The Torch: Afstan: Canada to be the odd man out?

I mean really out since the Dutch may keep a military presence after all:

The Netherlands is under growing pressure to remain in Afghanistan, despite the coalition government's original decision that Dutch forces would leave the troubled province of Uruzgan this year.

On Tuesday [Feb. 9], the Dutch government informed parliament that NATO has asked the Netherlands for a smaller and time-limited mission in Afghanistan, focused on training Afghan security forces and on "transferring responsibilities to the Afghan authorities". This would mean the Netherlands keeping its Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Uruzgan.

PRTs are at the core of NATO's activities in Afghanistan and handle matters such as reconstruction, agriculture and good governance. The current Dutch PRT has some 100 personnel, both civilians and military.

Leading no more
This new mission would have to begin after 1 August when the Netherlands ceases to be NATO's 'lead nation' in Uruzgan. The total strength of the Dutch forces in the province currently stands at around 1,500.

The training of Afghan soldiers and police officers and the reconstruction work would be an attractive alternative for Dutch political parties which want to end the Uruzgan mission, but at the same time, do 'something' for Afghanistan.

The reactions to the proposal have been mixed so far. Labour, one of the three parties in the governing coalition, wants all military personnel to leave Uruzgan by 31 December 2010, as previously agreed.

Tricks of the trade
If the Netherlands goes ahead with its previous commitment to withdraw all its troops from Uruzgan, this automatically implies the ending of the training activities as well. There are now some 100 Dutch instructors in the field.
When the cabinet finally arrives at a decision we will know whether these instructors are to remain in Uruzgan - or maybe in other provinces as well. The government must also decide whether the training will continue to take place in the field, or only in school rooms in the capital Kabul or other cities. Having trainers in the field would almost automatically imply that additional combat troops are needed to protect the training teams, an option that Labour is opposed to.