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.

Speaking of Yemen

Hillary Clinton on Development in the 21st Century Foreign Policy: "But whether it's to improve long-term security in places torn apart by conflict, like Afghanistan, or to further progress in countries that are on their way to becoming regional anchors of stability, like Tanzania, we pursue development for the same reasons: to improve lives, fight poverty, expand rights and opportunities, strengthen communities, and secure democratic institutions and governance; and in doing so, advance global stability, improve our own security, and project our values and leadership in the world."

Carl Bildt is very concerned about the development in the band of countries stretching from Somalia to Pakistan in his blog today and a comment on how the problem is approached is furnished by Hillary Clinton in a speech yesterday. I guess Clinton is striking while the iron is hot now after the plane bombing attempt by a Nigerian trained in Yemen.

It is interesting reading and as Clinton points out it works in some countries but not in others. Afghanistan looks like a failure today with its eight year in a row escalation of problems and a foiled democracy attempt in the recent election. The Taliban is apparently attempting a shadow government of their own as well. People like the Taliban would of course refuse the benevolent help of the US and EU. Let's hope the next one and half year will turn the tide.

If you don't have time to read the whole speech there is a short version in the Christian Science Monitor today. The key word is help with development: teach a person how to fish and they can feed themselves for a life time. Partnerships with countries risking to become failed states can do good.

A good question is what to do if the countries Bildt is talking about are beyond repair? Move in with the cavalry and mobilize them over 30 years or just let them necrotize. The last scenario is of course very difficult given a humanistic point of view. When the first alternative looks gloomy the whole story becomes very frustrating. A challenge that has to be met.