VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Although the mighty U.S. and British militaries mobilizing around Iraq aren't completely on their own, few of their partners can match their muscle: Those allies' firepower and resolve are weak and they're stung by criticism on the home front.
Many of the countries that make up the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing" were part of the 34-member alliance that joined forces in 1991 to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
But this time, France and Germany are missing, and offers of U.S. overflights and use of bases from smaller nations will be of little help to Washington as it gears up for military action, experts said Wednesday.
"The list includes a lot of 'who-cares' countries," said Jonathan Stevenson, a defense expert with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
To be sure, the coalition -- 31 nations plus 15 others that the U.S. government isn't identifying -- isn't exactly feeble.
A U.S.-led force of about 300,000 troops, roughly 1,000 combat aircraft and a naval fleet was in place in the Persian Gulf region Wednesday, ready to attack Iraq on President Bush's orders. Britain, the United States' chief war partner, has sent 45,000 troops and its largest naval deployment since the 1982 Falklands War.
Those forces will be buttressed by 2,000 Australian military personnel already on standby in the Middle East, along with 14 Hornet fighter jets, transport ships, aircraft and other Australian weaponry.
Poland said it would commit 200 troops, and the Netherlands has contributed three Patriot missile batteries and 360 men to help defend Turkey against an Iraqi counterattack.
The Czech Republic and Slovakia have sent 400 anti-chemical warfare specialists to Kuwait, Bulgaria has offered a 150-member noncombat unit, and South Korea said Wednesday it would consider sending noncombat troops as well.
"If the world had disarmed Hitler in 1937, then maybe what happened wouldn't have happened," said El Salvador's president, Francisco Flores, whose government has offered troops to keep the peace after a war. "The same problem has arisen now with Saddam."
A day after denying that he had agreed to support war against Iraq, Nicaraguan President Enrique Bolanos said Wednesday his country indeed was part of the U.S.-led coalition. Bolanos agreed to "back this action in the fight against terrorism -- wherever it exists," but did not detail what kind of support Nicaragua would offer.
But the coalition is a far cry from the alliance that won the 1991 Gulf War by uniting France, Germany, Canada with strategic Gulf allies such as Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar in a show of undisputed resolve and military might.
The Dutch, stung by spirited anti-war sentiment at home, won't send any combat troops. Neither will Spain, one of the staunchest U.S. allies on Iraq, which is limiting its support to ships, aircraft and noncombat personnel.
Anti-war France, which has drawn scorn from Americans for blocking a U.N. resolution authorizing force, is absent, though it has opened its air space under treaty obligations and offered more help if Saddam uses biological or chemical weapons.
In 1991, 20,000 French troops deployed to the Gulf, a contingent that U.S. officials described at the time as critical to the success of Operation Desert Storm.
Turkey, a 1991 coalition member considered strategically crucial in opening a northern front against Iraq, remains a wild card. The government said Wednesday it would ask parliament to grant the U.S. military the right to use its air space, but would not immediately press lawmakers to vote to allow in American troops.
That leaves small emerging democracies such as Croatia, which has opened its air space and bases to U.S. aircraft but has conditioned any further support on parliamentary and U.N. approval. Like many countries of formerly communist Eastern Europe, it is torn between supporting the United States and angering the European Union it longs to join.
Croatia's waffling earned it a rebuke Wednesday from U.S. ambassador Lawrence G. Rossin, who told the independent weekly Globus: "We are talking about war and peace. However, your government has decided to shirk its responsibility and play a reserved role."
Many coalition nations are poor, and that could force the United States to shoulder far more war costs.
The last Gulf War cost the United States $61 billion, or $80 billion in today's dollars when the past decade's inflation is factored in. But the allies reimbursed Washington all but about $7 billion of those costs with cash or other contributions such as fuel.
Stevenson, the military analyst, said even weak coalition members could end up playing an important role in postwar reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.
"The United States remains averse in many ways to nation-building," he said, "and what will be needed in Iraq is nation-building par excellence."