This paper analyzes the Dutch deployment in Uruzgan between 2006 and 2010 with an eye to the challenge of garnering public support for protracted military missions abroad. The hypothesis is that public support can be shaped and sustained by strategic narratives regarding the use of force. Ringsmose and Børgesen's model on strategic narratives is discussed and tested, and expanded in two ways. First, by including the role of "counternarratives," that is, of narratives presented by factions that oppose deployment decisions. Our data suggest that narrative dominance (the combination of narratives and counternarratives) accounts for the waxing and waning of public support for a given mission. Second, the nexus between negative narrative dominance and the ensuing drop of public consent will be teased out. Using the notion of "elite responsiveness," we demonstrate when and how weak strategic narratives trigger a political fallout. From 2006 to 2010, the Netherlands was the lead nation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the Afghan province of Uruzgan. During that period, the Netherlands made a significant contribution to the NATO mission with 2,000 military and scores of civilian personnel per rotation, the largest Dutch deployment since the Korean War. Over the course of the mission, the Dutch forces suffered 25 fatalities (Official Parliamentary Reports, no. 330). During the Dutch deployment, opposition to the mission steadily increased. On February 20, 2010, the Dutch coalition government headed by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende collapsed after a conflict over a second extension of the Dutch mission in Afghanistan. Balkenende's center-right Christian Democrats (CDA) wanted to discuss a NATO request to extend the Dutch presence in Afghanistan, whereas the Labor Party (PvdA) bitterly opposed an extension. Labor Party leader 1 The authors express their thanks to the FPA editors and reviewers for their assistance and advice. The article also profited from the comments provided by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Jens Ringsmose, and John Kok. A shorter introduction to the political decision-making process regarding the TFU in the Netherlands will be printed as chapter in the volume edited by George Dimitriu,
Rarely has a military commitment led to such intense discussion in the Netherlands as the Task Force Uruzgan (TFU) mission in Afghanistan. In February 2010, the Netherlands' coalition government even collapsed after the two largest parties failed to agree on the withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan later this year. This article deals first of all with the difficult discussion over the Afghanistan mission of the TFU. The authors then subject three ISAF operations to close scrutiny. The authors provide some suggestions to help understand better this pivotal point in the execution of the whole operation and thus give a fuller picture of the Dutch counterinsurgency approach in Uruzgan.
This paper re-examines the theoretical underpinnings of Strategic Studies, proposing a novel theory and a new framework for analysing war's fundamental relationship with politics in line with the Clausewitzian tradition. Throughout modern history, Clausewitz's concept of politics has been misconstrued as referring only to policy whereas in fact, for him, 'politics' was a much broader concept, including domestic power struggles. The political logic of war is defined here as the convergence of the interrelating factors of power struggles and policy objectives within a given polity that restrains and enables these political forces. The analysis of the Clausewitzian political logic of war is conducted through the sociological 'liquid modern' lens. It is argued that with power increasingly shifting from centralised state-oriented political leadership towards market forces, non-state actors and other political bodies, the effectiveness of war has been reduced. This is evident in the fragmentation of Western political systems and, as a result, suboptimal strategy and the domination of domestic power struggles in political decision-making concerning war.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.