90%

Ok, so we are 90% of the costs and the casualties. That is a good point as far as the costs go but I wonder if it could ever have been any different on the casualties. I think someone should check on this but if I remember correctly we were 90% of the casualties in the Gulf War and in the Bosnia operation. The reason seems to be that when it comes to real force projection that we and the other three main allies--the British, Australians and, to a lesser extent, the Poles--are the only game in town. I remember in the Gulf War we and the British flew almost all of the sorties (the Italians as I recall had 6 of 7 planes come back for repairs the first night). In the Bosnian war--a war in the Europeans' backyard--we and the British ended up doing all the bombing, though in the Europeans were able to give lots of advice on targeting.

The French do have formidable land forces that they are able to project (as a number of small African nations have been reminded lately), but even when we have UN backing the only thing that changes is financial help, not boots on the ground. And anyway, if we are on the subject of money, isn't the real point that the French and the Russians aren't even forgiving the debt incurred by Sadaam's regime, mainly for weapons? Does it really make sense to talk about how the French aren't helping us pay for liberating a country when their actual main concern is getting paid for the weapons they sold a dictator to keep a country imprisoned?