Rödgrön utrikespolitik

om Rödgrön utrikespolitik

Amerikansk militärstrateg: Rödgrönt krav skadar Sveriges intressen

Publicerad: 2010-06-06 22:06, Uppdaterad: 2011-11-02 16:11

De rödgrönas krav på att USA ska dra tillbaka alla baser avslöjar tyvärr att Sverige inte är moget för den större solidaritet som i slutändan säkrar svenskarnas frihet och demokrati. Det skriver Daniel Hamilton, chef för Center for Transatlantic Relations på Johns Hopkins University, USA, exklusivt för Newsmill.

4848 millningar
17 kommentarer
Bokmärk & dela artikelnTipsa om artikeln vie e-post
Facebook
Twitter
dela
skriv ut
Facebook
Twitter

Om författaren

Daniel Hamilton directs the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. and has served as a senior official in the U.S. State Department responsible for U.S. relations with the Nordic and Baltic countries.

Sweden's Social Democrats have teamed up with the Greens and the Left to produce a document outlining their foreign policy priorities should they win the fall elections. Much of the document reads as one might imagine. But then one comes across a stunner of a sentence: "A red-green government will demand that the U.S. dismantle its nuclear weapons and military bases outside its borders."

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. This is, at the very least, quite an odd statement for Swedish Social Democrats to make, given their strong position -- and actions -- in the past in support of a vibrant transatlantic link and Swedish-American cooperation on a range of crucial foreign and security policy issues. Frankly, it is also a strange position for the Swedish Greens to make, given that in recent times they had moved away from approaches that had isolated them even from Greens in other parts of Europe.

It is also dismaying to this American, a friend of Sweden who has spent considerable time working closely with Swedish colleagues to advance peace and prosperity across the European continent and beyond, and who values Sweden's important contributions to international security.

One might dismiss this Social Democratic reversal as pure electoral maneuvering. Yet surely it is appropriate for Swedish voters -- and for that matter, Sweden's friends -- to ask themselves what exactly is meant by this statement, especially its combative tone. Let me get this right: a red-green government will "demand" U.S. action, rather than "work with" an American President who is already reducing the U.S. military's global footprint and just received the Nobel Peace Prize for his call for a world without nuclear weapons? What an odd, embarrassing thing to say.

It reminds me of an incident last week in the United States, when Barack Obama was heckled by a gay rights activist as he was trying to give a talk. Obama finally stopped his speech and responded to the heckler. "Why don't you read the newspapers," Obama said with some exasperation. "Perhaps you haven't noticed that we're trying to do exactly what you are heckling me about."

Of course, the U.S. is not going to dismantle its military bases and nuclear weapons anytime soon. In today's world there are still good reasons for both. But successive U.S. administrations have acted to reduce and realign the U.S. military footprint around the world. And the Obama Administration has made some progress in linking negotiated reductions in U.S. nuclear arsenals to the need for a stronger non-proliferation regime.

On the nuclear front, Obama just signed the New START treaty further reducing U.S and Russian warheads and delivery vehicles. He sponsored the first Nuclear Summit with 40 heads of government to generate greater consensus and commitments on issues of nuclear safety. He re-engaged the U.S. in efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He committed the U.S. to support efforts leading to a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. He broke with outdated Cold War nuclear secrecy and disclosed the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, putting significant pressure on other nuclear weapon states to reciprocate. He has offered security assurances to states who comply with non-proliferation commitments. In short, he has set forth a series of practical steps that could in fact lead to a world without nuclear weapons. It is slow going. It is not a goal the U.S. can achieve alone. Nonetheless, over the past decade the U.S. has reduced its nuclear stockpile by more than half, and by 2012 the U.S nuclear arsenal will be at levels not seen in more than 50 years, in the early days of the nuclear age.

In a number of world regions, however, the U.S. nuclear deterrent remains critical to regional stability and is desired by U.S. partners. In some cases, unilateral or precipitate withdrawal or reductions of U.S. nuclear forces could unnerve U.S. allies -- witness the current debate within NATO about withdrawal of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons -- and could lead to potentially destabilizing conventional arms build-ups. Without a strong and verifiable non-proliferation regime, unilateral U.S. nuclear build-downs in some regions of the world could in fact lead to overall nuclear build-ups. Nonetheless, there is some progress in ensuring that arsenal reductions by nuclear powers are accompanied by commensurate efforts to prevent additional nuclear weapons proliferation. It would seem that Swedish efforts would be best served by joining such efforts, rather than by heckling the U.S. from the sidelines or singling out the U.S. as the source of all evil.

Similar issues are at stake with regard to U.S. military bases abroad. Read the newspapers lately? Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has cut in half its military force posture at bases and installations around the world. Before the Cold War ended, the U.S. launched the Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) process to reduce or readjust U.S. military bases at home and abroad. More than 100 bases have been closed or realigned by these reviews, and scores more are slated for closure.

U.S. forces in Europe have been cut by 75%, from 375,00 during the Cold War to less than 80,000 today and to less than 60,00 by 2015. Most cycle in and out of tours in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. forces in Germany are a fraction of what they used to be, and most U.S. military officials would reduce them even further -- except that successive German governments, including those of the red-green variety, have pleaded for them to remain.

Moreover, during the 1990s the U.S. was on course to reduce its military presence in Europe further and faster, only to find that Europe was incapable of stopping mass killings and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Since the end of the Bosnian conflict the U.S. presence there has given way to an EU presence. In Kosovo, the small U.S. contingent of forces remaining is the only credible element of reassurance to the Kosovars, who are still understandably nervous about Serb intentions and unconvinced that EU member states, many of whom still refuse to recognize Kosovo's independence, will support them. Swedish "demands" that the U.S. "dismantle" its presence only add to Balkan turbulence and diminish Swedish and EU credibility.

In many parts of Europe there is worry about too few, not too many, U.S. soldiers. Americans would be the first to welcome those soldiers home, knowing that Europeans were able to take care of their own civil wars. Unfortunately, even recent European history has shown that this Europe is not reality today. Moreover, U.S. forward deployments enable U.S. and allied forces to improve their ability to operate together. The less opportunity U.S. forces have to operate with other partner forces, the more likely they are to operate alone, thus reinforcing unilateral tendencies that Swedes of all color like to criticize.

The U.S. withdrew completely from the Philippines in 1992. The U.S. withdrew completely from Iceland in 2006 -- over the objections of the Icelanders themselves. I helped negotiate issues related to the U.S. withdrawal of forces from Iceland, in the face of Icelandic protests, and I can assure you that the Icelanders are not happy that the U.S. is gone.

Many Americans would agree that the U.S. military presence around the world is still too big. Iraq and Afghanistan are of course the leading examples. Yet under Obama the U.S. is on schedule to withdraw its military forces in Iraq and to begin downsizing its military presence in Afghanistan in 2011. "Demanding" U.S. actions that the U.S. is in fact already taking is not only empty rhetoric, it makes Sweden look silly.

The U.S. has reduced its overall military footprint. Yet in some cases U.S. forward deployments remain essential to reassuring allies and deterring aggression. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at perhaps their highest levels since Cold War days, precipitated most recently by an unprovoked North Korean attack on a South Korean ship. For decades the U.S. military presence and nuclear deterrent have reassured South Koreans -- and others throughout Asia -- while forestalling any South Korean ambitions to develop nuclear weapons themselves, despite North Korean provocations. In such a situation, "dismantling" the U.S. military presence and its nuclear commitments to South Korea would destabilize the Korean Peninsula overnight. And yet, even while maintaining its commitment to South Korean defense, the U.S. military has reduced and realigned its presence there in recent years to better address the security situation.

Not only has U.S. downsized the number of bases overseas, it has converted many from large installations to small, bare-bones facilities, some of which are not even occupied on a full time basis and yet which could provide initial capabilities for timely response to crises and unanticipated humanitarian disasters. Scores of host nations have in fact asked the U.S. for such contingency arrangements. Sometimes they can be useful, for instance when access procedures at an air base in Dakar, Senegal enabled the U.S. Air Force to evacuate American civilians and those from other countries, including Europe, from Liberia in 2003. Such facilities have enabled quick-reaction forces from the U.S. and other partner nations to respond to earthquakes in Iran and Pakistan and tsunami devastation and landslides in Asia. Swedish citizens have been beneficiaries of such actions.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Red-Green "demand" is only directed at the United States. It recalls Obama's second response to his heckler last week: "Why don't you go and heckle someone who doesn't agree with you, instead of following me around?" In its zeal to single out the United States, the red-green alliance is noticeably silent about the fact that, in violation of international law, Moscow has established military bases in the breakaway Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The red-green statement is also noticeably silent about the 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons Moscow still has stationed within its European territory -- about 10 times the equivalent U.S. arsenal -- despite earlier pledges by Kremlin leaders to reduce or eliminate them. No word about either of these issues from the reds and the greens, no "demand," not even the most polite suggestion that the Kremlin might want to reconsider such actions.

When asked about this omission, Social Democrats have responded that they don't push Russia on these points because the main issue with Moscow is respect for human rights and press freedoms. Where is the logic in that? Is it then the Social Democratic position that countries that disregard human rights and trample on press freedoms shouldn't reduce their nuclear weapons or military bases established in violation of international law? It's just mind-boggling.

So why does this political alliance "demand" such steps only from the U.S.? Is it simple ignorance and failure to keep pace with world events -- not exactly signs of "governability" -- ? Or is it willful misrepresentation -- hoping to garner a few more votes by positing an American bogey as the source of the world's ills, without mentioning other countries or issues that might warrant equal "demands," or advancing any practical steps that could get us from the realities of today's world to a better future?

Sadly, whatever the motivation, the statement betrays a free-rider mentality that refuses to face the reality that Sweden is part of a larger community of solidarity, and that Sweden's well-being and the freedoms and security of its citizens depend on this solidarity -- the kind of solidarity in which you can count on us and we can count on you. Accepting that hard work will be necessary to build this type of solidarity is a first step toward making it happen. Unfortunately, Sweden's Left has stepped away from that challenge, and stepped back from its own best traditions.

(1816 artiklar)

Anmäl

Trackback URL: http://www.newsmill.se/trackback/23383

17 kommentarer I kommentarsfältet har kommentatorn juridiskt ansvar för sina inlägg.

Sweden lives its decadent life in peace, thanks to the US. In fact the US and majority of it population, hates the Swedish lifestyle but they are committed to defend the so called free nations. Sweden's red-green want the part of the cake without shipping in with anything. It is like the kid, defended by his father but hating him anyway. It is kinda cute. Now imagine Sweden not defended by the US power. Russia would eat it up.

Permalänk | Anmäl #1 Ahmed Ahmed, 2010-06-07, 00:11

One of the best articles ever!
I think this is all about fishing for votes from the red-green alliance. It's rather popular nowadays to talk trash about the U.S. (and Israel for that matter). However, American soldiers have died for the freedom of others, in wars that are not "theirs".
And to have the nerve to "demand" U.S. to dismantle it's military bases is laughable. Like an ungrateful child not realizing his/her own good.

Permalänk | Anmäl #2 Karl Rosenqren, 2010-06-07, 00:54

The Social Democracts are an embarrasment to us. "Demanding" this and that is of course just ridiculous. Perhaps its also a reflection of the Lefts increasing influence over Social democrats. The left is the modern Swedish communist party. So naturally, the United States is the ideological enemy, and all ills can and should be attrtibuted to the U.S. in their view view. Its lunacy.

Permalänk | Anmäl #3 Thomas Hefner, 2010-06-07, 01:51

This is indeed very embarrassing.

But please note that the Swedish general public and media do not agree with that weird sentence, most emphatically not. When the news about that sentence exploded, it was immediately ridiculed everywhere. The Social Democrats themselves immediately tried to retract it, claiming that what they really meant was that they'd work for a goal of diminishing nuclear weapons, and emphasized very clearly the strong ties and strong cooperation with the US.

This of course wasn't really convincing. The sentence in Swedish is just as clear as its English translation. It doesn't make the situation any less embarrassing for the Red-Greens, they have still written something unforgivably silly in that document.

But at least it means that there's no risk that they'll try to actually do what they say there. It won't happen. They do know quite clearly that it's ridiculous.

Actually I do worry that the Red-Greens seem very incompetent, but they're not that incompetent.

Still it's very worrying. The attitude that is expressed in that sentence very clearly comes from the Left Party. Only the Left Party thinks in such terms. The fact that the other two parties have let something so silly slip through, and in such an important context, has me deeply worried.

The Social Democratic Party has changed dramatically since they elected their current party leader. More and more I'm getting the impression that, half the time or so, the Left and Green parties propose policies, and the Social Democrats have nothing to propose, and reduce themselves to choosing between the proposals of the other two.

If the Red-Greens win the upcoming election, and then govern in the same way, I think Sweden will no longer be quite the same Sweden you're used to.

Permalänk | Anmäl #5 kafpauzo, 2010-06-07, 03:36

The truth is that politicians in most countries need to distance themselves from the US to get elected. The Bush years have left US popularity at an all-time low, and the best Obama can do is to avoid making new mistakes. The national debt and the two middle-east wars will prevent him form any new, possibly succesful, campaigns.Most of the goodwill from WWII is gone, I'm afraid.
The other side of the story is that the new US economic weakness will probably force the US to do exactly as the left-greens wish - ie, close down bases abroad.

Permalänk | Anmäl #6 Johan Wallin, 2010-06-07, 07:28

Sweden aims to become a primary base and supporter for global jihad in order to destroy the USA, Israel and democracy.

Permalänk | Anmäl #7 Bo T, 2010-06-07, 09:15

Dear Mr strategist. The read-greens statement about bases should be read only as a general aspiration for world peace.

Sweden not mature?, your statement is erroneous. Read this well written article (2008) from the american conservative newspaper the Weekly Standard, quote: " AMONG THE MORE stalwart American allies throughout the Cold War and the war on terror one can number Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and . . . Sweden. Wait! Sweden?" unquote

(Swedish Fly The Joint Strike fighter tries to fend off the competition. BY STUART KOEHL March 19, 2008)

So don't spill out your morning coffee Mr strategist.

But America did save the western civilization during the WWII and then saved Europe again during the cold war. Even today I don't trust us Europeans to be able to defend ourselves against the Russians. And the swedish defence forces are today a mere shadow of it's cold war strength.

But then again there is something peculiar about the americans, spending a trillion dollars at chasing that riff-raff around the middle east. It's clearly insane. Americans are a little bit paranoid, and the means to solve this end is not working.

America is over-extending it self at a moment in human history that we would need american leadership in saving the climate and the planets biological diversity.

It has not still hit home among people in the world how very serious a threat the planet is now facing.

Permalänk | Anmäl #9 Doktor Eleph@nt, 2010-06-07, 11:06

Here is the link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/892don...

Permalänk | Anmäl #10 Doktor Eleph@nt, 2010-06-07, 11:17

If America had spent a trillion dollars on saving the planet and biological diversity then America would have saved not only Europe or the Western Civilization but the whole world.

Permalänk | Anmäl #11 Doktor Eleph@nt, 2010-06-07, 11:20

Jag förstår inte varför alla skriver på engelska. Författaren kommer ju inte att kommentera.

Utan att gå in på något uttalande från sossarna kan man konstatera att artikeln handlar om vad som ligger i amerikanarnas intresse. På vanligt sätt ljuger inte intresset och det är överordnat flum om så kallad solidaritet. Svenskarna borde på liknande sätt först se till sitt intresse. Stormakternas solidaritet kan man alltid räkna med om den ligger i deras intresse. Vad USA gör inom kärnvapen beror också på deras intresse. Det är bara att titta på kartan för att förstå att ett svenskt militärt försvar är bortkastade pengar. Solidariska knäppskallar finns ju i alla riktningar.

USA har mycket olja och naturgas och väldigt mycket kol och oljeskiffer är en stor exportör av livsmedel och är självförsörjande under överskådlig tid. Ändå är det i USAs intresse att säkra ytterligare leveranser från andra. Sverige har mycket lite av dessa tillgångar, importerar fossila bränslen och konstgödsel som är livsviktiga och 25 procent av livmedlen och har en mängd exportberoende företag. När priserna går upp på dessa varor och länderna exporterar mindre och först försörjer sig själva så kommer Sverige att drabbas hårt. Den solidaritet som Hamilton babblar om finns då inte. Svenskarna kan få äta mycket potatis för att överleva. Möjligen går det att köpa värdefulla varor från Ryssland. Men det är kanske bättre att sitta med en potatis i truten och ha en ideologi i huvudet.

Om man gör det lite mer komplicerat så består amerikanarnas intresse av dels ett allmänt intresse och dels ett särintresse som Hamiltons. Även i Sverige finns ett speciellt intresse från dem som är verksamma inom försvaret och liknande. De stackars amerikanska skattebetalarna måste betala för ett kalas som de inte får mycket glädje av. Försvaret är dessutom finansierat med lånade pengar, som aldrig kan betalas tillbaka, varför alla som är dumma nog att sitta på dollar får betala i inflation. Att bli blåst ekonomiskt kanske också tillhör solidariteten.

USA har alltid stått för frihet. Demokratin kom redan på 1820-talet och överfördes långsamt till Sverige. En rad knäppskalleregimer i världen har bitit sig fast därför att friheten har sålts allt för hårt, vilket också ligger i somligas intresse. Hotet mot friheten måste hållas uppe för att dollarn ska stärkas och det finns en vilja låna ut pengar till karusellen. Hotet mot det moderna livet kommer från uttömningen och överbefolkningen och dessa fysiska fenomen styr den politiska utvecklingen. Makthavarna tramsar om koldioxid, terrorister och onda drakar av de mest olika slag.

Permalänk | Anmäl #12 Urban Persson, 2010-06-07, 12:18

men hans resonemang bygger ju på att det finns risker i terrorister i den omfattningen som han påstår att det gör. det gör det inte. al-qaida är en myt. se bara på 9/11. tre höghus faller rakt ner till marken med frittfallshastighet. en ren fysisk omöjlighet om det inte är sprängmedel inplanterade o exploderar på exakt samma gång..

så vem la dit sprängämnena? inte var det al-qaida. jo, de riktiga al-qaida, dvs amerikanserna själva i vad som kallas false flagg operation. för att skapa opinion för att anfalla o säkra oljetillgångar o droghandel för usa, o för att säkra deras militärindustri.

så hans resonemang faller..

/johan lindqvist

Permalänk | Anmäl #13 karl johan lindqvist, 2010-06-07, 13:48

...usa är alltså inte ute efter en världsharmoni.. dom är ute efter att lägga under sig o korrumpera

Permalänk | Anmäl #14 karl johan lindqvist, 2010-06-07, 13:51

#13 Karl Johan Lindqvist

Tror du på det där själv eller? Att USA riggade 9 11?
Ditt sanningssökande kommer lite sent. Det är sedan länge ett faktum att Al Qaeda låg bakom, med Khalid Sheikh Mohammed som "hjärnan" bakom operationen. Han har erkänt, men du kan ju försöka klämma fram den "riktiga" sanningen från honom om du vill, dvs att han inte hade något med det att göra.

Permalänk | Anmäl #15 Karl Rosenqren, 2010-06-07, 16:51

Doctor Eleph@ant says:

"But then again there is something peculiar about the americans, spending a trillion dollars at chasing that riff-raff around the middle east. It's clearly insane."

Only if you think of the US as a single actor does it look insane. Then this single actor is strengthening some of its enemies while dangerously exhausting itself. But if instead you look at the individuals who are involved, it makes perfect sense.

Everywhere in the world, whenever you see a conflict that is fueled by strong fear, hate or victim mentality, you can always find leaders who have a vested interest in fueling the conflict. It's these leaders who make the conflicts so vehement.

The reason for their vested interest is that a strong fear, hatred or victim mentality will create an inner unity against an outer enemy. As the fear, hatred or victim mentality grows stronger, the unity grows stronger and the leaders gain power.

This isn't tied to specific countries or peoples. It can be seen in all humans, everywhere.

You can see a clear example of this in Europe. Before the European Union was created (or rather its early predecessor), some leaders saw an easy way to gain power by creating and fueling conflicts with neighbor countries. As a result we had war after war. With the EU, the power dynamics have changed dramatically. Today the very first reflex of our leaders is to struggle to cooperate at almost any cost. You don't see any of that old fueling of fear or hate toward a neighbor people, or fueling of victim mentality.

Israel and its neighbors, on the other hand, are trapped in the tragic power dynamics. Clearly they have many leaders who have a vested interest in fueling fear, hate and victim mentality. The region's conflicts will never cease unless a solution is found that is radical enough to change these power dynamics, change them just as radically as the EU changed the dynamics of Europe.

If the peoples of the Middle East were able to see through the power dynamics, if they could recognize their true enemies, they would cease their current hostilities and unite, all the peoples, Jews, Palestinians and others, all together in a common cause against the conflict-fueling leaders, who are causing so much suffering just to gain some power.

All peoples can fall prey to these conflict-fueling power dynamics. When you're in the middle of it, seeing what's happening can be very difficult.

Even so, I was shocked and dismayed at how easily the US fell prey to these dynamics in the aftermath of 9/11. With so many brilliant people in the country, I thought the US would know about these dynamics, and recognize them and be more immune.

Shortly after 9/11, around the world, even many of the most hating and antagonistic critics against the US policies were utterly shocked and deeply disgusted with the terrorists, and felt a really strong sympathy toward the American people. They were discovering a clear distinction between their feelings toward US policies and toward the American people. There was a sympathy toward the US in so many quarters, something not seen in many decades, if ever.

This was a fantastic opportunity for world-wide mutual respect. For a while it looked like this respect could become a base on which the world could build something very promising.

If this atmosphere had prevailed, terrorist organizations would have been very much weakened by the atmosphere of shock and disgust against 9/11. Even some strong fanatics who felt a reluctant admiration toward the terrorists also felt that it was despicable murder and absolutely unacceptable.

Depending on the paths chosen, maybe the terrorist organizations could have been weakened to near insignificance.

But the power dynamics took over. And the fueling went on and on. The opportunity was swept away. It is now thoroughly gone. Nothing similar is possible today.

When leaders are fueling a conflict that is based on fear, hate or victim mentality, the leaders on both sides share a common interest in fueling the conflict. And the fuel thrown on one side will strengthen leaders not only on that side, but on the other side too. In this case the US had some very powerful fuel to throw. As a result, the few fanatically radical Islamists weren't reduced to insignificance. They gained considerable strength and influence.

Of course it's impossible to say with certainty what would have happened in a different scenario. But fuel is fuel. You can't fuel one side of a conflict without fueling the other side too, as long as there's something on that side to fuel.

"Americans are a little bit paranoid, and the means to solve this end is not working."

Thus, in my view, this is not at all an American trait. Any people, anywhere, can be manipulated in this way.

However, I think modern societies should be able to learn to see through these dynamics. We should learn to distinguish between what's in some leaders' interest and what's in the people's interest. We should be able to find ways to protect ourselves against these terribly destructive power dynamics.

Unfortunately there are some considerable difficulties. The problem ought to be carefully researched and carefully debated.

Permalänk | Anmäl #16 kafpauzo, 2010-06-07, 20:46

Kafpauzo! I have read all what you have written and with interest. Some of it is somewhat, no offence, ellusive to me. For example:

"Only if you think of the US as a single actor does it look insane. Then this single actor is strengthening some of its enemies while dangerously exhausting itself. But if instead you look at the individuals who are involved, it makes perfect sense."

Clarify, please.

Permalänk | Anmäl #17 Doktor Eleph@nt, 2010-06-07, 22:38

It is for me obvious that the Greens aversion for nuclear weapons toghether with the Lefts dislike of USA have had a great influence in this.
What surprices me is that the Social Democrats has gone so far for maintaining the newly formed left-Opposition-alliance.
It seems like the Swedish political landscape is moving left - one of the reasons for this could be the following:
.
Before the last election 2006 the Right-Opposition formed an alliance and from my point of view that Opposition-alliance slided left or atleast moved closer to some kind of midstream politics. That move was a smart one - or atleast they wone the elections.

Unfortunatly it now seems like the Social Democrats has to move very much to the left in order to be able to present an alliance toghether with the Green and the Left.
The effect seems to me is that the now governing alliance has moved from right to the middle and the opposing alliance has slided quite to the left.

What seemed to be a smart move from the Right Opposition - and might still be - has made the Social Democrats to embrace ideas which up until today has been out of the question.
Small parties like the Left and the Green have a disproportional large influence on the political agenda for the Opposition of today in Sweden. Even though I am not a Social Democrat I most of the time considered the Social Democarts to be a responsable party - the current direction is not!

Permalänk | Anmäl #19 Andreas Dahlberg, 2010-06-08, 04:30

Doktor Eleph@nt, I must admit that my writing in that post wasn't very clear. My explanations got a bit complicated. Apparently I didn't spend enough time editing and clarifying.

In the paragraph that you quoted, what I meant was that if a person had acted against his own interests like the US did, then that would be insane. However, if instead you consider the real men and women who were involved, and consider how each individual was motivated by the power dynamics, then there's no insanity at all. With these motivations, the actions of the US make perfect sense.

If a person had acted like the US did, this would betray an amazing level of insanity. First the US gains huge amounts of sympathy, even among some of its most ferocious haters. If the US had taken full advantage of this opportunity, in the best possible way, it would probably have increased its influence tremendously, gaining people's hearts in quite a few hitherto very hostile countries.

As a side effect of this influence, the US would probably have gained huge economic profit too.

But the US blithely threw all that away, preferring to weaken itself through a campaign of victim mentality and fear.

The campaign's ferocity, drama and persistence made the terrorists look amazingly powerful. US haters who had initially seen the attackers as despicable murderers were impressed and awed by the apparent power of those few attackers. They saw that the attackers had power enough to get the world's strongest superpower to fear, to panic, even to redefine its society in such ways that the threat from those few attackers became the primary focus of the society.

As if this wasn't enough, the US even compromised some of its core values, by carelessly imprisoning guilty and innocent alike at Guantanamo. And to make this worse, the US gave a stunning excuse about a marginal legal technicality, which came across as, Guantanamo isn't on US soil, so US laws don't apply, so the US isn't responsible for what the US is doing.

And then, on top of that, news started spreading about the US using torture.

The US haters felt more and more that those few attackers must be very powerful indeed, if they could get the world's strongest superpower to react so dramatically. Impressed by this power, many US haters stopped despising the attackers and started admiring them. Evidently the attackers had the power to reshape America. Then they couldn't be mere terrorists. It was more as if the attackers had the powers of some very impressive army. This made the attackers look more and more like legitimate freedom fighters.

With stupid determination, the US kept fueling this view, changing the scenario from uniquely favorable, to worrying, to deeply unfavorable. And the US kept at it, month after month, year after year, strengthening its enemy enormously, tremendously.

It's ironic that terrorists want to spread fear (terror), but the fueling campaign spread far more fear than any terrorists could ever hope to spread. It was amazing how the US worked for the terrorists, spreading fear for their sake, so they didn't have to. The terrorists could have just sat back and enjoyed the show.

In the same process, the US started wars that undermined its military strength and readiness, so much so that today the US probably couldn't start a new war even if it sorely needed to.

The attackers have driven the world's strongest superpower to all this. This makes the attackers look very formidable indeed.

That's the stunning insanity that you see, if you think of the US as if it were a person, one individual acting with amazing determination against his own interests.

But if instead you look at the real men and women who drove all this, the real individuals who were motivated by the destructive power dynamics, then their actions make perfect sense.

Lots of people in power had very much to gain by finding some outer enemy that would help them create a new inner unity. The terrorists handed them the perfect opportunity on a silver platter. They could exploit the attacks to get the American people to rally around the flag in the new "war on terror".

In the ensuing campaign of victim mentality and fear, president Bush profited as his popularity ratings rose from very low to very high. He also gained executive powers that allowed him to carry out his already long-held wish to go to war in Iraq.

Many people around him gained power too, in their various positions as opinion leaders, team leaders etc. Other leaders, in political parties and elsewhere, profited from the campaign too.

Meanwhile, a large number of American news media sought economic profit by throwing objectivity overboard, turning themselves into determined conflict promoters and leaders, aggressively fueling the victim mentality and fear.

The leaders of Al-Qaeda of course played along. I'm sure they greatly enjoyed the huge increase in influence and devotees that the US was handing them on a silver platter.

In all this, great opportunities for the US, the Middle East and the world were thrown aside, simply because this was profitable to a few people in power.

It was a tremendous loss. We can't go on taking such enormous losses just because a few people profit from it. We need to find ways to change the power dynamics.

Permalänk | Anmäl #20 kafpauzo, 2010-06-09, 01:28

Kommentarsfältet är stängt på denna artikel.