September 11, 2001?

Daniel Pipes claims, in his book In the Path of God from 1983 which was republished 2002 after the 9/11 catastrophe, that militant Islam, or fundamentalism, is hopeless which I agree with. He drew the conclusion in 2002 and 1983 that Muslims had to westernize in order to modernize. I guess this is not valid because Asian countries have been modernizing without completely westernizing, keeping a distinct original character. Samuel P Huntington, in his book Clash of Civilizations from 1996, claims that the Western civilization is not universal hinting at the possibility that the Sinic and Muslim civilizations will never merge into the Western.  My analysis of this extremely important issue is that the western culture is the most biological and psychologically most correct one. Other cultures have to use more coercion to get people to thrive. This would be an argument for advocating westernization. Already John Locke, who was trained as a physician, set forward psychologically relevant rules and rights. A major risk is that an Asian country could with harsher, inhumane methods push their people to challenge the West economically. Someone said that an equivalent of the Roman Empire development could take place from this time’s democratic embryo. I don’t believe this will happen though. The West is more significant than Greece was at the time.

Why did the destruction of the 11^th September 2001 take place? Pipes argues that westernization is more problematic for the Muslims than modernization and the Arab Spring that we witness today is probably more a modernization attempt rather than a westernization ditto. Since 1983 the population of Egypt and Iran has doubled, and this madness creates a very large youth unemployment. Most Muslims adhered to traditional Islam where people realized that sharia did not work and had come to a compromise which Pipes calls The Medieval Synthesis, although there has been fundamentalists all the way from the beginning. Pipes argues that from about 1970 oil wealth has made Muslims more fundamentalistic although he says in the foreword of the 2002 edition of his book that the issue is more complicated.

Looking back ten years it has become seemingly conventional wisdom, especially in Europe, that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have been completely in vain. I’m not so sure. If the US had not reacted forcefully, terrorism might have been encouraged. Now the swift occupations told governments in the Middle East to prevent terrorism on their soil that might otherwise be dealt with in a similar fashion. Saddam Hussein was also a person that was so disastrous in the region that removing him also set a precedent which Gadhafi now have faced. I therefore do not think the human sacrifice demanded so far have been in vain. What we have learned so far, however, is that being the leader of the free world is making you undeservedly unpopular.

Iraq?

American power: After Iraq The Economist: "When President Obama confirms next week that all American combat forces have left Iraq, you can be sure of one thing. He will not repeat the triumphalism of George Bush’s suggestion seven years ago that America’s mission there has been accomplished. Mr Obama always considered this a “dumb” war, and events have proved him largely right. America and its allies may have rid the Middle East of a bloodstained dictator, but Saddam Hussein’s vaunted weapons of mass destruction turned out to be a chimera and the cost in American and especially Iraqi lives has been hideous."

So Obama thinks the Iraq war has been a "dumb war", then Paul D. Wolfowitz provides an interesting argument that question this hypothesis. As Obama said in his Nobel Peace prize speech some wars are justified and if one compares the Iraq war with the Korean War it might be too early to tell whether the Iraq war was worth the sacrifice or not. I find it very troublesome that a lot of people can be for a war at one point and then change their minds as over a million troops now have fought honorably in Iraq.

One argument that is brought forward as a negative outcome of the Iraq war is that Iran has become more powerful in the region. George Friedman at Stratfor elaborates on the Iran situation and reading this I wonder if Iran might not have been further ahead in their supposed nuclear weapon quest if Saddam Hussein still had been around?

In Korea the US was fighting communism with a larger blood shed than in the Iraq war and the difference today between the democratic South Korea and its crippled Northern neighbor is dramatic. Will we be able to make a similar comparison in a number of years between Iraq and Iran? In other words, will Iraq connect with the world as Iran cuts itself off? One problem with this question might be that Iran does not consider itself cut off. It is equally dramatic to ponder the different possible outcomes of a removal of all troops before the end of 2011 as the present deal says and an Iraq initiated support scheme that might steer the development in a more favorable direction.

In Iraq there was a fight against terrorism in conjunction with petroleum security. A fight that is still on according to Friedman above. I don't see the dumbness of trying to prevent disasters like those possible to develop from aggressions in this area. However, in my humble opinion, considering the difficulties of judging these matters, staying out of Iran, if they don't become more aggressive than they are, they do often resemble North Korea in their approach, is probably wise.

Iraq?

"No wonder, then, that America's ability to organize a coalition has also suffered. Participation in the Iraq war cost Tony Blair his reputation and the Spanish government an election. After an initial swell of support, the Iraqi occupation proved unpopular even in countries where America is popular, such as Italy and Poland. Almost no country that has participated in the coalition derived any economic or diplomatic benefits from doing so." Anne Applebaum writes this in an article on washingtonpost.com.

My question would be whether or not the Iraq debacle is rather a symptom than a cause? After 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe said good bye mentally to America. They did not view terrorism as the same type of threat as Americans. They began reasoning that they would not need expensive troops to fight wars on foreign soil but rather use other means for their local security. France and Germany were never in on Iraq. Thus there were problems before Iraq.

I don't agree that this is a good idea. However, what became of communism divides Europe today as well a makes Western Europe significantly different from the US and have resulted in a notion among Europeans that they do not want to share foreign policy with the US according to the Eurobarometer poll. We can see this today in a milder form also in the US. The American Tea Party Movement that calls Obama a socialist.

The Iraq War definitely demonstrated the strength of the US military. Iran knows that the US cold strike them out, if they would be willing to spend the money and lives it would take. It also demonstrated in the aftermath that Saddam Hussein must have used an absolute iron fist to govern the powder keg of a nation he sat on. I don't want to think of what methods he used to do this.

Today this means that Europe is not going to forcefully participate in foreign adventures and that the US might consider going isolationist or continue alone. Furthermore, the financial crisis was a greater blow to US and European understanding that the Iraq War. I wonder if it is that old Continental need to do something other that following the philosophical leader of Anglo-America. Historically we have a poor outcome of a divergent tactics. I'd much rather see a strong trans-Atlantic relation. But Germany and America are on different paths again.

The EU seems to fall apart and the countries do their own things. The current chairmanship is held by Belgium a country that currently does not even have a functioning government. There is hardly a word in the Swedish election about foreign matters, except the Afghanistan War where the traditional unity of cause between the two political blocks just broke in two.

Iran's Bomb?

The following citation is taken from an article describing the "Special Relationship" between the US and Britain:

"Concerning Iraq, the President and Prime Minister discussed the pro’s and con’s at length – and more intimately than among any other two world leaders. There was ample opportunity for the UK to influence US thinking – and it did so. The fact is that then-Prime Minister Blair made his own decision: It was too risky to allow Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction (which even France and Germany believed they had), and then possibly pass them to terrorists.
This was not only the Prime Minister’s view, it was confirmed through a vote of Parliament. The special relationship did not make Britain do anything. Rather, it gave Britain unique information and access, and Britain – Government and Parliament alike – chose to go forward. And as former Prime Minister Blair candidly and courageously told the Iraq Inquiry, he would do it again."

Well, with Iran we are there again. The difference is that the US military is exhaused according to an article on DN.se. I'm not sure I agree but it would be interesting to know if it is economically too risky to enter into a fight with Iran about their bomb making. In this case we have a situation that would not be acceptable that we cannot do anything about. Does this financial debacle that we have entered put us in a situation of great risk for WMD proliferation? Is this the major problem today?

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.

News from Iraq

Svensk ambassad i Irak invigd - DN.se: "Utrikesminister Carl Bildt invigde på onsdagen Sveriges nybyggda ambassad i Irak. Den förra har stått utan fast bemanning sedan kriget 2003.
-Vi gör en betydande satsning på vår närvaro i Irak, och det tror jag är helt rätt, säger Bildt på telefon från Bagdad efter ceremonin"

The same day as Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, is opening the new Swedish embassy in Baghdad Thomas L. Friedman writes a somewhat philosophical piece on the future of Iraq in The New York Times. The new embassy is situated outside the Green Zone, ie, the specially protected area for government buildings. This ought to be good news since the security must have improved in the city. Despite recent bombings that are believed to be due to the near election on March 7.

Friedman's conclusion is that we really don't know what is going to happen when the Americans have left the area and the Iraqis are taking over. Half of the 100,000 soldiers now present will leave by September this year and the rest by the end of 2011. Will their old tribal culture rule or will new politics be able to change the society away from their dictatorial past. What happens in Iraq, a more developed society than that of Afghanistan, will give clues as to what can be expected in the latter country. However, the Swedes were in Baghdad before 2003, so the investment ought to be safe.

It remains an extraordinary chance for the Iraqis to start anew. They got a ticket into the world community that was costly but they can still make it worth while. What makes me most curious about their situation is how they are going to relate to their immediate environment. Unfortunately they don't seem to be too friendly with Israel, a US ally, but rather import a lot from Syria and Turkey. This would raise fears that their shiite religion would make them gravitate towards Iran. After all it was the sunni Saddam Hussein that fought Iran. Hopefully their rather unique recent development will make them connect rather with more distant partners like Sweden. They are importing things from China as well, just for the balance.

The decision of Blair and Bush was correct

Blair Defends Iraq War Decision - WSJ.com: "'And the decision I had to take was, given [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's] history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking U.N. resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons program?'" See also New York Times and DN.se.

Britain grilled Tony Blair for 6 hours yesterday where Blair defended his and Bush's decision of invading Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein had attacked Iran, he had attacked Kuwait, he shot SCUD missiles on Israel, he had be brutal to the Kurds and he had been a monster to his own people. This man could have caused great harm to a Western nation.

Blair used a particularly important argument which he called the "2010 question". He said today "we would be facing a situation where Iraq would be competing with Iran on nuclear weapons capability and in support of terrorist groups".

Important critique on this type of actions have been put forward however. I'm thinking particularly of Joseph Stiglitz book on the real cost of the war, $3tn. On top of all lives this is an extremely high cost. The other thing we have learned is that coming in taking over and building a democracy that is friendly with the invaders is a very difficult thing to achieve which we have playing out now in Afghanistan. The risk for civil war is very high.

What I don't understand completely is why there are 30% of people saying that we shall bomb Iran now to prevent nuclear armament when there has been such an argumentation against the Iraq invasion. I certainly don't like Ahmadi-nejad but he does not have the same low record as Saddam Hussein. Neither have the Taliban.

Therefore I feel confident of supporting Blair and Bush on their decision.

Development?

Poor schooling slows anti-terrorism effort in Pakistan - washingtonpost.com: "With a curriculum that glorifies violence in the name of Islam and ignores basic history, science and math, Pakistan's public education system has become a major barrier to U.S. efforts to defeat extremist groups here, U.S. and Pakistani officials say."

Der Spiegel writes about a situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan that might be "spiralling out of control". The article in general, however, is up-beat in character since it advocates that military should withdraw from Afghanistan.

Well, one of the key problems in AfPak must be that there is recruitment to the enemy from from a pool of 30+170 million people. Therefore the problem and the amount of casualties have increased every year for all the nine years. Even if it is not possible to affect this recruitment on the timescale people generally dwell on for the AfPak discussion future regional stability will be affected. The fastest way of affecting recruitment might be to remove foreign troops.

The conclusion a person with average intelligence must draw from articles like those above is that the "battle" is already lost and what is interesting now is what happens next. How will this region of Western resistance affect the big picture in the future? Will the situation really get worse if no meddling in the affairs of these good people will remain?

I guess what I'm asking is what would happen if the West are not really able to indoctrinate, or otherwise convince, people in the Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan about the splendor of our civilization. Will they go on and live their lives or will they mobilize to conquer the West? My feeling is that they would rather stay by themselves. Europe in particular would be able to peacefully interact with these regions given our large immigrant populations.

These problems are epitomized with the discussion of whether or not Iran should be bombed to releave the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. The Economist have had that debate recently and there is a majority of 71% that don't think one should bomb. That means that a whole 29% actually think that one should go along and bomb a country quite extensively. 29% is furthermore up from 18% in a US poll half a year ago. However, you would not only attack Iran but also in principle all these other countries. Too big a deal and therefore not practical.

People are gathered in Sweden currently to discuss the defence of Sweden. Leaving the Muslim band alone could, if people there would be unwise, mean that Muslims in Europe rose in sympathy and millions of people migrated over to Europe and conquered her in what may sound like a Sverigedemocratic nightmare. In my humble opinion this is not really likely. Are we then afraid of battalions of suicide bombers? Probably not if there wasn't the irritation of foreign troops on their soil.

The situation in Afghanistan shows that the balance necessary for a reasonable discussion on how to proceed is not favorable. There is no meeting of the minds. Saddam Hussein caused the situation by his destabilizing activities. We need to reach for a new situation where the discussion can begin in earnest. We now that our civilization has its charms but they have no effect when propagated by superior looking military personnel.

Before we discuss if we want to be part of NATO or if the EU should act we need to now how we feel about the threat from this region from which we currently have quite a lot of foreign born people in our country. How many Swedes want to bomb Iran? We have not even disclosed this pertinent fact.

Bush was a 'realpolitiker' before 9/11

The September 12 Paradigm Foreign Affairs: "This was roughly the policy Bush pursued during his first nine months in office, and the rest of the world quickly got the message. According to a Pew Research Center poll released in August 2001, 70 percent of western Europeans surveyed (85 percent in France) believed that the Bush administration made decisions 'based only on U.S. interests.'"

Robert Kagan writes in Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2008 that Bush and Condoleezza Rice distinguished themselves as realists before the 9/11 catastrophe. The democracy generation came as a motivation for the organization of Iraq post 2003.

In a post Dick Erixon discusses Bush the idealist who fight for democracy in the world and seems to want to make a bet on the outcome in Afghanistan compared to that in Iraq after 2003. He suggests that Obama is going to have to become like Nixon, who removed the troops from Vietnam. Today's Vietnam then being Afghanistan.

Erixon refers to a debate on SVT where he defends Bush "ideology" of bombing in democracy across the world. He combatant Göran Greider is somewhat shocked and I must agree that I never thought it was a good idea to bomb North Korea and Iran. I never liked John McCain's "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" either.

At the time I very much liked the idea of making Iraq and Afghanistan democratic. However, I have awaken from this erroneous assumption that this would indeed be possible. I think it is very wise of Obama to leave Afghanistan beginning July 2011, I take his word for it, and let the Afghans establish whatever equilibrium they care to engage in. There is not going to be a democracy as we talk about it in Scandinavia in either Iraq or Afghanistan for many years, if ever. In Afghanistan a grand question mark seems to be if a centralized government is going to be possible at all which would be the prerequisite for stability.

There is Hope for America

It is 1:47 am and I'm waiting for Obama's speech which is supposed to begin at 2 am. According to The New York Times and The White House web site Obama's message will be troop increase plus exit strategy in as short time as after July 2011. The fast exit is supposed to follow a quick build-up for the increased pressure of next summer. I read somewhere that the intensity of fighting has gone up each year and that it is more extensive during summer.

A Gallup poll shows that the approval for Obama's handling of the Afghanistan war is down to 35% in November 20 and that it has fallen from 56% in mid-July via 49% in mid-September. It is falling at the same rate among Republicans, Moderates and Democrats. These results are however before the information of build-up and exit.

It is 2:42 am and I found a copy of the text to the speech. There is no essential new information. They enter fast with 30,000 new soldiers and begin withdrawal after 18 months. I don't think I could have expected a faster exit than this. The speech gives me a feeling that Obama definitely wants to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan before the next election.