"America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home"

Thus spoke President Obama in a speech where he made the right choice of a way forward for conflicts in areas where suggesting keeping troops on the ground should lead to a head examination, according to the defense secretary. Raids like that on Osama bin Laden and drones are probably a preferred way of future operation.

After the financial crisis when the tide turned on America, I actually wrote a post summarizing the situation in the way Obama did but he had problems with the Republican party and the military and went into the surge attempt. After some effect of the surge, Obama can now say that more military and a prolonged military engagement is doomed to fail and have his people's majority on his side.

Another fact that might be affecting the American opinion is that China is just moving ahead with their economy not paying any attention to problems in the world. The futility of the Arab Spring in terms of what can actually be achieved with military means might also play a role. The successful raid against bin Laden renders an opportunity for a mission accomplished of some sort.

Carl Bildt reacted strongly on the idea that Americans should focus on their own problems but is he really surprised? This notion has matured over the last three years. Also, if you want to do nation building it might pay off to select countries that are in a significantly better shape than Afghanistan and Somalia to build credit and to gain experience. Starting out with one of the bottom tier countries might just give development strategies a futile and failing air. Obama is giving people like Westerwelle and Bildt problems though because their cause for being in Afghanistan for their populaces, nation building, is significantly weakened.

As I claimed ahead of the Libya debacle, it is one thing to wish you can prevent ethnic cleansing but another to actually being able to do something. We might stand ahead of an era where the failing states will have to be left to their fate while the establishment focuses on countries that can be saved by others.

Midterm elections in the US

Read Johan Norberg's, Swedish intellectual and writer, book on happiness, Den Eviga Matchen om Lyckan, this week-end. I enjoyed the narrative on happiness through the times from Aristotle although I don't share the idea of Norberg's competition between Aristotle and Jesus. He suggests that Thomas Aquinas might have had problems of knowing whether God or Aristotle was the greatest and that this might have contributed to his untimely death. I happen to believe that the unique combination of Christianity and the learning from the Antique was what made Europe. According to Francis Bacon Man should subdue Nature which I believe might have been instrumental along with the notion that this is possible with gun powder, the compass and the movable type.

I believe that it is possible to argue that individualism is supported by the happiness concept though. It is rather self-evident that it is easier to accomodate people's idea of what is valuable by securing for the individual to self-actualize his life. Communitarianism does not really exist because there is no "public mind" it is always and indivudual, a leader, that gives his account of the community wish, followers.

Norberg, however, seems to be a little disappointed that the research available from positive psychology is not leading to a development of liberalism. He concludes that Thomas Jefferson was right all along when he claimed that it is the actual pursuit of happiness that matters and not happiness itself. Rather the development of political philosophy since John Rawls seems to have abandoned the happiness of utilitarianism for justice and citizen ship theory. Indeed justice is a core value in positive psychology also believed to be of great importance in the psychology of religion.

What has become then of the religion-like campaign of Obama a couple of years ago. It seems to have been overtaken by another religion-like phenomenon where the Bible has been replaced by the US Constitution. People want America back and this is manifested by reverence of the Constitution as Ginna Lindberg, the US correspondent for the Swedish Radio, pointed out the other day. The Tea Party movement has succeeded in rallying people to the degree that the House of Representatives will fall to the Republicans and perhaps also the Senate as most pundits seem to think.

The reason for this is partly that a gloom, not happiness, has settled over US after the financial crisis. I finally found an article in Foreign Affairs (Nov-Dec 2010) that laid down a more sensible prediction about the future for the US as absolutely quite OK even if the relative power is going down as Asia is rising to the occasion. A lost Midterm election is historically the most likely outcome for the sitting president and most people give Obama the benefit of the doubt. My feeling is that he will return to grace, after all he has leveled out on a 45% approval rating, as the economy is improving because there is no single personality with a strong enough program to challenge him among the Republicans.

It remains to be seen whether a republican House of Representatives is going to affect the Afghanistan war? The Swedes recently made up their mind with a broad consensus position of phasing out the combat mission for a support ditto in 2014 just as Hillary Clinton writes a long article in Foreign Affairs (Nov-Dec 2010) about the need for more diplomacy and development aid. A positive outcome from the Afghanistan mission might however require more combat to maintain a status quo as long as needed for establishing stability which might take some time.

Afghanistan?

"Om de rödgröna vinner valet kommer Sverige att behålla sin militära närvaro i Afghanistan i höst, men truppnärvaron kommer ska inte utökas, vilket den borgerliga alliansen gemensamt gått ut med att man vill göra.
– Vi säger absolut nej till det, sade Mona Sahlin under presskonferensen där hon hade Peter Eriksson (MP) och Lars Ohly (V) vid sin sida.
Enligt de rödgrönas gemensamma strategi för Afghanistan ska ett militärt tillbakadragande påbörjas i juli 2011. Första halvåret 2013 ska svensk militär vara helt ute ur Afghanistan."

If you divide 150,000/300m with 500/9.3m, you will find out that the per capita number of soldiers from the US is about ten times that of Sweden in Afghanistan. The right of center governing coalition 'Alliansen' wants to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan but the opposition in the Swedish election on September 19, the 'Red-Greens', has today decided to bring the troops home starting July 2011, the same date as President Obama suggested. Troops should be out by 2013.

How does Sweden defend the fact that the US has 10 times more troops per capita in Afghanistan? Is it ten times more likely with a terrorist attack in the US than in Sweden? Possibly, but another way of reasoning is that Sweden should help out to fight international terrorism to the same extent as the US do, for example, keep the seaways of the world open for traffic. Maintaining order in the world and fighting terrorism is a burden that should be shared and Sweden should stay as long as NATO stays for solidarity reasons.

There are problems with terrorism in many places in the world and if Sweden can help out in Afghanistan that is where we should be. It is uncertain for how long a boost in security is necessary before Afghans can maintain order themselves. Before this time the methods of the Taliban, stepping into a village and executing the village elders for control, simply will destroy the possibility of other types of aid. Right now there is a surge of activity and it is also a little premature to make a withdrawal decision before the strategy review by Obama in December.

Based on what I can read in the media, the war in Afghanistan is lost, like the war in Iraq was around 2006. However, if I consider the full context and discount the hype, and incorporate General Petraeus recent hedge for the July 2011 start of withdrawal, the West is pressured by the terrorists to show resolve. We need to stay in order to achieve stability and to not show signs of defeat like a mosque at Ground Zero.

It remains important to not tolerate the ruling tactics of a group like the Taliban especially now after the deluge in Pakistan where Talibans have threatened to attack aid workers. The Pakistani Taliban is dependent on the Pakistani anti-Americanism and sees aid workers as a threat because of this.

Radical Muslims are not significantly more religious than Moderates

Charles Krauthammer makes a reference to a Gallup Poll article where various ideas were analyzed.

Radical Muslims were defined as those: 1) feeling the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were "completely justified"; and 2) having an unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion about the US. 7% of Muslims across ten countries studied were radicals.

However, the poll showed that attendance to religious services did not significantly differ between radicals and moderates. Religion was determined to be equally important in the lives of the two groups.

The radicals were generally more educated and affluent. Thus it is not a question of manipulation of ignorant masses that gives radicalism in this case.

Rather, the radicals felt that they were being dominated by or even occupied by the West. So if Americans feel threatened by radical Muslims these Muslims rather feel oppressed by Americans.

Hostile feelings were not so pronounced towards countries like Germany and France. It is thus more of an anti-Americanism than an anti-West question.

It is, of course, important to note that religiosity itself is not a factor in radicalism when trying to judge the situation at Ground Zero and the possible implication this controversy has for Swedish troops in Afghanistan. West should therefore definitely not be at war with the religion Islam. The problem is rather that people in certain locations, happening to be Muslims, have hostile feelings towards Westerners, particularly Americans.

However, particular groups as the Taliban, who cut noses of girls and stone people to death for trivialities have their own idiosyncrasies and are very sensitive to religious symbolism, like their own vindication for the erection of a mosque close to Ground Zero. The Taliban does not seem to fit the characterization of the radical group in the poll.

Mosque Madness?

Op-Ed Columnist - Our Mosque Madness - NYTimes.com: "Some critics have said the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers would be to allow a mosque to be built near ground zero. Actually, the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers is the moral timidity that would ban a mosque from that neighborhood. Our enemies struck at our heart, but did they also warp our identity?"

Maureen Dowd says that the terrorists make us change our identity. But is this really true? I believe that if a certain distinction is not made, ie that we deal with moderate Muslims elsewhere and with the fundamentalist Muslims at Ground Zero, we are trying to discuss two things at the same time. Different responses are warranted for these different sites.

In Europe hysteria recently erupted over building minarets for mosques. The burka/niqab debate is on. I live in the second largest city of Sweden where Muslims have had problems for years of building a mosque--in the middle of nowhere. This is wrong but it stems from the giddiness that comes from things like persecution of Chaldeans in Iraq and the fact that the Pope got a no thanks from the Saudis for building a church in Saudi Arabia. People ask themselves why cultural exchange should be unidirectional?

It is probably hard to fathom how much of a hero status the martyrs of 9/11 got from for example the Taliban. Allowing a mosque to be built at Ground Zero is a booster event for these sentiments and is going to cost European and American lives in Afghanistan. Moderate Muslims ought to understand this.

Problems do appear if one assumes a judgment of leaving Afghanistan immediately. A sentiment that is prevalent in the left-leaning press the last few years. Then military symbolics does not matter. It is, however, evident from polls indicating some 70% aversion for building the mosque, that the American people are sensitive to the symbol in question.

The Ground Zero mosque and Afghanistan

Op-Ed Columnist - Islam and the Two Americas - NYTimes.com: "By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they'll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill-served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam."

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque, is un-American in the sense that he speaks against 68% of the Americans who doubt the idea of building a mosque at Ground Zero. Religious freedom dictates that Muslims can build in other places, but not here, and now. Charles Krauthammer writes in The Jerusalem Post that it would be an equivalent of building a Japanese shrine on Pearl Harbor. And this is the problem, the Taliban would celebrate a victory if a mosque materializes in this spot. A definitive sign of weakness in an on-going war with Muslim fundamentalists.

Ross Douthat, the New York Times columnist above writes about two Americas, a constitutional and a cultural, that want a mosque and that are against it, respectively. The US is currently polarized in many fashions, Republicans and Democrats, Tea Partyers and other Republicans, Democrats that go on Chelsea's wedding and those who don't. But I'm not sure that the cultural Americans described are not constitutional? I once wrote in the blog that Obama's popularity abroad, relative George W. Bush, partly stems from a projection of weakness, a young and inexperienced President, and now he reinforces this notion by wavering on the issue. He wants to leave Iraq and Afghanistan with the tail between his legs not after having achieved something.

General David Petraeus have just made the necessary comment that most probably there will not be any large withdrawal of troops in July 2011 as Obama earlier prescribed. When McChrystal left, it was claimed that there was no changes on strategy in Afghanistan. However, the more long term perspective of McChrystal seems to have won out, after all, and this is probably in line with common sense in the region. A longer perspective, at least five years as the ISAF people claimed, would pacify the New York Times editors temporarily. Waging wars with the present media cover seems at times impossible. It is the probable reason for the rise in the so called "Shadow War".

Independents?

With only 38% of Independent voters now approving Obama how much lower will his overall support go next month? - Yahoo! Answers: "Thirty-eight percent of independents approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, the first time independent approval of Obama has dropped below 40% in a Gallup Daily tracking weekly aggregate. Meanwhile, Obama maintains the support of 81% of Democrats, and his job approval among Republicans remains low, at 12%."

According to social psychologists democrats value care and fairness over loyalty, respect for authorities and purity which is what republicans value most. As the data show above the US is fairly polarized among the two major parties. RealClearPolitics.com shows that the current trend for the US is that Obama is slowly losing overall support he is now at 46% and that the number of people that think the US is on the wrong track is slowly increasing and now at 62%.

When you, like myself, end up as an independent in a highly polarized environment, you get angry looks from both sides. It would be my guess that independents might often be interested in foreign policy. Except for the Libertarians in the US that are isolationist. However, as the article in SpiegelOnline that I cited earlier today showed two-thirds of Germans are against the Afghanistan mission. The author argues that in the representative system it is still up to the government to rule as it sees fit between the elections and that it therefore is a legitimate mission.

Can't help thinking that such a discordance between the people and the ruling elite is troublesome. The German people, according to the Eurobarometer, does not want to share a foreign policy with the US. Thus this is probably the more important reason for the discontent rather than the casualties, 46 so far. Robert D. Blackwill, a former US Ambassador to India, suggests that it is time for partitioning Afghanistan into a northern and a southern region. That would mean that the peacekeepers, like Sweden and Germany, might help out in the north-west and that the US and the Commonwealth would fight the Pashtuns in the south. I thought it already looked like such a partition was in place?

So, what kind of prediction could be made from the falling and rising discontent of Obama and his mission, respectively? It is soon midterm elections and Obama even smiled when meeting Netanyahu recently. General Petraeus conveniently fell asleep when he was to answer if the July 2011 deadline in Afghanistan was reasonable. Obama has to keep this wording because he wants to maintain his leftish Democrat support. The last figures I saw on the amount of people negative on Afghanistan was around 50% so there is a similar situation to that in Germany.

The reason I wrote all this is to note the important thing that it seems like the elites and the people live and judge matters with different information in different worlds. This is a threat to democracy! We need more transparency.

The Modern Soldier?

Afghanistan and the West: The Difficult Relationship between Democracy and War - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International: "And because the German public is particularly sensitive, as a result of the two world wars, the Bundeswehr has even tried to create a new type of soldier: the good, good-natured warrior, a man with a rose in his gun barrel, friendly, helpful and devoid of the inner beast."

The COIN wielding General McChrystal was sacked. One reason could have been that the new aid worker like soldier did not function as expected. It is about winning hearts and minds but if the Taliban runs a full scale terror against this approach the question is if this does not require harder resistance? Someone on the Swedish radio proudly said that the Swedish soldiers were much better than the Americans on peace keeping. I guess the problem is that if there is no peace to keep this might represent a problem rather than an asset.

I'd like to continue from my last post and ask if the Talibans are an equivalent of the Indians? I don't think so myself. They are rather gangsters in the drug trade. Most Afghans probably see what their society could become if peace reined and if their economy could be boosted. They want to integrate with a world economy and live more comfortable lives, albeit with their own religion. The eternal question then is what kind of soldier is in need for fighting the Afghan battle? This is apparently a matter of intense debate. The Taliban's tactics, like Hamas', is to hide out among civilians and to use gangster methods to coerce these people. Is it possible to fight such battles without civilian casualties. I don't think so but politicians must face a debate on how high the losses can be before the mission is to be cancelled. The article above is asking the German politicians to do this.

Is the soldier depicted above a fictive construct or is it possible to generate such individuals? After all, when people start shooting at each other survival becomes paramount and stipulating examples is part of war fare. It is of course a great difference of coming in from outside and fight in somebody's else's war than to be engaged in a local conflict with age old internal problems and animosities that elicit demand for revenge that then would ignite the soldier's "inner beast" mentioned. The article is important because it brings up the current juggling of responsibility and judgment between the politicians and the military.

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt?

Fluffiga anklagelser - DN.se: "Genom vägbygget gjorde Lundin Oil ett stort område som annars inte hade gått att nå tillgängligt för milisen, enligt rapporten. Därmed är Lundin Oil medskyldiga till folkfördrivningen, menar man och insinuerar helt utan bevis att företaget byggt vägen i syfte att underlätta fördrivningen."

It is interesting to see that DN.se has to kick Bildt for being nice to him in an article by saying he showed poor judgment. Charlie Weimers says on his blog that only 1/3 of journalists sympathizes with the center-right Alliansen which carries a possible explanation.

However, I cannot help finding it interesting that building a road, normally considered as an aid project, is used by interest groups to charge a Swedish oil company for vile behavior. What is going to happen in Afghanistan when roads are going to be built? Who is going to invest when they will become accused that the Taliban used their road?

It seems to me that going in in countries like Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan with investments will have to consider those in power locally. The alternative is to stay out and leave these countries as they are. It is also my assumption the multinationals originating in the West are more favorable to a country than those emanating from authoritarian countries.

The article brings up a citation from Adolf Lundin, the Chairman of the Board of Lundin Oil where he states: "that they work without regard for political risks (...) the only thing that is important for us is that we are on to something really big". It seems to me that such a statement is a mere explanation of why investments in Sudan are being made at all. Companies are becoming aware of the need of showing more humanitarian concern, which is good, all the more reason then that they are on to something big in order to afford this.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal?

The New York Times has already fired McChrystal. It strikes me, however, that the general found himself in a position where he has to go to save the mission. Gave the interview, and hands in his letter of resignation. I find it unlikely that he would make such a "mistake" to "act without judgment".

What if he wants to try to force a change in the administration? Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was spared in the Rolling Stone article. Apparently the chemistry between McChrystal and Obama was not right after their first meeting. McChrystal did not find that Obama was sufficiently engaged in the problem. General Petraeus has also begun to address policy questions like stating that Israel has become a liability for the US military.

McChrystal's importance on the mission might be sufficiently grand to make it possible gain such a moral victory? Hamid Karzai has turned to Pakistan and India, fired two ministers that were the most trusted by the US, is McChrystal trying to regain his trust by fouling Karzai's enemies in the administration?

McChrystal's strategy is probably top of the line in this kind of new warfare and if Obama wants to minimize loss, to use Thomas Friedman's conclusion today, or to make it possible to transform Afghanistan to a stable country based on mineral wealth to cite others. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO commander, Carl Bildt, the Foreign Minister of Sweden, and Hamid Karzai fully supports McChrystal. Obama is facing a choice where he is forced to choose between Joe Biden and Eikenberry and McChrystal. The NSA chief James Jones, who was called "clown" might stay.

On the other hand, maybe the whole affair is about changing the over-all strategy? The number of casualties has increased every year since the beginning 8.5 years ago and the summer fighting season now begins. Although I haven't seen the data, preliminary figures might already be possible to project to yet another record peak of deaths?

The initial COIN endeavor in Marjah was troublesome and the conclusion is that the time schedule is bust for initial withdrawal of troops in July next year. The Kandahar surge is delayed because of this. The New York Times thinks the US and ISAF has a draw with the Taliban and Friedman says, pointedly, that it might be a mistake to try to teach the Afghans how to fight themselves? Then falls the security first on our call strategy.

It seems to me that the only other strategy for achieving stability for extracting mineral wealth and increasing living standards for the Afghan people is to let the country shake down to its natural power state by leaving them alone and taking care of US security needs later by pointed al Qaida attacks by special forces. Somalia style. I think Joe Biden, the US Vice President, had such ideas. This would mean that Obama has come around to his and Eikenberry's way of looking at things.

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech

Full text of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech - White House- msnbc.com: "So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams."

Taking a pause and contemplating what President Obama said about war and its prevalence a while ago, I wonder about the realism of warfare. The Economist has a debate on whether countries should intervene militarily in the affairs of for example Somalia. It is probably necessary now and then but moving in to make Somalia a democracy is in all probability not a viable proposition.

Afghanistan was until recently in the same shape with opium trade rather than piracy. Now they have a fighting chance to develop. Madeleine Albright says that one should intervene even if a country does not represent a strategic site like she did on the Balkans. Still there was much more realism on the Balkans than in Somalia.

Lately, there seems to be a difference as to the reason for why we are in Afghanistan depending on which country representative speak. Realists say we want to prevent terrorism and then we are out of there. Dreamers say we will coach you to statehood.

Potentially good news on Afghanistan

U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com: "The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials."

Well, a previous copper deposit was tapped by the Chinese not so long ago. According to this article an Afghan minister was bribed with $30m. Even if the minister is no longer in service, it was of course a set-back that Afghanistan did not give this project to countries which are dying on their soil for their liberty.

The time it will take for the Afghans to develop these finds is apparently a decade or two. But it could come as from heaven sent for the Afghans to pay for their security, even if it can be read between the lines that a future for Karzai might be with his Taleban pashtuns. It has earlier been estimated that Karzai would need support for his army during many a year forward before the Afghan economy would sustain it.

As a supplement to the criminally infested opium trade a source of legal tender which would emanate from the mining operations would of course potentially straighten out the very fiber of the Afghan society. Something to build a functioning state on. It is interesting if this find have anything to do with the departure of the German president? What kind of moral would one like to make on reasons for staying on in Afghanistan if lithium from Afghanistan would fuel German and American car batteries in the future?

I don't know what kind of deal the Chinese gave Afghanistan on the large copper mine but Iraq apparently suffer from lack of foreign investments due to the fact that they want to keep most of the oil for themselves. Who takes the risk and who is going to get what profit? Pakistan seems to be friendly with the Talebans and they are very anti-American, and pro-China, from who they got the atom bomb. Afghanistan would want to do business with their "friends". What if Afghanistan wants to develop their mining with China rather than with the West?

The Russians had apparently found the deposits when they were around prior to 1989. That would have been colonization. Voices would be raised in the West, and elsewhere, if the West colonized Afghanistan. Karzai has been complaining in this direction even if the US never really colonized a country based on their own history. Therefore, this pot of gold might actually complicate things rather than simplifying matters. Let's hope Karzai does not lose confidence in the West and that he tries to develop this relation for optimal utilization and future well being of the Afghan people.

Iran Sanctions' Status

Editorial - Iran, Sanctions and Mr. Gates’s Memo - NYTimes.com: "There, the news is not good. While Russian and Chinese leaders told Mr. Obama that they will work seriously on new sanctions, diplomats say their representatives are already seeking ways to dilute any resolution. Brazil and Turkey, which currently sit on the Security Council and have a lot of international sway, also are resisting."

If you look back a while, there is a picture emerging of an endless discussion of talks, sanctions and bombs when it comes to Iran. The point were Iran would have a nuclear weapon capability is pushed forward all the time--in absurdum. Apparently the distinction between a nuclear capable Iran and the one today cannot even be discussed in the open. However, the window of opportunity is slowly closing now when Brazil and Turkey are against sanctions as well. Many would agree that something has to be done and it seems evident that Europe has to make up its mind if it wants to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or if it still is in NATO? The problems in Afghanistan are linked to those in Israel/Palestine and Iraq. Iran is the key.

The waves in Europe have recently been geared at giving the view that the world has become a true multipolar entity. It seems to fit Europe to want to disappear from view among themselves and to express an intense urge to be left alone in peace. In the mean time, countries like Russia is meddling in the world as detailed in an article by Bronwen Maddox at the Times. Security arrangements with Russia ought to be out of question as suggested in an article by Ben Knight in Deutsche Welle.

I think I wrote something yesterday but I can't resist writing a little today about what I think is very important, that Europe realizes that the US is the only friend they have. The Russia friendliness as of late in Europe seems to disregard totally the mental power fight surrounding the Iran case between the two power blocks that were detailed by Robert Kagan in the presidential election debate of 2008. It is a serious breach of confidence with the US, who seem to want to work along the line of striking deals with Russia and China on security issues which are not possible if they are not of the token quality recently seen in removing nuclear missiles.

An article in Washington Post yesterday claimed it was time to pack up and leave Afghanistan, and to give up American influence in the World altogether, but that probably also means that you loose the other Middle Eastern fights to a resurgent Iran. Fareed Zakaria who wrote the book The Post-American World still think the fight in Afghanistan is worth its while and he also think people should go more easy on Hamid Karzai for its facilitation. He also suggested that this was in part for the sake of India which he hails from. Trans-Atlantic influence in the world remains very important.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we are dealing with a new Cold War. Between countries that don't know how to behave and those who do. Between countries that have decent governments with low corruption and those who don't. Between democracy and authoritarianism. Again, the key is Iran and we eagerly await the destabilization of its suppressive rule.

The Afghanistan problem

Nej till kriget Ledare Aftonbladet: "Sammanblandningen mellan USA:s krig mot terrorismen och FN:s Isaf-styrka, som ska bidra med säkerhet och utbilda afghansk polis och militär och möjliggöra humanitära insatser, är djupt problematisk. Att FN-styrkan dessutom leds av Nato och av en amerikansk general gör inte saken bättre."

Aftonbladet, the newspaper that accused Israel of killing Palestinians and stealing their organs, claims that there is a problem because civilian mores are mixed up with America's war against terrorism in Afghanistan. However, we are not just fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan we are also fighting Iran. Like the US was doing and are doing in Iraq. Iran has chosen to wage a clandestine war against all West's interests in the region. They support Hamas and Hizbollah. They have infiltrated Iraq and they train, lodge and equip fighters that aid the Taliban. Even if they have not formally attacked another country they are expansive and thusly want to propagate their revolution.

Much of the fighting morale for the Taliban is probably coming from the knowledge that Iran supports them. Michael Rubin a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and lectures at the Naval Postgraduate School and at Johns Hopkins University writes and article which elaborates the case for a regime change in Iran. I have earlier thought that the only way forward was a non-sanction approach on Iran but I have reassessed this position to surgical sanctions engineered for targeting only the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Robert Gates, the American Defence Secretary, recently brought up the problem of how to approach the situation Iran's nuclear program is causing. What is new with Rubin's approach is that he rules out bombing which is thought to only irritate and anger those positive to the West that are the prerequisite for a regime change. It is indeed problematic with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and with their attitude they have caused a terrible situation in the Middle East. It would be very good if a new government in Iran would decide to not develop nuclear weapons.

Afghanistan might be insignificant when it comes to commerce but it is situated in an important area where the interests of the US, Russia and China meet. Kyrgyzstan is apparently starting to feel the pressure as well. It harbors both Russian and American bases and the actions of Russia as of late indicates that Russians what the American base shut. Public relations wise Russia is doing terribly well recently in Europe. President Medvedev's deft flight to Krakow through the Icelandic ashes when European chiefs of state huddled in cars and cessnas certainly impressed. However, when push comes to showe they are probably friends of the Islamic Republic to whom they sell important air defence systems that protects them against potential Western assaults. As the development of Central Asia proceeds by Russia and China, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan are a way to the sea half ways as India also have taken note of since they have entered into Afghanistan with quite some funds.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, recently exclaimed that he'd join the Taliban if not so and so but at the same time he says he needs funds for his security forces until 2014. As long as Iran keeps up their covert operations, the war in Afghanistan can drag on for quite some time. Sweden should definitely stay and support the US together with other NATO forces and the purchase of American helicopters to support our troops is well seen. It is my belief that Afghans are better off in the West than in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. A stable Afghanistan is also going to have positive effects on security in Pakistan.

The Taliban wants to become "siloviks" in a future Afghanistan?

Taliban’s supreme leader signals willingness to talk peace - Times Online: "Abdul Rashid [a Taliban] said: “We didn’t have the capability to govern the country and we were surprised by how things went. We lacked people with either experience or technical expertise in government. Now all we’re doing is driving the invader out. We will leave politics to civil society and return to our madrasahs [religious schools]."

In another world I encountered people that said "we have the power in our hands". I said: that's fine but what are you going to do with it? This is how I see the siloviks. They have the power but no charisma and knowledge to inspire and lead the people. They istead rule by threats when their "religious" visions are threatened. It indeed sounds like Ahmadinejad has been talking to them.

Chaos in Afghanistan?

Afghan Leader Is Seen to Flout Influence of U.S. - NYTimes.com: "“He [Karzai] has developed a complete theory of American power,” said an Afghan who attended the lunch and who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “He believes that America is trying to dominate the region, and that he is the only one who can stand up to them.”
Mr. Karzai said that, left alone, he could strike a deal with the Taliban, but that the United States refuses to allow him. The American goal, he said, was to keep the Afghan conflict going, and thereby allow American troops to stay in the country."

Thomas L. Friedman today gives voice to the American frustration after Hamid Karzai revenges on Obama by inviting Ahmadinejad to his palace for a fierce anti-American speech. The above information makes the present goal of educating Karzai's forces to take over control of Afghanistan defunct.

Friedman's conclusion is that Karzai would betray America even if they helped him to restore order in Afghanistan. There have been other evidence for this development in that Karzai have sold the right to a giant copper mine to the Chinese and not to a country of the NATO coalition. This is in the same vein as Iraq's choice of Syria as a main business partner. Yes, it should be noted that other countries are indeed involved in the conflict which is not referred to in the two above articles.

Karzai is frustrated himself, apparently, and wants to solve the situation regionally and is even soliciting advice from Iran. However, this is a man that is rumored to only have control of Kabul. It would then be strange that he wouldn't want the Americans or NATO to dominate the region. It would, at least theoretically, give him some peace of mind. With the above information it is emphasized that the actual reason for why NATO is present in Afghanistan is not something that there is a firm consensus about. McChrystal's new strategy is of course evidence for that the presence of foreign troops is problematic and Karzai's idea on peace with the Taliban probably would mean that all foreign troops should leave.

As Friedman points out NATO is in the middle of a surge when Karzai turns his back on them. Therefore it looks like there is a risk for the whole operation might fizzle because without Karzai and his troops support there might not be enough people to clear, hold and develop the area. Karzai is probably sufficient friendly with the Taliban via his war lords that he wants to save their position by going against NATO, ie, limit the damage. If the next year still develops into a take-over and controlling of the land by NATO the question is what they would do then? Find another leader might not be that easy in a country without a developed structure.

Sverker Göranson, the Swedish military chief, said in a recent interview that no operations where performed any longer without the presence of Karzai's men. The above delineated conflict between the US and Afghanistan must mean that severe strain and distrust must have been inflicted on all operations. President Obama emphasized on his recent visit to Kabul that Karzai have to do more on corruption. It should then be remembered that Afghanistan is ranked 179 of 180 possible, only Somalia is lower, on the Transparency International corruption index. I think it is fair to ask if much progress can be expected under these circumstances?

Well, casualties were up last month compared to last year and this would spell the nightmare scenario where the yearly increase in casualties would continue despite the new strategy. The conclusion I can draw from available information is that the situation has become very precarious. Göranson claimed that more Swedish casualties were expected. I lost the light at the end of the tunnel here, I must admit.

Israel a liability for the US! Tough talk or fact based on research?

'Israel saves, doesn’t endanger, US lives': "This argument first surfaced immediately after the Ramat Shlomo issue broke, with a furious Biden quoted by Yediot Aharonot as telling Netanyahu, “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace. Biden's staff later denied that he made that comment, but regardless, that argument had penetrated the US public discussion about Israel.

Then the Foreign Policy magazine web site ran a story a couple of days later saying that the Commander of the US Central Command, Major General David Petraeus, sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year "with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers."

Well, General Petraeus is not the kind of person that you want to argue against. He is the man that turned the tide on the Iraq war. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton that makes him eligible for interpreting intelligence data on top of this. However, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israelian PM, does just that. I guess he lives in the Middle East and has tentacles everywhere. It still seems to me that his judgement that Israel is an asset rather than a liability is reasonable.

Tough talk then... to reach objectives for the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine? Peace negotiations that the top players in Israel does not think have the possibility to materialize in the short run. My problem with this is that a peace deal between Palestine and Israel, as unlikely as it is, is not going to change Iran's belligerence via Hizbollah and Hamas. According to Petraeus Iran is helping al Qaida now in Afghanistan as well. Ariel Sharon gave Gaza to the Palestinians and they turned it into a war zone...with the help of Iran. This is therefore the likely outcome of further land concessions. Iran blocks effectively peace.

I can't resist making a comment comparing the fight about Afghanistan that apparently is worth NATO lives and that Israel's existence would not be subject to the same treatment. It seems to me that Israel as an asset far supersedes that of Afghanistan.

The 19% Job Approval US Congress flexes its Human Rights Muscle?

Armenian Genocide Resolution Advances Despite Obama Push - WSJ.com: "The House panel's resolution, approved on a 23-22 vote, faces an uncertain future in Congress. But it nonetheless could damage U.S. relations with Turkey, a vital ally in the Middle East and Central Asia. Within minutes of the vote, Ankara said it was recalling its ambassador from Washington for consultations. Turkey took the same step in 2007, when the committee passed a similar resolution."

President Obama's administration tried to derail this decision, partly because of concerns from the Weapon Industry, and Hilary Clinton warned that it could derange the sensitive negotiations between Turkey and Armenia. The decision means that the US is closing in on the 20 nations so far claiming that Turkey committed a genocide. The NGO? European Parliament also does. The 20 countries are: Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lituania, Lebanon, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City, and Venezuela.

Genocide scholars generally think it was a genocide and it would be interesting to know why Obama hesitates. He claimed genocide during his campaign. Maybe he has to please people to get his Healthcare bill through? The House Committee on Foreign Affairs did the right thing though. There will never be any meaningful discussion with Turkey if such a historic facts is not visible on the table. This is even more important when Turkey is a NATO ally. Procuring help from Turkey with Iran and Afghanistan also benefits from this clarity.

One wonders why Israel and the UK does not use the word "genocide" to describe what happened in 1915. In 2007 Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates wrote an open letter to Congress where they warned for increased risks for US troops in the field if Turkey was antagonized. WSJ.com also writes that there will now be a probable increase of anti-Americanism in Turkey, something that is a problem already. DN.se writes that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish premier, also have written on the official Turkish web site that the incident might damage the American-Turkish relations and jeopardize the negotiations with Armenia.

Afghanistan: a future?

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor - The Taliban and Reconciliation - NYTimes.com: "1) The coalition surge and the expansion of Afghan forces must change the balance of power against the insurgents, confronting them with prospects for defeat; 2) The Karzai government must become more effective; 3) A regional solution must be found for South Asia to induce Pakistan to stop allowing its territory to be used as a sanctuary by the Taliban; and 4) The Obama administration must change the regional perception that it intends to begin disengaging from Afghanistan after 18 months."

The former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, now with CSIS, talks about the four points necessary for success and reconciliation and integration in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, according to the same, only the first is being pursued. As before, the mission is a tall order. The article points out that the main problem right now is that the Taliban is not on a losing streak.

Nils Horner, the excellent Asia correspondent for SR, had arranged an interview with a senior Taliban leader that lives in Kabul who interestingly said that the Taliban was not against the education of women. They had just not had the proper resources to deal with this question? If this is true, it might be a very important step forward for future reconciliation, should the conditions permit. This question is probably very important for the public support of the NATO mission in Sweden. Upon the recent death of the two officers and their interpreter support for the Swedish mission has increased.

A step back for the mission was given the other day when the future support from the Netherlands was jeopardized by the fall of their government. The two major parties in a coalition the center-right Christian Democrats and Labour could not agree. In Sweden the Social Democrats are divided and if the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating we might find ourselves in a situation like that in the Netherlands. Apparently the region where they are situated, Uruzgan, neighboring Helmand, is one of the best controlled and was to serve as an example for others. The Netherlands have lost 21 of their 2,000 troops. Furthermore, the Uruzgan province suffered the death of 30 civilians in a recent NATO attack.

The fourth point of Khalilzad above is particularly difficult to satisfy since President Obama promised the beginning of removal of troops in July 2011. This would mean that Afghan troops would be able to replace NATO troops something that has been questioned in articles in the New York Times recently. However, there has recently been the capture of two Taliban heads in Pakistan which might mean that point three is in progress. It seems, however, that the military action against Talibans in Pakistan that begun lately have fizzled.

The leading foreign policy of Sweden

Fredrik Malm: Utrikesdebatt idag: "Vänsterpartiet håller i oppositionens taktpinne: Oppositionen presenterade idag en överenskommelse om utrikespolitiken. Men frågan är vad de egentligen har kommit överens om. Där nämns ingenting om EU. Där nämns ingenting om Afghanistan. Orsaken är att S, V och MP inte kan enas."

Let us hope that Obama's and McChrystal's strategy works in Afghanistan. This would be good for most people. However, if it fails and the death toll continues to increase also this year this would mean that the "Red-Green mess" will clarify most eminently.

Based on available data the prospects for a happy ending are low. Hopefully there are things we don't now. The spin for the moment looks beneficial.

Hope then separates us from a new era in Swedish foreign policy with the return of a neutrality politics. A type of isolationism.