Throughout the Iraq war debate, President Bush has repeatedly referred to a "coalition of the willing"; nations who will support the United States in its war plans, despite opposition from France, Germany, Russia and other nations on or off the U.N. Security Council. The four most commonly listed countries in this coalition are Britain, Spain, Australia and, shockingly enough, Bulgaria. But only Britain and Australia can truly be considered part of the U.S. coalition. Besides the United States, these are the only countries that have actually sent troops to the Middle East in preparation for war and pledged for them to join U.S. troops in fighting. Surprisingly, Australian representatives were not invited to Sunday's conference in the Azores that led to yesterday's withdrawal of the second U.N. resolution, even though Australia has sent troops to the Persian Gulf and summit attendees Spain and Portugal have not.

The leaders of Britain and Australia -- Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Howard, respectively -- have joined the American-led coalition at great political risk. In a recent poll, 62 percent of Britons believe a convincing case for war has not been made, according to the London Times. This figure is up 5 percent from last month. The Feb. 15 anti-war protest in London was the largest protest in British history. Additionally, an estimated 1 million Australians protested the potential war that day, accounting for approximately 5 percent of the total Australian population.

Personally, I was originally fairly surprised by Blair's hawkish stance on the Iraq issue. Since Blair took office in 1997, he has been the poster-child for Britain's "New Labor," just as President Clinton ushered in the era of the "New Democrat" in 1992. Before 9/11, Blair, the youthful prime minister whose wife is a famous attorney, had been associated much more with Clinton than Bush in my mind.

Lately, however, Blair has been an invaluable player in the anti-Iraq alliance. He has attempted to mediate the growing animosity between France and the United States. While those efforts have not been incredibly successful, Blair has made compromise proposals and been Bush's point-man in Europe. Therefore, I was shocked last week when U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld implied that the United States is prepared to go to war without Britain. It also seems Blair and the British government were just as shocked as I was by these remarks.

Britain has committed over 40,000 troops to join approximately 200,000 American soldiers in the Persian Gulf (Australia has sent 2,000 special forces). Blair has risked a parliamentary revolt from within his own party in order to maintain his steadfast, pro-Bush position. His approval ratings are at the lowest point since he took office six years ago. For Rumsfeld to alienate Blair with remarks about the "unclear" role of Britain in our alliance was an incredible diplomatic gaffe.

Apparently, Bush agreed. A few hours later, in the face of barely-veiled British shock and outrage, Rumsfeld was forced to modify his statement, saying he had "no doubt" about Britain's "full support" in a potential armed conflict.

Rumsfeld should have no doubt. No British prime minister has ever taken "his country into war without the support of his own party, the majority of his country and the majority of the establishment," according to Peter Wilby, editor of the New Statesman. Yet, Blair is willing to do exactly this in support of an Anglo-American-Australian alliance against Iraq.

Back in Australia, Howard also faces great public and political opposition to war. Yesterday, the landmark Sydney Opera House was defaced by graffiti; "No war" was written in red paint on the building. But fortunately for Howard, his conservative Liberal Party (in Australia, the Liberal Party is conservative and the Labor Party is liberal) controls the Australian parliament. In Britain, Blair is increasingly being forced to rely on the support of the opposition Conservative Party in order to maintain his hawkish position on Iraq.

Both Blair and Howard have pledged to take their countries to war alongside the United States, even though the second U.N. resolution was abandoned. Many have charged Blair and Howard with being blind Bush followers (a George Michael music video even portrays Blair as Bush's poodle), but both deny these accusations.

Blair maintains he encouraged Bush to push for the disarmament of Iraq before 9/11. "I am truly committed to dealing with this, irrespective of the position of America," he said. "If the Americans were not doing this, I would be pressing them to do so."

Howard said that in the aftermath of Al Qaeda-planned Bali bombings, Australia faces an increased terror threat, and Saddam Hussein has no qualms about providing terrorists with dangerous weapons. Additionally, he said, "I don't think this is an issue that Australia can simply be a spectator on. I don't believe sitting on the sidelines is either good for Australia nor do I believe it has ever really been the Australian way."

Unfortunately, the role of our allies, both politically and militarily, is often overlooked and forgotten with time in American historical memory. So, when the armed conflict begins, bombs fall and casualties grow, remember the war against Iraq is not simply an American one. It is a joint Anglo-American-Australian alliance. A coalition of three leaders -- Bush, Blair and Howard -- who, for better or worse, are all very committed and truly willing in the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein.

-- Jamie Freed '03 submits a column to the Justice.