One of the consequences of the attack in Mumbai is that the tension between India and Pakistan is once again on the rise. That is undoubtedly the intention of the terrorists.

Since 1947, the two countries have fought three wars. They now have nuclear weapons. A war rages in the media. There are reports that Pakistani troops that are supposed to be fighting the Taliban (but might not actually be doing this) in the northwest on the border with Afghanistan, are being moved to the southeast border in order to possibly face the Indian army there.

If the conflict between India and Pakistan worsens, it cannot be ruled out that we, through our military presence in Afghanistan, will be faced with the consequences in one way or another.

In this country that we are supposed to help build up, things are not going well. Last week, President Karzai, in an address before a Security Council delegation (that was visiting in Kabul), said that it is time for the Americans and Nato set a date for the troops to be withdrawn.

"This war has gone on for seven years; the Afghans don't understand any more how come a little force like the Taliban can continue to exist, can continue to flourish, can continue to launch attacks. We now have here the Americans and Nato, altogether 40 countries, supported by the entire international community. No, we don't understand this at all."

Furthermore, Karzai again bitterly criticised the rising number of civilian deaths as a result of American air strikes.

After the changing of the guard in Washington, tactics and strategy on the part of the West will perhaps change. But how? Obama has announced that he will transfer 15,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. That will, one way or another, have an impact on the relations between Washington and Nato.

We can expect that the strict separation between Operation Enduring Freedom and Nato's International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, will fade in favour of a US predominance. Will the Netherlands then also participate in attacks on targets in Pakistan that are suspected of being strongholds or shelters for the Taliban? Would that be in line with the Dutch view on the inviolability of national borders? What are the thoughts in The Hague on this issue at the moment? And if so, do they realise that we are gradually getting more deeply involved in an international maze of war and diplomatic complications over which we have no influence at all? A modest question in parliament would seem to be in order.

The Balkenende government has been constantly extremely frugal when it comes to providing parliament with intelligence about national war policy. We still do not know how we ended up getting involved in the attack on Iraq.

Saddam Hussein did not want to obey Security Council Resolution 1441 and thus had to be punished. Because of that, we supported the United States, while the UN weapons inspections led by Hans Blix were making progress and our MIVD [Dutch military intelligence service] and AIVD [Dutch secret service] had doubts as to whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In an interview with ABC television, US president Bush expressed his regret because the US intelligence agencies made a mistake. The Dutch had apparently not made one, or just made a lesser one. Bush would have been better off to listen to our MIVD. Isn't it high time to award our investigators their deserved honour?

The Dutch government consistently refuses a parliamentary investigation in to the Iraq matter. The former minister of foreign affairs, Ben Bot, who later asked himself whether the attack on Iraq had been such a wise thing, had to swallow his words. The opposition was given the brush-off.

Now, Dutch station RTL News is trying, with an appeal to the freedom of information act (WOB), to demand access to the decision-making process. Soon, the court in Amsterdam will, in a fast-track procedure, rule on the question whether the minutes of the Ministerial Council should be made public. Furthermore, RTL is demanding access to the files of General Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defence and MIVD, insofar as they relate to the run-up to the war.

I would also like to know what is in the document that British prime minster Blair showed at the time to his colleague, Mr. Balkenende - the 'For Your Eyes Only' document. The proof that Saddam had WMDs that could be launched at London and The Hague within 45 minutes? Now that it is certain that the country's security is not jeopardised, it seems to me that there is no obstacle to revealing this secret, too.

In the meantime, all this is recent history. But with a great deal of relevance to current events. Our involvement in Afghanistan is reminiscent of what we experienced a few years ago in Iraq. Then, a theoretical support of the war grew into actual participation in it. Fortunately, we got out of it after it became clear that the war had turned into chaos.

In Afghanistan, the Netherlands was led astray into a “[nation]-building mission.” That developed into a "fighting mission." The Taliban reorganised themselves; Pakistan went from being an ally to being a half-enemy. And now, with the attack in Mumbai, it becomes clear that in Uruzgan we have become part of a complicated sub-complex in the war against terrorism. With the support of a majority in parliament, defence minister Van Middelkoop has promised that we will stay [in Uruzgan] until the summer of 2010.

Perhaps then, it will be time for the next attempt at openness.