Dutch very likely to stay in Afstan until 2010

Very good news--which will sure put the screws on us. Note also the countries reported to be pitching in the help the Dutch. I wonder what our opposition parties will have to say about our leaving our militaristic Dutch (and Aussie) comrades rather in the lurch if Canada end its combat mission at Kandahar, immediately south of them.

DUTCH government parties have agreed to extend the Dutch mission in Afghanistan by around two years, public broadcaster NOS reported overnight, citing well-informed sources.

Dutch and Australian troops make up the bulk of the force in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan.

According to the NOS, the parties in the centre-left coalition government have agreed to extend the mandate of the Dutch troops in the Uruzgan province, which expires in August 2008, until 2010.

The Dutch cabinet will discuss the extension tomorrow and thrash out the details. The NOS said one point that remains to be determined is exactly how long the soldiers will stay, but it is expected to be around two years.

The government of Christian Democrats, Labour and protestant Christian Union is expected to officially announce its decision on Saturday next week.

The NOS reported that the Dutch mission in Uruzgan will be slimmed down as NATO partners France, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have agreed to help out with troops [emphasis added].

Currently there are some 1650 Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan.

The Netherlands is the sixth largest contributor to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Most of the Dutch troops are in the southern province of Uruzgan where they have faced heavy fighting with insurgents from the extremist Taliban movement that was in government in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001.

The country has lost 12 soldiers since deploying last year as part of the ISAF mission.

NATO is trying to persuade its partners in ISAF to recommit to the tough mission in Afghanistan, which critics say risks failure [Senlis Council report is here], and to meet a shortfall of soldiers and equipment.

More on the Dutch, and broader NATO, troop situation:

Looking forward in Afstan

And comment (received by e-mail) by the Conference of Defence Associations on the Senlis Council report (note the martial thrust of the Council's approach, something which Canadian critics of our mission try to downplay):

After having examined the report, the CDA notes that it agrees with the broader themes present in it:

-The need for a greater presence of NATO troops and the removal of caveats on the activities of national contingents (although the required number of troops should be based on a sound military analysis).

-The recognition that developments in Pakistan, especially in the frontier areas, are critical to the peace and stability of Afghanistan.

-The recognition of the need to provide security and stability in areas of development and reconstruction.

However, there are several difficulties that the CDA has with the document and the proposals contained within it:

-The comparative measures of NATO “standing armies” that are provided are misleading. For example, Canada’s army -which is about 20, 000 in strength- is listed as “60,000” strong, while in reality this is the total size of the Canadian Forces. The US’ army is listed as half-a-million; however, this excludes the considerable size of the Marines, with a strength of some 200,000.

-The calculation of national troop contributions on the basis of 2.3 soldiers per billion GDP, while clear in its measurement, has an unknown lineage; it is unclear where the SENLIS Council took this measure from.

-The “futurist scenario” approach of the report is often alarmist and unsubstantiated; there is little evidence or analysis to back up proposed “chains of events” that could lead to a downward spiral of the mission in 2008.

-There is a major difference between the Taliban “holding” territory and the Taliban “controlling” or “administering” territory, and we believe that the two should be differentiated.

-The notion of a “combat CIDA” and military control of CIDA funds in the field is a controversial proposal that needs more thought, in terms of the implications from linking political, military and humanitarian efforts so overtly.

-The SENLIS Council’s latest proposals are a stark and puzzling contrast to the Council’s previous focus on “poppy for medicine” and its emphasis on a negotiated solution in Afghanistan, exemplified by its September 2007 peace simulation in Ottawa. It is unclear how a pro-legalization and pro-negotiation position can square with calls for 40,000 more troops and military operations in Pakistani territory.

Reaction to the Senlis report by NATO's Secretary General De Hoop Scheffer and President Karzai is here (just past the middle). Note also:

Karzai said Thursday that Taliban leaders were increasingly contacting him to try to find ways of making peace.

"We have had an increasing number of contacts from Taliban from within Afghanistan and from Pakistan," Karzai said...

Plus:

De Hoop Scheffer said Thursday that NATO will increase the number of transport helicopters in Afghanistan by leasing private aircraft. Some of those helicopters will go to the south, where Canadians now often travel by land convoy and operate at risk of hitting a roadside bomb.

Sorry for the monster post--sort of grew.