Introduction

Contemporary scholarly literature is critical on the perceived lack of strategic thinking in the latest iterations of Western interventions. For example, Anthony Cordesman laments the lack of strategic thinking in the American approach to its current wars, and finds the civilian contribution towards the overall effort wanting. In a similar vein, Sarah Sewell argues political leaders have failed to provide a compelling American strategy for the Iraq wars.[1] The broadsides on America’s strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan are persistent given the indubitable lack of progress in both theatres for almost two decades. As both wars continue, not only are global powers like the United States still involved, but many small states remain engaged. Each keeps contributing to, and participating in, these ongoing conflicts. While the criticism of the American strategic effort is sweeping, and may be considered justified, this critique spills over as collateral to the small allied states who continue to contribute to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This article seeks to dissect the strategic considerations of the Netherlands pulling out as a case study about how small states think about and employ strategy in the contemporary environment.[2]

Strategy and its Functions

According to Colin Gray, the nature of strategy is an enduring aspect of the human condition. It is, and always has been, "about the attempted achievement of desired political ENDS, through the choice of suitable strategic WAYS, employing largely the military MEANS."[3] This logic transcends both time and culture. Although this view of strategy seems rather straightforward, it is very hard to implement successfully. First and foremost, all strategic endeavours must contend with an adversary who is actively seeking to undo your efforts while attempting to attain its own objectives.[4] Secondly, because strategy is a human function, the making and implementation of strategy is subject to the normal fallacies of human decision making such as irrationalities and biases. Of course, these impediments are exacerbated by the volatile and competitive nature of strategic means.[5] A third aspect complicating the formulation of a successful strategy is that the context to which it is applied is complex and subject to change.[6]

…how does a small Western state like the Netherlands seek to cope with the challenge of formulating strategy?

These above mentioned aspects make the formulation and application of strategy difficult. Despite careful and thoughtful deliberations, a state—or another entity— may not accomplish its objectives due to enemy actions, faulty assumptions about the situation at hand, or simply because the desired end cannot be achieved with the chosen or available ways and means. Naturally, these aspects plague global powers like the United States, as well as smaller states such as the Netherlands. The Netherlands does not possess independent national power instruments to the same extent as its great power ally, the United States. Instead it focuses on multilateral approaches towards security, which complicates foreign policy as it must be in accordance with American or European Union objectives. So how does a small Western state like the Netherlands seek to cope with the challenge of formulating strategy?

The Role of Strategy in the Netherlands

The Netherlands is a small state with large interests in the international community. These interests are reflected in its international security policy. In 2013, the main strategic interests were described as the defense of the territory of the Netherlands and its allied states, a well-functioning international order, and economic security. The Netherlands’ 2018 Defense White Paper reiterated these strategic interests, albeit in slightly different terms: to remain safe in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Europe, foster security in Europe’s neighbouring regions, and to secure connections to and from the Netherlands.