Taliban Kill Son Dutch Military Chief in Afghanistan
This should serve as a reminder to the Dutch that our troops are fighting a battle against a ferocious enemy in Afghanistan, and it should also remind Americans that they most certainly have allies in the war against terrorism. And those allies suffer. Several Dutchmen have been killed by the Taliban already, of course, but now the Taliban seem to have purposefully taken the life of the son of Dutch Military chief.
The son of the Dutch defense chief was killed Friday by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan, and the Taliban claimed they deliberately made him a high-profile victim of their deadly insurgency.
Lt. Dennis van Uhm, 23, was one of two Dutch soldiers killed in the explosion 7 miles northwest of Camp Holland, the Dutch military base in the restive southern province of Uruzgan, said Lt. Gen. Freek Meulman. Two more soldiers were injured, one critically.
Meulman was standing in for Gen. Peter van Uhm, who was only installed as defense chief on Thursday and would likely have delivered the news had his son not been among the victims.
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi claimed that the militants knew in advance about Van Uhm’s movements.
“When he came out the Taliban planted a mine, which killed him,” Ahmadi said in a phone call from an undisclosed location.
The Dutch government, however, rejected the claim.
“Our information is that there is no indication of any link between this cowardly deed and the fact that it was the son of the defense chief,” Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende told reporters in The Hague.
“No indication”? The Taliban just told you they did it on purpose. That’s an indication, is it not?
What does it all mean if the Taliban are telling us the truth? Well, you could say that it means that sons of high ranking officers and politicians shouldn’t serve on the battle front. Or, if they do, they should do so anonymously.
The Dutch military says that they don’t believe that the Taliban knew who Van Uhm was when he was killed, and that they simply used his death as propaganda after word came out that he was the son of General Peter van Uhm.
In either case, Dutch officials are now wondering whether it’s wise to send ’soldiers with such high propaganda value to fight in such a deadly conflict.’
John McCain’s son served in Iraq. Prince Harry served in Iraq. The latter was forced to come back to the UK after media outlets let the enemy know where to find him. And the son of ‘Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the former second-in-command in Iraq, had his arm blown off in August 2004 while serving in Iraq.’
Wim van den Burg of the Federation of Military Personnel agreed with the Dutch military that it was unlikely that the Taliban knew who Van Uhm was until after he was killed, and said that ‘high profile troops should be no problem so long as their presence is not widely known.’ “As soon as it’s made public, it becomes a risk,” he said.
The Dutch people aren’t in favor of the war in Afghanistan. Well, they’re not in favor of Dutch troops fighting there. Rebuilding the country? Fine. Fighting and dying? Not good. The more Dutch soldiers die in Afghanistan, the more Dutch people will call on the government to withdraw our troops.
However, my own interaction and communication with fellow Dutch about the war in Afghanistan leads me to believe that although some may criticize the Dutch presence, most aren’t passionate about their opposition. In fact, when you sit down and take the time to talk to those critics, most come to understand the nature of the fight quickly; it’s not difficult to convince most ‘critics’ that this is a war that has to be fought… and won.
Deaths are always tragic, they are horrible. But we have a volunteer army. All these people choose to serve their country. Nowadays, serving our country means (if we choose to do so in the army) fighting in other countries, in other regions. Yes, Afghanistan is far away… but we have learned that if we allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to be in charge of that country, it doesn’t take them long to strike against us in our own country. If we allow them to get back into power, it won’t be long before we will read ‘100 Dutch die in terrorist attack in Amsterdam,’ instead of ‘two Dutch soldiers die in Afghanistan.’
The deaths are tragic, but they are also necessary. Instead of using their deaths to make the case for withdrawal, we should honor and respect them, and it should make our conviction - that the Taliban has to be destroyed - even stronger. We cannot allow them to have died in vain.
Robert Spencer adds that the Taliban say they killed Van Umh because of “Fitna.”
“This (attack) was part of our operation against the Dutch. First it was because they have occupied our country and secondly it was in retaliation to the Dutch insult to our great prophet Mohammed.”
H/t Holly
Michael, thanks for this story, I had not seen it. I thank him for his service.
You start off sounding a bit defensive, that Americans are not giving the Dutch props for standing with us in Afghanistan, but then later in your post you seem to be defensive about the fact that most Dutch are against being in Afghanistan.
My only problem has been, and not with Holland per se, but with NATO countries in general, that out of a region with almost as many people as the US, you can only find a small percentage of troops to fight with your ally that has been attacked– and many of the countries are offering up these meager amounts of troops reluctantly and belligerently, many won’t leave their camps, so are almost useless while there, or they will restrict themselves to only rebuilding, which I think is another way of saying they are morally above us fighters.
I have a lot to say about the NATO "alliance" in general, but will save it for another post. I don’t want to do anything to take away from honoring your fallen warrior.