Dutch parliament yesterday finally found a way to support the nation’s participation with some 1400 troops in NATO’S ISAF mission (together with Britain and Canada) in Afghanistan for a further two years, thereby averting a political crisis. As explained before, the centre-right coalition relies on the support of a small centrist party with left-of-center sympathies and this group was starting to have second thoughts about supporting the mission.

The Dutch have their reservations when it comes to entering war zones, the mission in Srebrenica in 1995 was an outright disaster and restoring order in Southern Iraq had its problems too. These experiences have made the Dutch more than a little wary of overseas military engagements. At the same time it has sparked a much deeper probe about the expectations of armed ventures: is the Dutch military a force to fight and defend, or is it better to let it resemble that idealist model dreamed up in the 1990s, a peacekeeping force?

Peacekeeping missions by their very nature include a ‘war-component’ as you will have to pacify some elements that have fail to recognize the terms of the truce that a peacekeeping force is supposed to maintain. In some nations, Canada being a great example, most people don’t even know that their sons and daughters in Afghanistan are actually engaged in fighting the Taliban. “We’re a peaceful nation and we’re making peace” is an often heard belief and it is hard to argue with it as no one has ever made it clear to the average Canadian what their mission was all about. So, Canadians and Dutch alike are often left with the artificial peacekeeping construct, used to buy political support, to ignore realities on the ground, and to wishfully think that there are no real life threatening hazards in today’s world.

And that also was the nature of the recent Dutch debate. The opposition kept on pressing the issue of reconstruction - for which they were able to negotiate more funds - and demanded that there be no fusion with US operations, knowing full well that any association with American military power would directly undermine the widely held belief that it is a peace mission. And since Americans are “waging war” and we are “rebuilding and bringing peace” there would have to be a way to live up to international obligations without really getting your hands dirty. And some actually believe that there is a way to align these divergent views of how to get to work in Afghanistan, like this Labour parliamentarian who eventually got the assurances that underpins this odd compromise:

He wanted to know if there would be a clear separation between the ISAF mission and the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), which is focused on tracking down terrorists.

To that minister Kamp responded that the ISAF-mission would not be a ‘fighting-mission’ but that situation could arise where military personnel need the help of OEF to take on terrorist units in their territory. But: “in that case we are talking about an exception about which clear agreements have been made. If we don’t want it to happen, it won’t happen”

It’s hard to fathom what that would mean in practice. Say some enthusiastic Taliban decide to blow up a Dutch field hospital, would the servicemen there wait for American forces to arrive and prevent the attack or chase down the terrorists once they’ve done their work? Is it me or has NATO become an entirely dysfunctional organization where joint defense and military co-operation are myths that no one even cares to support in any meaningful way? Look, isn’t the fact that the Dutch even had to debate this venture ad nauseam following British and Canadian commitments not proof in itself that there is no real political will to support any democratization and stabilization efforts in the Middle East? It all probably depends on what you believe democracy and stability should ultimately look like, and it is sad to note that this particular interpretation has been gaining a great deal of momentum in the lowlands:

A small group of demonstrators stood outside parliament, one wearing a mask representing U.S. President George W. Bush and holding a puppet representing [Dutch PM] Balkenende. At his feet lay a dozen dolls made to look bloody and bullet-riddled. "This will only make more Guantanamo Bays and won't help peace," he said, referring to the U.S prison camp.

You either take up arms to help Afghanis achieve their peace or you don’t. Poorly defined missions and political compromises do not make great military successes.

UPDATE: Canadians are prepared to kill according to this report which reveals a somewhat better understanding of the situation on the ground:

Canadian soldiers are ready to kill and die in Afghanistan if need be to keep that country from ever again becoming a nest for terrorists, says the general who will command the troops in Kandahar.

"This is a dangerous mission. This is a dangerous environment," Brigadier-General David Fraser said yesterday. "And I cannot reduce the risk to zero."