The 30 Countries Supporting the Invasion Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. The State Department lists Japan as available for "post-conflict" support.

It’s ultimately disingenuous, however, to describe this invasion as an allied effort. On paper, sure: the State Department listed 30 countries that backed the invasion, not including the 15 that did not want to be publicly identified. Yet when you look at the number of troops actually going into the Iraq, then it becomes an overwhelming coalition of three: the United States (with approximately 250,000); Great Britain (45,000) and Australia (2,000). Some countries such as Poland have pledged troops (200), but the bulk of the force will be fighting under the Star Spangled banner and no one else. Spain, which has pushed itself politically into the limelight by backing the invasion and co-sponsoring the never-presented second resolution, initially said it would not send troops, but recently backed off that statement and sent 900 personnel who will be acting as medical relief and support. But not one Spanish trooper will set foot on Iraqi soil.

So what, you say? What’s the big deal or where is the harm? There’s no harm to you and I, comfortably watching the war as a new reality show here at home. And certainly it doesn’t matter to troops on the ground because they’re undoubtedly more concerned with logistics than who comes from what country. No, the actual harm is how this war has been presented and sold to the public, that remains (deliberately?) oblivious to how much this is America’s war alone. Many in the public voiced concern about a unilateral invasion: insisting that “allied” forces are advancing on Baghdad makes everyone breathe easier, and creates a sense of a multinational effort. There is comfort in numbers and voters need to be re-assured that we do have friends in many places.

Only time will tell if the media’s unblinking role in imparting the official story will start to crack with some hard questions. It’s difficult even know to gauge what Americans really think this invasion is about: regime change, the forceful disarmament of Iraq or spreading democracy? The Bush Administration has made daily switches about what the goal of the conflict is, but General Tommy Franks (who will undoubtedly be the ruler of Baghdad once the blood-letting is over) has already committed himself to finding weapons of mass destruction. So now that he’s staked the legitimacy of this invasion on that principle, it will be interesting to see how quickly that focus will morph into something bigger or different. Perhaps it’s already started: he did not offer to have any discovery of WMD independently verified (as the world should demand), but stated that such weapons would be destroyed.

That will make it difficult to believe in the existence of WMD from the get go, but such discoveries will be trumpeted in the media as a victory, and the Bush Administration will publicize that fact as political vindication. If it could be found earlier, so much the better, as the 2004 campaign was quietly rolled out a couple weeks ago. You’ll see phrases such as “Making America Safe” unfurled and a presentation of Mr. Bush as a warrior, fighting for America’s safety. It’s unlike the media will see anything otherwise.