pro quo) so we could call it a coalition and pretend it wasn't just W's war.

[Lurks Often]

9. I don't find "a token number of troops" an

accurate description.

Among others Australia sent 2,000 men, Poland 2,500, South Korea 3,600 and Georgia 2,000.

And a country that supplies a 150 man medical unit is contributing more then a country that sends 150 man infantry company. Besides, most of the other countries militarys aren't nearly as well equipped or trained as the US or the British. That is why the US and to a lesser degree the Britsh almost always have to do the hard work.

[NNN0LHI]

7. You pay countries handsomely to send a few hundred troops and build a "coalition of the willing"

And also pay the entire costs of those troops who we then need to use our military to protect those sitting ducks because most of them are not combat ready. That is how Bush did it.

Remember when some Danish troops arrived in Iraq with brand new snow shovels?

Don

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. It was the US and Britain (Bush & Blair) -

who decided to go in. We essentially bribed a bunch of smaller countries to join us and dragged our larger allies in kicking and screaming. With the first Iraq invasion, Poppy had successfully created an aura of legitimacy because he had brought together a large coalition of partners to join us. Junior wanted that same legitamacy brought to Iraq v. 2 but didn't have nearly the same success.