It seems like every week I am forced to comment on the same inane protestations of Sweden’s involvement in Afghanistan. In SVD this morning, former Minister of Defense and Palme biographer, Thage G. Peterson wonders when the Swedish government and the Social Democratic opposition will protest against the US’s brutal war.
Once again a relic from Vietnam invokes the ghost of Olof Palme as an argument against “US imperialism”. I have commented previously on the empty rhetoric of comparing the actions of the US following 9/11 to Vietnam, but to no avail to some apparently. Mr. Peterson delights in reliving the well-worn fantasy that Olof Palme had more influence on US policy than was actually the case in the 1970’s. Mr. Peterson also commits the fallacy of lumping together the actions in Afghanistan with Iraq, thereby insinuating that both of these actions are in violation of the UN, when, in fact, the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent security force, ISAF, have a UN mandate and the occupation of Iraq is justified by a number of UN resolutions following the formation of an Iraqi government.
The argumentation of Mr. Peterson displays his flailing sense of being on the wrong side of this debate. In one part of his article, he decries the fact that it is shameful that there has not been more of a debate concerning the egregious behavior of Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe. Obviously, Mr. Peterson in his elderly years has not followed the recent statements by the US and the UK concerning the situation in Zimbabwe. It is also about time that a representative of a number of Swedish governments who sponsored Mr. Mugabe with aid money from Swedish taxpayers for many years in the 1970’s and 1980’s has now come to a realization about his true nature. A realization he still can’t seem to face regarding Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
One can also wonder why this complaint of silence about Mr. Mugabe appears in a piece dedicated to poo-pooing US intervention against other despotic regimes. Is it to innoculate himself against the complaint that he is soft on dictators? Such a throwaway comment does nothing to dispel that well-established notion.
One wonders what is more pathetic; a former member of the government reliving his glory years of opposition to the Vietnam War and his knee-jerk pacifism or that many who will read the piece will agree with his delusions?
2 comments:
Maybe mr Peterson's comparison of political statements during the Vietnam war and the lack of such statements today doesn't quite hit the mark, but I for one wholesomely agree with the point of his argument. Sweden should not become a warfaring nation. There's already too many nations imature enough and unwilling to see any other means of problem solving than armed conflict.
Year 2007 and "civilized" nations still need to kill and destroy... shouldn't we be beyond such things?
/R
Dear R,
As nice as it would be to be beyond the need for armed forces, we (the world) are not there yet. The main issue with statements like the ones put forward by Mr. Peterson is the naïveté that rebuilding can occur without security. The fact of the matter is that it is in the interest of the Taliban, and likeminded groups, that progress should be stopped in Afghanistan. Women should not be allowed to educate themselves. Children should not be allowed to go to school. They are not reacting and fighting against such things just because there are armed troops in their country, they are ideologically and religiously opposed to such things.
They used violence to enact their policies when they were in power and, obviously, have no hesitation in doing so now. Furthermore, peace operations that elect not to use force are often meaningless. Remember back to the first peace operation conducted in Bosnia in the early 1990's. There the lack of a threat of force resulted in mass civilian casualties. It may be unfortunate, but it is necessary to use force to defend peace.
Post a Comment