Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Do we have a (Dutch) government tomorrow?

  1. Feb 19, 2010 #1
    Most likely not.

    The negotiations are still ongoing but the mood is getting more and more gloomy. There have been a serious of issues. Last week the support of the operations in Iraq was challenged to be politically unsound. But the current issue is the departure of the Dutch military units in Uruzgan - Aghanistan.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315004575073394281448752.html

    There is a complex set of arguments for either point of view. However the firm deal had been to go and recuperate the troops, giving the armed forces some air. So some political leaders insist that the deal is kept and that redrawal as per plan is in order.

    To some this may seem a weak argument, however in the past similar political problems have arisen in a mission with an open end (Bosnia) which fueled the position that every mission should have a clear termination date, before commitment.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 19, 2010 #2
    I don't know much about Dutch politics but I do know that if you have not the worked out whether you want to go to war or not it may be best to stay home, though in that case you may also find that the bad guys are coming to a polder near you.
     
  4. Feb 19, 2010 #3
    Maybe read the article to get an idea. It's also about burden sharing and if you'd compare military commitment for expeditionary mission versus assets per NATO country, it may give quite a different picture.
     
  5. Feb 19, 2010 #4
    Unfortunately, there are countries willing to stand up for what they believe in and others willing to let others stand up for them. The Dutch can choose. It's their right. Just don't ask the world to be fair. It is not as complicated as you think.
     
  6. Feb 19, 2010 #5

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is disappointing. The Dutch fight well, but they arrived in 2006, four years after the US and UK. Now they may leave in 2010? Deputy Prime Minister Bos should recall the citizens of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Non-American_casualities" different nations were killed in the WTC towers, 109 Europeans, including one from the Netherlands. Heading home will not make this problem go away.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  7. Feb 20, 2010 #6

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The government has resigned over the Uruzgan operation, there really was no way out anymore.
     
  8. Mar 6, 2010 #7
    Forget Uruzgan. If only the Dutch had hung on to New Amsterdam, the World would be a much better place today.
     
  9. Mar 6, 2010 #8

    epenguin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  10. Mar 6, 2010 #9

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I thought invading Iraq, and destroying their WMD was going to make this go away?
    What's the end solution now - permanent forces in Afghanistan for the next few hundred years?
    Then who are we going to occupy next? Iran, Pakistan, Saudi ?
     
  11. Mar 6, 2010 #10
    We can leave that to Israel.

    Iraq was an insurgency hot bed. Look at the Second battle of Fallujah.

    Fighting an unconventional enemy whilst holding your troops to a conventional war will undoubtedly make it a long and arduous task. When weapons caches are stored in mosques, and the insurgents use women and children to carry their weapons, it will take a long time to destroy the insurgents.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2010
  12. Mar 6, 2010 #11

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ironically, the inability of the Dutch to hang on is the topic at hand.
     
  13. Mar 6, 2010 #12

    epenguin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  14. Mar 7, 2010 #13
    It's not clear that long term military occupation will either. From a pure statistical view point, it makes no sense for a large scale commitment of government resources because of the death of one citizen. The consideration would be the likelihood of future incidents, and the cost/likelihood of success of a military operation versus the potential future events.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  15. Mar 7, 2010 #14
    And the US did not stick to the topic of the Iraq invasion: Saddam's stockpïles of WMD about to be handed over to Al Qa'ida.
     
  16. Mar 7, 2010 #15

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Nobody wants an occupation any longer than necessary to knock out the Taliban and AQ, and establish some kind of secure government. And there is evidence that, done correctly, counter insurgency wars can be successful.
    For that comment to make sense 911 would have to viewed as freak, random occurrence like a lightning strike, and not the determined efforts of AQ and fanatic Islamists.
     
  17. Mar 7, 2010 #16

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What?
     
  18. Mar 8, 2010 #17
    :biggrin:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Do we have a (Dutch) government tomorrow?
  1. Do we have the right? (Replies: 2)

  2. Do we have souls? (Replies: 29)

  3. Why do we have children? (Replies: 12)

Loading...