News Will Dutch Political Turmoil Affect Military Withdrawal Plans?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government
AI Thread Summary
Negotiations surrounding the Dutch military's involvement in Uruzgan, Afghanistan, are increasingly tense, with ongoing discussions about troop withdrawal. The political climate is described as gloomy, particularly after challenges to the operations in Iraq were deemed politically unsound. Some political leaders advocate for adhering to the original plan to withdraw troops, emphasizing the need for clear mission endpoints to avoid prolonged commitments, as seen in past conflicts like Bosnia. The conversation touches on the complexities of military engagement, with concerns about the effectiveness of long-term occupations and the implications of withdrawing troops. The discussion also references the broader geopolitical context, including the impact of military decisions on future security and the responsibilities of NATO member countries. The sentiment reflects disappointment in the current situation, with historical references to past military engagements and the challenges of fighting unconventional enemies. The overarching theme is the difficulty of balancing military commitments with political realities and the need for clear objectives in international missions.
Andre
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
73
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:
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Carid said:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The government has resigned over the Uruzgan operation, there really was no way out anymore.
 
Forget Uruzgan. If only the Dutch had hung on to New Amsterdam, the World would be a much better place today.
 
mheslep said:
different nations were killed in the WTC towers, 109 Europeans, including one from the Netherlands. Heading home will not make this problem go away.
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 ?
 
  • #10
mgb_phys said:
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 ?

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:
  • #11
Count Iblis said:
Forget Uruzgan. If only the Dutch had hung on to New Amsterdam, the World would be a much better place today.
Ironically, the inability of the Dutch to hang on is the topic at hand.
 
  • #13
mheslep said:
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.

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:
  • #14
mheslep said:
Ironically, the inability of the Dutch to hang on is the topic at hand.

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.
 
  • #15
Galteeth said:
It's not clear that long term military occupation will either.
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.
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.
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.
 
  • #16
Count Iblis said:
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.
What?
 
  • #17
mheslep said:
What?

:biggrin:
 

Similar threads

News Project Hero: Scholorships for children of Deceased soldiers.
Replies
20
Views
4K
News Downing Street - New memos released
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top