By Brian Bohl

Everyone wants to be associated with a winner and a success story. Governments are no exception, especially when it comes to publicly supported international agreements and military decisions. When there is a common enemy and a clear mission, countries expedite their decisions to join multinational forces and alliances. After all, with victory imminent, there is a strong incentive to climb on board and take part of the credit when the developed countries are done leading the charge.

This strategy works in reserve as well, something the United States is beginning to find out the hard way as the Iraq War counts down to year four this spring. Unlike in 2003, when most countries wanted to be part of the effort to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and depose of an evil tyrannical regime, support from U.S. allies is steadily declining as the death roll keeps rising.

It is not uncommon to see countries withdraw or cut down the troop levels to the multinational force in Iraq. Only three other countries have over 1,000 troops committed to the effort, which includes the United Kingdom, Australia and South Korea. Of those three, only Australia has not decided to reduce troop levels in the past year, meaning President George W. Bush is seeing the world body act like disingenuous dinner guests, who leave the party before the check arrives.

The global movement to leave the United States holding the bag in Iraq started in December, when South Korea decided to cut its contribution from 3,330 soldiers by one thousand. That move may not be significant when compared to the 140,000 troops deployed by the United States, but the symbolic meaning of the gesture is unmistakable. In fact, it has served as precursor to what is currently transpiring in the United Kingdom.

Much like the way the Defense Department has come under fire for the undermanned military personnel levels, England is also reportedly having trouble maintaining sufficient manpower, which could mean this country’s strongest and most committed ally might not be as strong and committed in the near future. There are currently over 8,000 U.K. forces in Iraq, making them the second-largest contributor to the war effort. But similar to the way the U.S. Army has endured recruitment troubles in the face of a popular war, England is also facing a similar dilemma.

A scathing report released from England’s National Audit Office states that over 10,000 service members are leaving the defense forces each year. The Times of London published a story Nov. 3 that said the three branches (army, navy and air force) “are now 5,170 under strength, a shortfall of 2.8 per cent.”

While Defense Minister Derek Twigg was quoted by The Times as saying the military is not overstretched, some members of Parliament demanded a rollback of troop levels in global conflicts, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This damning report confirms . . . that the gap between our commitments and resources is growing and putting unacceptable pressures on our Service personnel and their families,” Liam Fox, the opposition Defense Secretary, told the paper.

That type of rhetoric should sound familiar to the debate here between the Democratic minority in Congress and the Republican White House. Though the United States is not expected to withdraw military forces from Iraq anytime soon, a cut-back from our neighbors across the pond is much more likely. Iraq is also not the only front in the global war on terror that is impacted by this development. Behind Prime Minister Tony Blair and his close working relationship with the Bush administration, England also has 5,248 military members stationed in Afghanistan, a number that could also be downsized should those recruitment shortfalls continue.

Between the United Kingdom, South Korea and a list of smaller fringe military powers that have pulled forces out of Iraq, what was once a lopsided collation to begin with is soon becoming a party of one. The United States already accounts for over 90 percent of the forces in Iraq. Imagine joining a group, but then finding that you were expected to complete 90 percent of the work. Then on top of that, the other members said their small contributions were too much and you would need to increase the workload even more. This would not be an enticing proposal to many, but this is where Mr. Bush finds himself out now with the death toll rising to 2,811 American soldiers as of Oct. 28 and public support for the war waning and foreign governments looking to minimize their role in the conflict.

While Republican politicians insist progress is being made in Iraq, public support domestically continues to remain low. Judging by the actions from our allies on the world stage, the disentrancement with how the war is progressing is not something confined to our boarders. Behind Prime Minister Blair and his close relationship with Mr. Bush, England has been America’s most loyal and dependable partner in an ambitious international agenda. To see the United Kingdom waver on their military commitment demonstrates just how dire the situation has become in Iraq. It also shows how little the global community sees the prospects for success and serves as a reminder of just how much this war has damaged our standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.