[ Previous ]   [ Next ]

Permission

Disinformation or tactical silence?

The Dutch minister of Defense, Mr. Middelkoop, plans to sue a Dutch radio program (Argos), because this program claimed that Dutch ground troops were involved in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2002. (For those of you who speak Dutch: the link to the article.)
The minister claims that this is not true at all.
I'm not sure about ground troops but today at the literary boot camp for soldiers a member of the Dutch Air Force told me that the Royal Netherlands Air Force was involved in Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002.
From a base in Kyrgyzstan Dutch air force supported Operation Enduring Freedom.
No NATO-medals were given to military personnel involved in this particular mission, apparently this was not an official NATO-mission.
Did the parliament in The Hague give the minister back then permission to participate in Operation Enduring Freedom? Is the contemporary minister of Defense in the Netherlands a liar? In which case he should resign.
Or is he not informed? In which case he should resign as well.
The fact that he is suing his opponents might make Mr. Middelkoop worse than your average liar.
I love this statement on the website of the Ministry of Defense:
"Furthermore I would like to point out that Dutch military personnel is very loyal when it comes to informing the responsible minister."
Very loyal indeed.
Isn’t it also time to disclose that ISAF is the continuation of OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) with more or less other means?

PS The involvement of Dutch air force in OEF is not secret at all and has never been a secret, I was confused by the statements of this particular member of the air force who made it sound as if he was on a highly sensitive and secret mission in Kyrgyzstan back in 2002. I apologize.


5 comments Last_comment
Argos is an excellent radio programme. Turning and twisting words is a speciality of ministers, an exercise in ‘newspeak’. (This is a cheap comment on cheap politics).
Maybe the Dutch troops were involved in a "stand by" sort of way. Or part of a plan b wich was not executed. Than the fact that they were not "directly" involved can explain the ministers words. Clintons "I did not have sexual intercourse with this woman" comes to mind. Offcourse for a stand by or plan b the troops do get their briefings and preperation so that they are ready when the call comes.
Clinton
Clintons words are not properly reproduced here.
What mr. President said, was: "I did not have sexual RELATIONS with this woman", which was Clinton's basic assumption in his defense in the matter (concerning miss Lewinsky)
Being a political animal he would never ever have used the word INTERCOURSE.
I think politics should go along with a nice and beautiful girl. Wynona Rider, for example.
Dens
I expect better comments.