Insert Dutch courage remark here

The Dutch keep postponing the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Why? The local warlord is even named Jan, for chrissake.

Well, here's some reasons why (in no particular order):

1. Dutch political cowardice.
There are elections this year. Even if the Dutch mission is a complete success the victory parade won't come in time to, how do I put this, vindicate the steadfast and resolute leadership of politicians at the polls. Dead Dutch soldiers, on the other hand, can cost seats.

2. American arrogance.
Back in 2001, the Americans said "thanks, but no thanks" to NATO. Then they switched their resources over to Iraq, and NATO was welcome to help clean up the mess with peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Now, again, the US is asking that NATO allies step in so that the US can rotate more troops to Iraq. And Paul Bremer even took time off his book tour to threaten the Dutch with economic reprisals should we renege on our intention (and it's just an intention, the final vote won't be until Feb 10th).

3. American incompetence
The Dutch don't do torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention whilst in legal limbo, the death penalty and all that crap. And since this mission will, unlike ISAF peacekeeping mission around Kabul, likely entail encounters with Al Qaeda whilst under an American command structure, there's a problem. It would be not altogether logical of the Dutch to stop this mission rather than the third mission our Special Forces have been fighting alongside US troops. But why not?

4. Srebrenica.
As most military analysts can tell you, and the Dutch learned the hard way, you should never start with peacekeeping until the war is actually over. Peacekeepers are hardly ever properly equipt for full blown warfare, and usually suffer the disadvantage of being part of a multilateral taskforce with a complicated command structure. This would not be different in South Afghanistan. Bert Bakker, MP for Dutch coalition partner D66 (and chairman of the parliamentary committee that investigated the Srebrenica massacre and the Dutch role in it), had this to say:

After four years of battle the Americans have not succeeded in subduing terrorism in this province. The Netherlands won’t be able to succeed in that either with a reconstruction mission that is not even aimed at re-establishing security. But if there is no security, then there can be no reconstruction either. Therefore this mission – all good intentions notwithstanding - is doomed to fail.

(Translation shamelessly ripped from Guy. As was, in fact, three quarters of this post. So if you wanna learn more, go here.)

I am not against sending soldiers. But I also vaguely remember something called the Powell Doctrine. I am the last to denigrate our fine men and women in uniform, but an "overwhelming force" they aren't. Fighting a terrorist movement as well as the heroin trade hardly seems like a clearly defined mission with a clear exit strategy. The support of our most important ally consists of drawing down it's own troop strength in the region.

Wouldn't it be smarter to simply double our contribution to ISAF troops. Once the Americans come up with a real plan for South Afghanistan (and yes, it's really up to them), then we should help them. Not before.