.. and I'm back, and so are the newspapers. Coincidence? Not really. A journalist strike is a good excuse to drop out from the news for a while, and when there's noone to write about stuff, you start to believe that nothing happens. An illusion, I know, but this time an enjoyable one.

Not that reality cares if a tiny nation wants to ignore it for a few weeks: A Norwegian soldier was killed near Kabul on Sunday, our first casualty in the war on terror. Tommy Rødningsby (29) volunteered to make life better in a country far away, in a conflict he could have stayed out of. That was brave, and worth our respect and admiration. Our politicians and pundits are soft and confused, but our professional soldiers stand comparison to anyone.

We've been lucky to avoid more casualties in this war - lucky in the personal and statistical but also the political sense. A few more attacks like the one on Sunday, and our resolve, as mr Bush calls it, to help Afghanistan avoid another Taliban or civil war, will disolve before you cay say "quagmire". We're not going to withdraw over this attack alone, though. Outside the wacky left, there's still broad support in Norway for the NATO presence in Afghanistan, and whatever mainstream skepticism there was over the war on the Taliban regime back in 2001 was quickly redirected to Iraq. If our luck continues, so will our presence in Afghanistan, but luck is really all that keeps us from abandoning Afghanistan the way we are about to abandon Iraq.

And that shameful withdrawal will go as planned. With the exception of a few officers, Norway will leave Iraq to solve their own problems. Not a big deal? Perhaps not, in perspective. A humanitarian force of two hundred men is nothing compared to a hundred thousand or so heavily armed Americans. But if we as a small country can't do what's right in our own small way, what right do we have to lecture our bigger allies? The US is making an attempt to do something good in Iraq, a partly flawed, costly, ignorant and arrogant attempt, but a well-intended attempt with a good hope of success. What right do we have to chide the Americans over a handful of sadists? Abu Ghraib is and should be important to the Americans, and I stand by what I wrote earlier, but what we have on our conscience is worse.

And unlike the Americans we don't care. So here's to luck. We'll need it if we're not to sink any lower than we already have.

Iraqthemodel had a good post. He wishes "the world" would leave Iraq to the US. Iraq will be prosperous in about 2 years.

That guy has a good sense of humor.

He brought up a good point in the money post, how's the Iraqi dinar doing?

And if your readers think it's bad there, where are the refugees?

I should say Ali and Omar.

"And unlike the Americans we don't care."

Ditto for the Finns.

That's why I come back to your blog, Bjorn, as you nail the Nordic mentality head on: all sanctimonious when it comes to defining the meaning of morality, but never even attempting to translate that meaning into action.

Shabana Rehman answers her critics after lifting Mullah Krekar.

any chance of a quick translation/summary? It wouldn't have to be pretty, just functional (I could probably do it myself with a dictionary, but it would take mucho tiempo, something I'm a little short of these days).

thanking you in advance ...

Hey I just noticed real name where it used to say nick or whatever. It's Dave if anyone actually cares. Maybe it was always there and I just noticed.

I gotta say I doubt America did anything for moral reasons for a very long time. When I say America I am now talking of that huge overgrown behemouth that has become my government.

There are too many instances of suffering going on around the world that could have been solved long ago at a much cheaper cost. The numerous wars in Africa, and the starvation that was rampant there are good examples. Seldom does the US meddle in other affairs globally unless it effects pocketbooks.

Politicians are sluts for votes. Much as a newsperson is a slut for a lead, an exclusive. Much as a blogger wishes to nail the perfect point. Politicians only do what their handlers train them to do. The handlers are paid by groups, special interest, companies. Seldom does an actual working American make alot of difference in how things go in Washington.

The war in Iraq to me is obvious for what it is. A strategic movement of forces to a central theater of operations. A placement of guardianship on oil reserves. A movement to open an Asian market place through a pipeline many choose to deny or ignore.

All Saddams cruelltys aside, were there not crueler? Were there not ones with more dangerous weapons? Are there not other ways that small terrorist organizations could have been tracked? Did not America choose to ignore the gassing of the Kurds in 88 because it was reported Iranians had been using the town gased as a launching spot for agressive actions against Iraq? They were at war. We supplied "both" countries with weapons and information.

Well I feel more for the actual soldiers. The soldiers of both worlds, all worlds. Fighting for what they believe is right. And how often is what one believes nothing more than propaganda. Yet they die for honor, liberty, country, and God. Each believing themselves doing the noble thing. And who decides who was right? The victor.

So sorry to hear about the loss of your dedicated soldier. We have had 3 killed from my hometown. I'm glad that you realize that the fight against Islamic fascism is not one country's responsiblity alone. As I tell friends in Germany....they don't like you, or your way of life either.

My condolences to the family and friends of Tommy Rødningsby, as well to Norway.

I hope Norway says in Afghanistan. That country can use 200 good soldiers.

All deaths in the cause of freedom are worthy of praise. The strong are supposed to stop the bad guys in a civilized world, Sadaam rules in the opposite. All four of my grandparents emigrated (3 Swedish, 1 Norwegian) to the US and we maintained a strong warrior spirit as Dad, 2 Uncles, Brother, two Brothers-in law, Wife, Sister-in law, Father-in law, and myself all served in the US military.

All free living people want nothing more than a peaceful world to raise their families. That requires someone out in the cold killing wolves. So be it. We respect their making civil society possible.

My unit crest reads "De Oppresso Liber" To Liberate from Oppression. Sounds like what's happening right now.

Thanks Norway and thanks Tommy Rødningsby.

Cordially,

Uncle Jimbo
1st SFGA (resting peacefully and thankfully)

Dave, or IXLNXS...

If there is one single thing that will destroy our civilization, it's snarky cynicism like yours. You repeat a lot of rumors and conclusions, but you obviously haven't done much reading or research. An "attitude" just won't cut it these days.

IXLNXS: my conclusion after I've read your statement is that it is imperative that we become the victors.

Michael Farris: Can you give us a specific link to translate? Shabana Rehman was declared person non grata in Oslo's mosques after the mullah lifting. I guess she was before, too, but now she was officially declared not wanted in a debate about the incident that was supposed to take place in a mosque.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/newspage.php3

http://jihadwatch.org/

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm

http://www.middleastwomen.org/

Ali Dashti: the link (I'm too ignorant to link to it here) is one Bjorn's first page "Shabana Rehman answers her critics after lifting Mullah Krekar". It goes to something in Norwegian.
I have passive knowledge of Norwegian grammar/basic vocabulary but anything past short news blurbs and I rely heavily on the dictionary (and miss idiomatic stuff as well).
Anyway, I'm just curious if she's saying anything especially noteworthy, innovative or funny. If it's same old same old, then just knowing that would be enough.

Dave:

You imply that America has never done anything moral, and that therefore you don't believe it is doing so now. I can think of many moral acts America has taken throughout the 20th Century (and a few stumbles). Clearly moral motives can be identified in WWII, the Marshall Plan, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Somalia and many other American actions throughout the past hundred years.

Your argument seems to be that the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has strategic significance (eg the oil pipeline) and therefore can not be moral. Are the two mutually exclusive? How can democracy and freedom spread if the countries that espouse them can not take strategic actions?

An American consortium was considering running a gas pipeline through Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, however America was very toey about the Taliban for human rights reasons. It didn't need a war to get at Afghanistan's gas. The flow of refugees has reversed since American-allied intervention, because Afghanistan is now a safer and better place to live.

Saddam Hussein was willing to sell oil to the US at cut rates, but the US insisted on ending the regime. Why? If the stated coalition objective is to build a new, prosperous and democratic Iraq, how is building oil infrastructure contrary to that objective? I recently saw William Shawcross on his speaking tour. He said of his time in Iraq that Bagdad is booming now - hundreds of TVs, VCRs, satellite dishes etc are piling up on the streets outside shops. The population is enjoying the beginnings of what we have taken for granted for years. Saddam Hussein is no longer spending embezzled oil money on palaces, secret police to tyranise the population or on funding terrorist attacks against his neighbours. That money is going to a nation soon to be sovereign.

And again, we can measure the before and after invasion quality of living by the direction in which refugees are flowing. They are now flowing back into Iraq in unprecedented numbers. If America wanted to take the profit from Iraqi oil, it could - America's military power is immense. But it did not. Why not? Why assume American intentions are not moral when the outcomes of American intervention are compatible with the stated goal of liberating and rebuilding Iraq?

The words of Coalition allies are another argument in favour of the argument that America's intentions are moral. Most European countries are in the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.
http://geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html

If you follow that link and scroll down to the bottom, you will find that many countries aligned with America over Iraq because they felt America had defended them, or would defend them, from tyranny - and that the war in Iraq was evidence of that. (Particularly look at the articles on Portugal, Albania, Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel and Poland's Adam Michnik). Belarus' dictator, one of the last Soviet tyrants, opposed the war on the basis that America might invade Belarus and unseat him!

I'm interested in your answers Dave.

---

I would like to pay my condolences to Norway over the death of Tommy Rødningsby.

He stood shoulder to shoulder with honourable people around the world, and died a hero.

Think there is trouble now? This is totally Unbelievable. Here is a speech verbatim at the
European Parliament as reported at http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/001525.html

SITTING OF WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2001

Situation in the Middle East

“Coûteaux (EDD). – (FR) Madam President, the most surprising thing about our debate is our surprise, for Israel's expansionist policy is the inevitable and predictable result of the growing imbalance in the region, the stability for which we bear much of the responsibility. Firstly that is because since 1967 most of our states, with the notable exception of France, have continued to give the State of Israel – a state that is growing increasingly self-assured and domineering – the impression that it can violate international law and UN resolutions with impunity.

In reality, here as elsewhere we have followed Washington and persist in closing our eyes to the theocratic excesses of this religious state whose governments are under the thumb of fanatical parties and minorities that are just as bad as the other groups of religious fanatics in the region. That is why we should envisage imposing sanctions on Israel.

There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country (DF: i.e. France) pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice.”

Trevor Stanley, Melbourne . . .

You said: "And again, we can measure the before and after invasion quality of living by the direction in which refugees are flowing."

This is the most telling of all signs. I was a sort-of socialist who thought Cuba was a worthy experiment until 1971. You may have heard of the Mariel boat people. They risked life and limb by crossing from Cuba to Florida in tiny makeshift boats, knowing that if they survived they would be imprisoned in the U.S., at least for a time. This "migration" cured me forever of pro-Castroism. Watch the migrations, and you'll see where there is hope and where there is despair.

Bjorn,
My husband and I read your tribute to Tommy aloud this evening and we join all here who mourn his death and are thankful for all the brave soldiers from Norway - Italy - Australia - Poland - Britain or the USA who are fighting this battle. Trevor, thanks for your kind defense of my country. We've got your back too. Dave is a cynic who only knows propaganda, but no history. No one is more aware of the failings of the US than its own citizens. The hearings over Abu Graib are but one example of how hard we are on ourselves. It seems the whole world and half of our own citizens want us to fail. And so what then? Does Europe have the will to stand up against the Islamofacists? Do the Arab leaders? I think back to the days before 9/11 when the Taliban blew up the priceless Buddhist statues carved into the mountainsides of Afghanistan. I think that may stand as a metaphor for what the result would be for Western culture, the ancient cultures of India or Japan - any traditions that would be classified as infidel.

Tororo: Concerning Cuba. I visited Cuba last summer, and I plan to visit it again, maybe in December this year. I am, however, not a left wing person, at least not by norwegian standards. :)

What surprised me about Cuba was that people are much more free than I would've thought. There is not a lot of 'obvious' and 'typical' oppression. The economy, however, is not very good. It's basically screwed.

I've also talked with some Cubans that has "escaped" Cuba one way or another. The funny thing is that Cuba has a lot of freedom, and a lot of oppression at the same time. When the soviet union still existed - they lived in what some of the has described as "paradise". These days, however, the economy is very bad - and that is the negative aspect. Without some form of capitalism and competition in the economy, a country really can't do very good - as it is competition and capitalism that drives a healthy economy.

The funny thing is that almost everybody I've talked to blames mainly the US for the economy - but Castro for screwing up foreign relations.

My personal view on Cuba is that it is still a worthwhile experiment. Only the economy is truly screwed up. Nationally they also need to get rid of some oppressiveness, but it's far less than in for example eastern european countries in the 80s.

Annoying things except the economy in Cuba:
- Compulsory national ID, that you have to carry at all times (for cubans).
- As a tourist, every place you rent a room has to register you, with passport number, and so forth. Furthermore, there is a stupid rule that you're not allowed to rent a room for less than - I think it was two, maybe three days.
- Cubans apparantly has to register where they leave for vacations and so forth.

In other words, there is a LOT of red tape, and in my opinion, oppressive red tape.

On the positive side, there doesn't seem to be what I call "pre-censorship", as there was in eastern europe under communism. Papers don't have things censored out of them. On the other hand, if they step out of line - things are investigated and people are probably punished.

Furthermore, most goods seems to be available for the public, but you've got to have the economy to be able to afford the goods.

All in all, as a right-wing person, my views about Cuba got more positive, after visiting the country. I had thought it was far more oppressive than it actually was. I was somewhat impressed at how free people actually was - compared to what I had imagined.

To clarify my posting of the speech by France, I got an e-mail from a friend who is in the Dipolmatic core and he writes

"Just to clarify: the speech . . .is actually not by "France". Rather, it was made by a member of the European Parliament from France. As you know, the members of the European Parliament are elected by, and represent, districts across the EU (e.g. Paris central or east-central Manchester). They do not represent the countries from which they are from. They are also usually elected along national party lines that reflect local political views. Hence, voters in a stronghold of the National Front in France are likely to elect a National Front candidate to represent them. The candidate who made this disgusting speech sounds like a member of Le Pen's group.

None of this takes away from the sad and very alarming fact that France has its share of anti-semites and those who hate Israel. However, the speech should not be confused with a policy position taken by France. As bad as French foreign policy may be, this isn't a statement by someone representing France."

Sorry for what was a misleading post.

Bjorn,
Your point, that nations who do not contribute to the betterment of the world have no grounds for criticizing those that do, is well made. I think you can take some pride from the fact that Norway, in my opinion, punches well above its weight when it comes to taking real action in attempting to make the world a better and more peaceful place. Norwegian support for having troops Iraq and Afghanistan may be shaky, but none the less, Norwegian troops are in both countries.

When you take a look around at other nations for some perspective, I think Norway shows very well indeed. The true hypocrites and scoundrels can be found in control of countries like France, Germany and Russia. These are the countries that lambaste America and President Bush at every opportunity, real or fictional. This, in spite of the fact that they are doing absolutely NOTHING to make any place on the planet better for anyone, other than themselves. Worst than just the hypocrisy of these countries, is the fact that these all three appear to have actively participated in defrauding the oil for food program, hijacking the UN security council with veto threats and yet still manage to find the arrogance to grouse about not getting enough American money thrown their way in rebuilding contracts.

I think Norway has a long way to fall before reaching the level of some other countries Bjorn.

Franko

"I think back to the days before 9/11 when the Taliban blew up the priceless Buddhist statues carved into the mountainsides of Afghanistan. I think that may stand as a metaphor for what the result would be for Western culture, the ancient cultures of India or Japan - any traditions that would be classified as infidel."

Well written Kate. Some people do not realise the threat we are up against. The west should stand together for it's culture and values. It is sad that europeans have been spoon fed propaganda against america in media and schools.

Well, then the first Norwegian soldier killed by enemy action in Afghanistan is back home again.

The Norwegian Air Force C-130 that brought grenadier Tommy Rødningsby (29) back home landed at Gardermoen airport about an hour ago, and six guardsmen from the Royal Guards in Oslo carried the flag covered coffin off the plane just after 9 pm, while an honor guard of men from his own battalion (Telemark battalion) saluted the coffin.

His family and the commanders of the army was there, and national television showed live the coffin being respectfully disembarked from the plane.

At least we don't try to smuggle our dead home, while trying to hide the fact that soldiers die in wars.

And he died in a cause worth dying for, supported by a large majority of his countrymen and women, unlike the poor soldiers who got sent to try to help clear up the needless mess that fool George Bush created in Iraq.

We'll stay in Afghanistan until the mission is completed. But hopefully we will be able to get out of Iraq without having any of our young men die needlessly there.

Anyways - I still hope we won't have to have too many such ceremonies.

As our great wartime poet Nordahl Grieg wrote during WW2 : "We are so few in this country. Every fallen is a friend or a brother."

Stein

Kate,

Thanks for your comments. I think you are right to identify the public airing of the Abu Ghraib disgrace as (1) distressing for those in the coalition and (2) evidence that our societies are open, and will at least face up to failings in a way dictatorships don't. This argument was summed up on Thursday by a Vietnamese human rights activist in a talk I hosted, "Two Sides to Every Story: Perspectives on the Vietnam War and the Iraq War":

[ The recent Iraqi prisoners scandal is a disgrace, the way the My Lai massacre in Vietnam was a disgrace to the American army. Are these acts excusable in any way? No. Are they justifiable in any way? No. Does this incident shake my belief in a free and democratic system in any way? No. Because thanks to that system that these details are aired in public, this is a confirmation that we have freedom of the press, freedom of expression, we have a justice system to hold those responsible accountable, we extend justice even to our enemy, the kind of justice Saddam Hussein and the Vietnamese communists denied their own people. ]

The full text is available:
http://geocities.com/pwhce/textvnhr.html

Rune:

I have seen you defending the Cuban system before, and I want to be frank and say that I think you are painfully naive. You have in no way explained why thousands of Cubans have risked death to sail or swim from Cuba to Florida. Note that no Americans have 'fled' in the opposite direction. How do you explain this?

[ There is not a lot of 'obvious' and 'typical' oppression. ]
Typical of what? You mean it's neither Stalinist Russia nor North Korea nor late-Ba'athist Iraq, so let's not worry?

[ The funny thing is that Cuba has a lot of freedom, and a lot of oppression at the same time. ]
I'm sure those subjected to "a lot of oppression" (such as the intellectuals and human rights activists recently imprisoned by Castro) find it hilarious. Rune, you talk of a "worthwhile experiment", but in my country and yours, we have a lot of freedom and no oppression at the same time. What is worthwhile or funny about experimenting with the injection of "a lot of oppression" into the equation?

[ As a tourist, every place you rent a room has to register you, with passport number, and so forth. Furthermore, there is a stupid rule that you're not allowed to rent a room for less than - I think it was two, maybe three days. ]
As a tourist, you are in a position to naively consider this a quaint, anachronistic inconvenience. Do you know why these restrictions apply? The Cuban intelligence finds it much easier to track you, and to prevent 'counter-revolutionary activity' such as independent political expression if it enforces the above measures. Can you imagine living with those restrictions for decades, unable to even stay overnight at a friend's place? Can you imagine being scared to discuss the arrest of your countrymen for the crime of expressing divergent political opinions as we are doing here? Constantly fearing that the political police might burst into your bedroom at night, next year, next month, next week - or tonight... because after all, they know where you are staying, don't they? (Incidentally, the conditions you are describing were described by our speaker on Wednesday, in reference to the Vietnamese communist system.)

[ Cubans apparantly has to register where they leave for vacations and so forth.]
Of course; they live in a repressive communist dictatorship. Here is the form Soviet citizens had to fill in when travelling abroad(including doctors going on conferences, intelligence agents going abroad to subvert democracy etc):
http://geocities.com/pwhce/doc2rus.html

And when they return home, they are extensively debriefed about any foreigners they spoke to, what was said, etc.. Did that happen to you when you returned from your trip to Cuba? Why not? Is your country not participating in a "worthwhile experiement" in "a lot of oppression"? (Incidentally, the movie Kolya shows, in passing, the effect of this debriefing on a typical Czech citizen, a brilliant musician who is reduced to playing violin at a cemetary and repairing tombstones to support himself. All because he made a joke during a debriefing.)

[ On the positive side, there doesn't seem to be what I call "pre-censorship", as there was in eastern europe under communism. Papers don't have things censored out of them. ]

I think perhaps you're confusing pre-censorship and post-censorship. An efficient totalitarian regime never has to physically blot or cut out sections of a publication (post-publication censorship). The party has a direct role in the decision of what to publish (pre-publication censorship), so nothing is written that will actually need to be censored.

[ On the other hand, if they step out of line - things are investigated and people are probably punished. ]

Probably? Where were you last year? Before you defend a dictatorship, you should make a cursory effort to find out what is actually happening.
From a BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2993609.stm
"International criticism of Cuba continues after it jailed 75 dissidents for terms of up to 28 years in April following summary trials, and executed three failed hijackers shortly afterwards.
"Reporters Without Borders described Fidel Castro's state as "the world's biggest prison for journalists" in a global report issued this week."
"The Cuba Policy Foundation - a Washington group which campaigned for the ending of the embargo against Cuba - disbanded in protest."

(From memory, the hijackers were trying to take a boat to America, for which they were killed.)

And so on...

Rune, I realise that the amount and nature of oppression you witnessed in Cuba was less than you personally expected to witness. However, you seem to have really lowered the bar when it comes to oppression. We know North Korea is more oppressive than Cuba, but who cares? How much oppression is tolerable? We read of the torture and arbitrary arrests in Saddam's Iraq, but in Cuba you did not personally see those acts. You did see abundant evidence of the apparatus that ensures every citizen knows such oppression is possible at any moment (although you appear not to have recognised this 'red tape' for what it is). What do you accept? How much freedom is enough, and how much oppression is too much? How much longer should we defend the Cuban "experiment" with people's lives?

I've also talked with some Cubans that has "escaped" Cuba one way or another. The funny thing is that Cuba has a lot of freedom, and a lot of oppression at the same time. When the soviet union still existed - they lived in what some of the has described as "paradise". These days, however, the economy is very bad - and that is the negative aspect. Without some form of capitalism and competition in the economy, a country really can't do very good - as it is competition and capitalism that drives a healthy economy.
battery

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/702