Thirty thousand troops and then what?

1 december 2009

"I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service", President Obama said yesterday in his long-awaited address to the world from West Point. Yet, what we got is 30.000 more troops, a withdrawal date, and a request for more troops from other nations. The overall goals are the same and the strategy pretty much too. The message to President Karzai and Pakistan: US troops will not stay. To the American people: the boys will be home. But the Taliban is listening too. Will they just sit back and wait until we leave? Sending more troops is pretty useless if it is not accompanied by a civilian surge and a diplomatic offensive. Though President Obama mentioned the need to work with the UN, the Afghan people and partners on a civilian strategy, and to have an effective partnership with Pakistan, few concrete details emerged as to how this would be achieved. It is easy to say we need to combat corruption but how to do this? It is easy to say that Pakistan and the US share a common enemy, but what if many in Pakistan don't see it this way? If for them India, or western infidel forces in Afghanistan, remain the enemy? And as far as diplomacy is concerned, there was no mention of India, Iran, and China. Involving these countries is key to stabilising Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What does Obama's decision mean for the Dutch involvement in Afghanistan? We rejoiced when Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. The Bush era was over. Obama extended his hand to Muslim countries, stopped torture as official US policy, started withdrawal from Iraq and declared Afghanistan his war. But Obama's decision to send 30.000 more troops to Afghanistan and his plea that this is not America’s war is greeted in Holland with a cold and rational 'agreement is agreement.' "We have done enough", Martijn van Dam, MP of the governing labour party said self-confidently just hours prior to Obama's address at West Point. "It is up to others now."

Formally speaking that may be the case. But this is not a rental contract. This is a stabilisation effort in a country whose stability matters to us. If Afghanistan falls back into the hands of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda will be back there too. And if Pakistan, the fragile nuclear neighbour that houses the Taliban leadership and Al-Qaeda, destabilises, we may be in for a regional conflict with nuclear dimensions. This is not a bad dream but a realistic scenario. The fact that we have agreed to extend for a period of two years in Uruzgan is not a sufficient argument for leaving now. Particularly without a serious debate on the merits. The world has changed in two years. And what's the rush? We have barely started our work in Uruzgan. Just gained some trust of the Afghan population. Four years is not much time when it comes to stabilising a country. Are we perhaps needed somewhere else, as Minister Koenders seemed to suggest a few weeks ago? Our only substantial military involvement is in Uruzgan. Why do we have an army costing the Dutch taxpayer 8.5 billion Euros a year if not to engage in a stabilisation mission that is a war of necessity to our key ally and affecting our national interests as well? Given the need to cut spending across the board, this may be bad timing to beg that question.

The simple Dutch 'no' compares badly to the seriousness with which president Obama takes the decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan for a period of 18 months. The Dutch government should use this opportunity to make a thorough assessment of the consequences of our withdrawal from Uruzgan in the light of Obama's decision to send 30.00 troops. This is not enough to protect each inkblog where some people live. Will Uruzgan be a priority for US deployment? Possibly not. Will Uruzgan become a back province of Helmand, where the Taliban will find a safe haven to retreat? Possibly yes. What will happen to the Afghan population and to the reconstruction efforts of civilian organisations present in Uruzgan? Have we thought about them? The slogan of this government is 'working together, living together.' In the spirit of our Constitution, which obliges us to promote the rule of law worldwide, this should also apply in Afghanistan.