Afghanistan, again

Have to resume, even if it's hastily. Afghanistan is what it is: we, the West, are there, it's important, and it's not entirely hopeless (at least, that's one way in which one could read Ahmed Rashid's recent article in the New York Review of Books). But we're there, have been there for years, and thereby have made it our problem, if it wasn't that before. Problem is, the public in the West is less and less committed, less and less interested. The new Dutch government last week announced its intention to send 300-some police trainers to the Northern part of the country, supported by several hundred military, as protection. In doing so, it took up an idea, expressed in a proposal passed by parliament last spring, by the Green party and the centrist D'66. These two parties are now on the spot, because due to the rejectionist stance by the Geert Wilders party, the PVV, the two governing parties (Christian Democrats--CDA, and conservatives--VVD) do not have a majority in parliament. The PVV has agreed to support the government, but without joining it, thereby keeping its hands free. The opposition Social Democrats (PvdA), who last winter brought down the old government over the question of a possible extension of the Dutch military mission in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province, have already found a reason to keep looking away from the uncomfortable reality of our, the West's, long-standing involvement, our interests, and our responsibility toward the region, and have stated they will not support this new mission. Politically, it's very safe, because a new opinion poll shows that more than 70% of the Dutch electorate is against the new mission too, and parties (PVV, PvdA, and the Socialists--SP) that oppose it are making gains among the voters. So the easy and politically expedient position would be to say no. There are forces in the Green party (a merger of, among others, the old pacifist socialists and the communists) arguing against last spring's initiative by its parliamentarians, and all opponents have an easy time pointing to the difficulties and the long odds, because there are many. But that's not really the point. The point is that "Afghanistan," of "AfPak," is there, and that we're part of it. Have been, at a great cost to ourselves and others. We can't just throw up our hands and walk away (the implied alternative of the rejectionists), and as much as many among the public apparently would like, we can't just look away. We can't stay forever either, and we can't "fix" it. But there's a strategy to make it a little better (see the Rashid piece, which is all about a feasible exit-strategy) and it deserves a chance. Will the Greens and D'66 come through? It is a tough call, and it would be unpopular. But for the reasons stated here, and others, it would be the right thing to do.