Cultural arrogance?

Michael Mandelbaum, the Christian A. Herter Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins University, writes in his book The Ideas that Conquered the World from 2002: "As such, the Cold War was the setting for a human practice even older, more pervasive, and ultimately more powerful than warfare; and it was this practice, the transmission of culture, that created the world of the 21st century".

What does it mean that the Muslim culture emits suicide bombers? Non-violent persons that walk around until they strike for the transmission of their culture. In the Cold War the cultural transmission of the West--Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets--conquered the world, according to Mandelbaum. In 2002, before September 15, 2008, there was a tug of war between the transmissions between the West and the Middle East. In 2010 this competition is more complicated since the rise of authoritarian state capitalism from China which probably has at least an equal allure to the Middle East.

It is possible that Muslims in Europe has lost some of the respect of the Western culture because of this which will exacerbate problems with terrorism and make proper integration into what we believe is a higher cultural reality. Because of the financial crisis there has been a seemingly diminished self confidence for Western values. The financial crisis has also meant that the US and Europe now have quite different outlooks for how the economy should be conducted.

It is unfortunate that a more detailed discussion of what multiculturalism actually means has not surfaced in Sweden. It is one thing to have immigration with proper integration and another to lose confidence in one own values and dilute them to much with Middle Eastern values. We are involved in a clash of cultures and will eventually have to accept some kind of compromise. This is a battle of ideas and values. This debate is currently acting as a force that splits Europe and works against a fiscal union situation that some people mean is a prerequisite for the survival of the EU.

Therefore there is also a confusion as to what constitute Swedish, European or Western values. Sweden will get a worse deal being only Swedish rather than Western. It would be very unfortunate if Sweden attracted for example preferentially anti-American Middle Easterners.

Potential Suicide Bombers in Sweden?

The program Studio Ett on Swedish Radio has had interviews with people on the topic of a list on 200 or so people of violent behaviors that might constitute potential future suicide bombers. However, it was also said that suicide bombers were not psychiatric cases, ie, they are not on the conventional "suicide ladder" which is used in psychiatry for determining risk for suicide.

In other words we are dealing with some kind of soldier willing to take the ultimate risk for furthering the cause of political Islam. As many wise persons already have pointed out, fear, risk causing the West to protect itself to death and suffocation having radical Muslims laughing all the way to the bodyscan. Anders Danielsson, chief of the Swedish secret police, used this argument for defending himself against a slip in the protection that caused the incidence last Saturday. Personally, I think that we just have to risk occasional suicide bombings. It is impossible with zero tolerance.

Then there is the question of Islam being prone to cause suicide bombings. What is clear is that suicide bombers are very often of Muslim faith. However, they are not necessarily devout Muslims as was revealed in a Gallup poll discussed in August this year. There is a fight right now between Glen Beck and Fareed Zakaria about the notion that 10% of Muslims are radical and sympathize with terrorists. The Economist had data showing that 50% of Palestinians sympathize with suicide bombings a while ago. In my sited Gallup poll 7% of Muslims in 10 Muslim countries thought the World Trade Center incident was justifiable and disliked the US. It is highly probable, however, that among Swedish Muslims the anger directed towards the West is much less.

My question is whether the list of 200 violent persons really is useful? It is a large difference in having an interest in being violent against others and to be willing to perform a suicide bombing. I don't know, but is there not also a new trend of potential suicide bombers not succeeding in their task? The man a year ago with a bomb in his underwear is such an example. This would have the effect of causing fear but not being so unpopular since people do not get killed in large numbers. Such events have an irritating mocking effect.

Studio Ett also brought up a small dispute between the Sweden Democrats and other parties on the content of a discussion planned for January 2011 in the Swedish Parliament as a result of the suicide bombing in Stockholm. The Sweden Democrats wanted to discuss the possible role of Islam in suicide bombings whereas others wanted to discuss also violent groups other than jihadists. Again, the relevant question is who is ready to commit a suicide bombing? I think the Sweden Democrats might have a point. Shunning this problem might just cause the Sweden Democrats to gain a few more percents in voter support.

Neutrality--EU--NATO?

EUobserver / Nato strategy to look at EU relations, says Albright: "Polish centre-right MEP Jacek Saryusz Wolski, in charge of EU-Nato relations, said he was struck how the two institutions were working in 'totally separate worlds,' despite having the same concerns and roughly the same armies and citizens, on the European side"

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright leads an expert panel that tries to coordinate the EU and NATO in these times of slashed military budgets. The above comment is interesting in the wake of the London Conference on Afghanistan. Maybe it is "verklighetens folk", or the common man, and the World Elite.

I learned from the radio-debate between Mona Sahlin and Fredrik Reinfeldt in the program Studio Ett the other day that Sahlin is going to go back to the neutrality politics if the Social Democrats win in September. To my content I heard today that the large difference between the two voting blocks have almost equalized so we might not have to see the entire country end up as world common men.

According to a listing performed by the SOM Institute in Sweden our country's security is considered very important by about 70% of the population. This is not a parameter among the most important one's but no one in the press reacted to the question of neutrality in the aftermath of the debate. Health, Freedom and a World in Peace are all more important factors. Instead the press discuss the evil a 100 burkas may do to the Swedes. It is interesting because the symbolism of the burka must in reality be related to national security. If I have understood this correctly, we can't really be neutral and be members of the EU.

There was recently a yearly debate in Sälen Sweden, the congress Folk och Försvar, where the question voiced by MEP Wolski above was not really ventilated. In my humble opinion Sweden has to take the debate between neutrality, the EU and NATO in order to organize a defence policy. Which world do we want to live in? If any conclusion could be drawn from this, we apparently want to live in Europe in Peace but do not view terrorism external to the EU as a problem but fear it from within the EU.

Fredrik Reinfeldt appears to want to live in the EU world with collaboration with NATO when possible. This is probably the most realistic option given the results in the EUbarometer poll where it is clear that some 80% of EU citizens don't want to share foreign policy with the US.

Afghanistan goes to London

Alla Dessa Dagar: "Jag tillhörde dem som betonade betydelsen av ett rimligt parlamentsval nästa år – med de möjligheter till breddad bas dessa kan innebära – men som samtidigt inte är överförtjust över för många uttalanden om att vi skall börja dra tilbaka trupper 2011 och söka överenskommelser med talibanerna. Det var helt klart de politiska insatserna som sågs som avgörande i vår diskussion - även om säkerhetsinsatserna självfallet är mycket viktiga."

This is how Carl Bildt is describing what happened prior to the meeting, a select dinner yesterday night, on Afghanistan in London where some 70 countries participate today. It is Obama that in his State of the Union Address says he will begin withdraw troops in 2011 and Hamid Karzai that wants to talk to the Taliban.

David Miliband, Carl Bildt and Anders Fogh-Rasmussen deliver almost textbook-like schemes for how to move forward. A soldier like Stanley McChrystal, the American Commander, stuck on the ground, is a little more humble and cautious and verbalize that there might have been too much fighting at this point. He is leaning towards negotiations, perhaps with the aid of the reinforcements due. Robert Gates, the US Minister of Defence, doesn't think the Taliban are going to move an inch, however, before they start to loose. This might be a US Democrat-Republican split of opinion.

This is exactly the problem. The Taliban have increased the number of attacks on Western forces every year and control much of the country side outside Kabul where Karzai is supposed to rule. Some say he only commands his palace, however. Corruption is rife and the Americans have started dealing directly with the tribes as they did successfully in Iraq during the so called "surge". It is not going to work in Afghanistan though it is believed. However, it jeopardizes the hall mark strategy. That of increasing the troops of Karzai to take over security in the country, something that will take 5 to 10 years according to Karzai in London.

It seems to me that this summer will hold the answer for how to continue. Will the trend of every year increases of casualties be broken? In that case corruption just have to be reduced, which is more difficult. In the mean time al Qaida is in Yemen and elsewhere. It is very difficult to have politics in the forefront in a place ruled by tribal logic.

State Of The Union Address 2010

State Of The Union 2010 (FULL TEXT): Read Obama's Speech: "Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists"

Well, President Obama focused on domestic problems in his State of the Union Address. He mentiones summarily the two wars and that all combat troops are going to leave Iraq by August 2010.

However, as you can see in the excerpt above the greatest danger is nuclear weapons, apparently greater threat than economical, and the possibility that a terrorist might bring a bomb onto American territory. A Nuclear Security Summit is to be held in April as announced in July 8, 2009 at the White House.

One problem is a country like Iran where there is anger and terrorism at the same time as the possible production of nuclear weapons. Such a country, like also Pakistan, could produce small carry-on weapons for terrorist use. Robert Kagan writes an article in Washington Post, How Obama can reverse Iran's dangerous course, that one solution to this problem might be that the probability for regime change now is greater than the probability that the leaderhip in Iran will give up its nuclear program.