A bit too smug.
Had Germany said "we don't agree, we're not joining you on this one" that would have been disappointing but understandable. Instead, Schroeder ran on a vicious anti-American campaign, appealing to the worst German nationalist instincts. Twice. That's the betrayal.
That said, America will not win or fail in Iraq based on teh decision of Germany or France (or Spain) to join or not. Our success or failure will depend entirely on the will power of the American people to see this through - amid conscious attempts by the worldwide left to undermine that will power.
In terms of the aftermath of the war, you have fallen into the trap of thinking everything was fine in Iraq before the invasion. Looting and electricity/water failures did not start with the American invasion. Hussein and his family/cronies looted that country for years. He used utility cutoffs to specific areas of the country (especially Shiite areas) as a punishment and intimidation tool. If anything, its gotten a lot better there. Know how I can tell? Because the left-wing media don't report on shortages anymore (they wouldn't actually report good news, but an absence of bad news is meaningful).
Like I said earlier in the post - if Europeans would just say "we think you are wrong" that's disappointing but understanable. But to taunt smugly from the sidelines while doing nothing about the worldwide threat of islamofacism is failure of principle that won't be forgotten. Good luck with the French the next time you need help.
You are right with your opinion concerning the independence of the american campaign in Iraq. I would even go as far as to say that Germany and it's rather small military would not have been able to support the US more than they are doing it now in Afghanistan and by granting air transport route access.
But you should not confuse the standards I use to judge a dictatorship with those i have regarding the USA because my overall picture of the US ain't so bad. Saddam was a murderer, your postwar strategy was just bad to non - existent. Saddam being a murderer is no excuse for bad planning that raises questions regarding your ability to democratize a country.
As I see it, the ethic reasons why Saddam should be shot down like the mad dog he is are obvious. But the way the US started the war and the way they handle post-war Iraq made their own morals look questionable and made their strategic thinking look flawed in my eyes. A democratic Iraq should have been an example for the other bullshit countries in the Middle East, motivating the people of the surrounding countries to give democracy a try instead of supporting extremists fighting power wars. A lighthouse of democracy in the middle east. The way things look it will have the opposite effect. And that was not unpredictable at the time the invasion was planned.
The way this war is lead, it will cause more problems than it will solve. I am not hoping that, I am just concluding that from what I saw and see. This was my opinion when the war started and I saw no reason to change it up to now.
I can understand you are pissed that we taunt from the sideline. But that's whats left to do if your big friend insists on doing something stupid, saying: "We told you so.".
All differences aside, I wish your troops and their leaders luck. I dont care whether you care about that.