Ciao!

Hmm, the problem with Slovenia was that it didn't either support nor oppose the war. The politicians were divided, but the public was absolutely against. Thus the government and the opposition had to sit on two seats (or better three), not to disappoint big EU states, not to disappoint the US and to look like they care for domestic public opinion. N.

Sort of defies the conventional wisdom that I've generally followed.

Does contribution of troops necessarily equal support for the war when it occurred, however? How many of those countries sent troops during the initial invasion of Iraq? Were troops sent pursuant to political support for the war, or based on more narrow national interests (such as getting aid from US, US security guarantees against other countries, etc.)?

Interesting, interesting.

Most of those countries sent (or promised) troops prior to the invasion, operating under the Polish-led division in the southern British sector. The list of countries supporting the war prior to invasion was 40 (including countries like Ethiopia, El Salvador, East Timor, and Albania). And while Germany & France refused to mobilize under NATO Charter rules (as requested by Turkey, in case Iraq attacked them in retaliation), the little Arab emirates mobilized their Peninsula Shileld forces in support of US action Kuwaiti security concerns. Meaning that (in my book) they were more faithful allies than Germany & France. I mean, I can understand Germany & France not wanting to fight in the war, but to not support their ally Turkey (who also wasn't wouldn't fight) in a defensive capacity is pretty low. And these are the two countries we want to court as allies?

Also, Tom, the argument about coalition members doing it for national self-interest or to win favor w/ the US doesn't convince me. Mostly because the argument could go the other way — countries could be opposing the war for national self-interest or to deliberately align themselves w/ an anti-US block (e.g. Russia, China, France).

If we take the premise that no state ever acts w/o self-interest in mind, then why should it surprise us if they do?

And while Germany & France refused to mobilize under NATO Charter rules (as requested by Turkey, in case Iraq attacked them in retaliation),

I do not think this is factually correct. Germany, France and Belgium blocked negotiations early Feb 2003 on the defense of Turkey because they argued that this would send a signal to end diplomatic efforts. Once the war was on German AWACS (?) controlled Turkey's airspace.

Point conceded, Melli. But I was arguing that Germany & France blocked efforts to mobilize in defense of Turkey prior to the war, when Turkey was afraid of a pre-emptive Iraqi (or Kurdish?) strike in early 2003. That move was denounced by many other NATO members who saw it as jeapordizing Turkey's security for the sake of anti-US grandstanding. And that's how I saw it.

I made the contrast to the Peninsula Shield forces because, while these countries opposed the invasion of Iraq, they mobilized immediately after a request from Kuwait to protect it from a pre-emptive Iraqi strike. Here's a news story on that.