Archive for December, 2015

APPIANUS BOK OM DE ROMERSKA INBÖRDESKRIGEN PÅ SVENSKA

December 16, 2015

Stora konventionella krig har sedan andra världskriget ersatts av inbördeskrig som huvudsaklig form för militär konflikt. Det är därför välkommet av den klassiske historikern Appianus, Romerska inbördeskrig, Bok I och II (Santérus Förlag, 2015) för första gången översatts och utgivits på svenska. Det finns ytterligare tre böcker av Appianus i ämnet.

Intresset för universalhistoria samt frågan om civilisationers och imperiers uppgång och fall har av tradition inte visats större intresse i Sverige. Det kan vara en av orsakerna till att Romerska inbördeskrig inte försetts med en mer djupgående analys av inbördeskrigens roll i det romerska rikets historia. Den viktigaste anledningen till Västroms och Östroms fall torde ha varit inre slitningar.

Teorierna om orsaken till de två rikenas fall är många, men med stor sannolikhet var de vanligt förekommande inbördeskrigen och revolterna sedan 130 f. Kr. bidragande. Varje kejsare sedan Septimius Severus hade åtminstone en inre konflikt, ofta flera, under sin livstid. Det var hela tiden enbart fråga om makt, inte om några ideologiska skillnader. Alla motkejsare hade behov av militärt stöd för att utmana kejsaren i Rom eller i Bysantium. Varje ny inre konflikt försvagade ytterligare imperiet. Särskilt allvarlig blev situationen i Västrom från 200-talet e. Kr. fram till kejsardömets fall 476 e.Kr.

Egentligen borde man inte fråga om orsaken till Västroms och Östroms fall. Frågan borde i stället vara hur det var möjligt för rikena att existera så länge som de gjorde. Långsamma nedgångar var Roms och Konstantinopels öde. Den direkta orsaken till Västroms fall var de germanska angriparna. Men det var på 400-talet e. Kr. enbart en rest av ett rike som försvagats under århundraden. Det behövdes inte mycket för att störta Västroms siste kejsare.

I Appianus verk beskrivs bland annat folktribunen Gracchus uppror liksom kampen mellan Marius och Sulla, samtliga under republiken. Inre slitningar började försvaga den romerska samhällskroppen redan under republiken. Catilinas sammansvärjning 63 – 62 f.Kr. var en annan inre konflikt som bidrog till rikets försvagande och finns med i den nyutgivna Appianusboken. Appianus levde mellan 95 och 165 e.Kr.

Den svenske författaren Bertil Häggman arbetar sedan flera år med ett trebandsverk, som behandlar inbördeskrigs och revolutioners inverkan på den västliga civilisationen. Det har nu pågått en inre konflikt sedan 1789 i Väst. Den fortsatte efter revolutionen i Frankrike först som ett europeiskt inbördeskrig för att efter 1944 utvidgas till ett världsinbördeskrig. 1800-talet var ett revolutionernas århundrade och kommunismens framväxt ledde fram till 1917 års statskupp i Ryssland, då bolsjevikerna tog makten. Under en rad år efter 1917 strävade Sovjetunionen efter världsherravälde. Först gjordes försök till statskupper i västeuropeiska länder. En sovjetisk militär invasion av Västeuropa inleddes men slogs tillbaka av den polska armén i slaget vid Warszawa år 1920. Efter misslyckandet i Europa stod Asien på tur. Det sovjetiska intresset för asiatisk makterövring ledde bland annat till Maos seger i det kinesiska inbördeskriget 1949.

Under hela det kalla kriget pågick ett närmast permanent världsinbördeskrig under vilket Moskva och Peking gav sitt stöd till så kallade befrielsekrig främst i Asien och Afrika. Ett liknande hot mot Väst är nu den världsomfattande jihadistiska terrorn.

Avslutningsvis bör nämnas att termen ’bellum civile’ (inbördeskrig) började användas först under den sena romerska republiken. Andra termer var tidigare vanliga som ’seditio’ (partistrid, uppror och oroligheter), ’tumultus’ (uppror, upplopp) samt ’turba’, ’perturbatio’, ’discordia’ och ’dissensio’. Som alternativ till ’bellum civile’ förekom också ’bellum domesticum’ och ’bellum intestinum’.

Advertisements

WHY AIR POWER ALONE WON’T BEAT ISIS

December 12, 2015

Wall Street Journal on December 8, 2015, published an article by Max Boot. He explained that bombing and the delusion multinational support will not win a war. Ever since the dawn of the air age more than a century ago, military strategists have been prone to the delusion that bombing by itself can win wars. Excerpts below:

Today the air-power fantasy is that dropping enough bombs on Islamic State jihadists will get the job done in Iraq and Syria. The approach is a bipartisan, indeed multinational, daydream, shared by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton…

“Victory, speedy and complete, awaits the side which first employs air power as it should be employed,” said Air Marshal Arthur “Bomber” Harris, head of Britain’s Bomber Command. But even when the Royal Air Force and the U.S. Army Air Forces combined to unleash their bombers on Germany, they didn’t produce speedy victory. Germany managed to increase industrial production under bombardment.

The only places where U.S. air power has worked against ISIS so far has been in battles such as Sinjar and Kobani, where effective ground forces, chiefly made up of Kurds, were also involved. This confirms the lessons of the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Iraq war: In all those conflicts, American air power was decisive only when used in tandem with effective ground forces, whether belonging to the U.S. or local proxies such as the Kosovo Liberation Army or Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance. Bombing by itself—like Bill Clinton’s 1998 airstrikes on Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan—achieved little.

Predictably, where the U.S. has bombed ISIS without effective follow-up on the ground, the results have been negligible. The Pentagon claims to have killed 23,000 ISIS fighters, yet estimates that ISIS forces remain at around 20,000 to 30,000—roughly where they were before the bombing started. This suggests that ISIS is able to replace fighters as quickly as they are killed, just as the Viet Cong were able to do in the 1960s.

There is a case for ramping up air power against ISIS, but that would require sending tactical air controllers into battle to accurately call in airstrikes, which President Obama so far has refused to do. Even then, destroying ISIS would require effective ground forces, and given the inability of the U.S. to mobilize enough effective proxies in either Syria or Iraq, it looks increasingly likely that the U.S. will need to provide at least some of the troops itself. Polls suggest that a majority of Americans now support using ground troops against ISIS. But President Obama again ruled out this option in his national-TV address on Sunday night, saying: “We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war.”

No one wants “a long and costly ground war,” but just as in the past, air power alone won’t win this war. Any administration strategist or presidential hopeful who pretends otherwise isn’t serious about achieving victory.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio.

UKRAINE STARVATION GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION (HOLODOMOR) IN MANITOBA’S PARLIAMENT, CANADA

December 9, 2015

Luc.org on December 1, 2015, reported on the commemoration in Manitoba’s parliament of the Holodomor. All members of the Manitoba Legislavitve Assembly received copies of the newly-released English-language book ‘Holodomor – The Ukrainian Genocide 1932-1933’ during Holodomor Awareness Week. Excerpts below:

The donation and distribution was organized by the League of Ukrainian Canadians (LUC). Both Premier Greg Selinger and Opposition leader Brian Pallister were among the MLAs at the official presentation.

Afterwards, Hon Dave Chomiak read a Ministerial Statement regarding the Holodomor to which Ron Schuler, MLA responded. The LUC delegations along with Holodomor survivor Sonia Kushliak were acknowledged in the House.

Below is an excerpt from Hon. Dave Chomiak on the Holodomor:

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and I want to thank all members of the House for providing me leave.

Mr. Speaker, from 1932 to 1933, the Stalin regime deliberately induced a famine that killed an estimated 7 million Ukrainians. This regime sentenced Ukrainians to a horrifying, slow death by starvation in an attempt to destroy their hopes for a free and independent Ukraine.

One of the difficult things about the Holodomor is the question: Why didn’t people know of this outside of Ukraine? Well, how is it today? We really do not know what is happening inside Syria today. How is it we couldn’t confirm Hitler’s murderous acts?

My father lived in Ukraine during this period. I asked him many times. He did not know; he lived in that part of the Ukraine controlled by Poland. Stalin’s regime not only murdered, but they covered up.

The horror has left a deep scar on the Ukrainian community throughout the world, including here in Manitoba, where many survivors and their descendants, some survivors here today, have made their home.

To honor the memory of those we lost, we mark the fourth Saturday of November as Holodomor Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day. November 23rd to 29 is also National Holodomor Awareness Week.

Events in the world tragically repeat themselves. This has been the sad story of the people of Ukraine. Yet in their remembrance of this tragic event and, more important, through the spirit and unrelenting resolve of the Ukrainian people, a new Ukraine has emerged.

In modern Ukraine, where as we speak, the Ukrainian people strive to preserve democracy, we join them. We join them through our remembrance of the past and hope for a truly free, united Ukraine as we go forward.

Mr. Ron Schuler (St. Paul): Mr. Speaker, our hearts and prayers are with the Ukrainian community in Manitoba and throughout the world this week, Holodomor Awareness Week, as we remember a very dark chapter in the history of Ukraine and the world.

In 1932 to 1933, Joseph Stalin’s communist regime committed genocide on the Ukrainian people, killing approximately 10 million Ukrainians in an effort so well suppressed that to this day, historians still don’t know the exact number of lives lost. This genocide is known as the Holodomor, based on the two Ukrainian words: hunger and kill. There was hardly a home in Ukraine where someone hadn’t died of starvation.

In Canada and Ukraine, Holodomor is marked for remembrance on the fourth Saturday November. In two days from now, hundreds of Manitoba families will stand in the cold at Winnipeg City Hall to hold small loaves of bread with candles in them, marking the prayer service for the 82nd anniversary of the Ukrainian Holodomor.

The people of Ukraine hold a historic place at the heart of Manitoba, with many families in our province tracing their roots to this European country. My father, Reinhold Schuler, was born in Volhynia, Ukraine.

Last September, a monument to the Holodomor was unveiled on the grounds at the Manitoba Legislature as a sombre memorial to the forced starvation of millions of Ukrainian men and women and children.

When good men and women stay silent, those with evil intentions win. Mr. Speaker, let us never forget.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: I’d like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Oksana Bondarchuk, president, Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Manitoba council; we have Myroslava Pidhirnyj, president, League of Ukrainian Canadians, Manitoba branch; we have Irka Balan, Valya Noseworthy, chairs of Holodomor Awareness and Education Committee; and Mrs. Sonia Kushliak, Holodomor survivor, and her daughter, Halyna Kushliak-Sutherland, who are the guests of the honourable Minister of Mineral Resources (Mr. Chomiak).

On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon.

THE U.S. EXTENDS PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE COSMOS

December 8, 2015

Wall Street Journal on December 6, 2015, published a commentary on an important improvement of space law. It is now legal for Americans to mine an asteroid. But there a further implications. Excerpts below:

…prospects for commercial spaceflight have been skyrocketing, the law governing it had not been updated in more than a decade. That is what makes the bipartisan U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which President Obama signed Nov. 25, so important. The act is a full-scale overhaul that streamlines regulatory processes, promotes safety, and will allow commercial spaceflight companies to reach new milestones.

One provision of the law, however, has gotten most of the headlines. It says, quite simply, that if an American company retrieves minerals, metals or resources from an asteroid or other location in space, it owns them as far as the U.S. is concerned. That single sentence, which applies to all nonliving matter in the cosmos, appears to be the most sweeping legislative recognition of property rights in human history.

[John Locke has been the guiding light.] In his “Second Treatise of Government,” John Locke argued that God gave the world to humanity in common, but that each person owns himself and his labor. Therefore, when he puts labor into an object through work, he can develop a property right in the object. Similarly, the U.S. recognizes that the cosmos belongs to everyone. But under the new law resources can be retrieved from their location in space and subsequently developed. It is the work of doing this that creates the property right.

[In contrast] the 1979 Moon Agreement, an attempt by 16 non-spacefaring nations—including Australia, Mexico and Pakistan—to define the heavens as inherently public. The agreement bans private ownership of any lunar property. It requires “equitable sharing” of any developed lunar resources, and promises that the needs of developing countries “shall be given special consideration.”

The U.S. did not join the Moon Agreement. It is, however, party to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, along with 102 other countries. This treaty states that “outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use,” but that they may not be “subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty.” In other words, if you build a colony on the moon, the U.S. can’t admit it as the 51st state. Space is extraterritorial limbo.

That said, because it does not prohibit other kinds of property rights the Outer Space Treaty is generally regarded as authorizing the economic use of space. Congress’s new law complies fully with the treaty, in that it covers resources “obtained” and not “in situ.” But lest any doubt arise, lawmakers included a further provision: “By the enactment of this Act, the United States does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body.”

With a strong, clear statement that the U.S. will recognize property rights in space, Congress has given a boost to a growing industry. Planetary Resources, a company that I advise, has already launched the first in a series of technology demonstration satellites and plans to send its first prospecting probe to an asteroid by the end of the decade. Private investors can now back it and other ventures, secure that they will own whatever metals and minerals they can extract and bring home.

Property rights spur hard work and innovation—in Locke’s day, in ours and in the age of commercial spaceflight to come.

Mr. Stimers, a partner at K&L Gates LLP, is public policy counsel to Planetary Resources, as well as the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

Comment: Mr. Stimers is correct. The Soviet Union during the Cold War unfortunately had a great influence in the United Nations. The UN legislation concerning space from that era should now be revised. The new U.S. legislation is a step in the right direction. The Loc kean principle must be introduced in earlier space treaties to protect individual property rights in cosmos.

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the “Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015”.

SEC. 402. TITLE 51 AMENDMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle V is amended by adding at the end the following:

“CHAPTER 513—SPACE RESOURCE COMMERCIAL EXPLORATION AND UTILIZATION

“Sec.
“51301. Definitions.
“51302. Commercial exploration and commercial recovery.
“51303. Asteroid resource and space resource rights.
Ҥ 51301. Definitions

“In this chapter:

“(1) ASTEROID RESOURCE.—The term ‘asteroid resource’ means a space resource found on or within a single asteroid.
“(2) SPACE RESOURCE.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘space resource’ means an abiotic resource in situ in outer space.
“(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘space resource’ includes water and minerals.

“(3) UNITED STATES CITIZEN.—The term ‘United States citizen’ has the meaning given the term ‘citizen of the United States’ in section 50902.

Ҥ 51302. Commercial exploration and commercial recovery

“(a) IN GENERAL.—The President, acting through appropriate Federal agencies, shall—
“(1) facilitate commercial exploration for and commercial recovery of space resources by United States citizens;
“(2) discourage government barriers to the development in the United States of economically viable, safe, and stable industries for commercial exploration for and commercial recovery of space resources in manners consistent with the international obligations of the United States; and
“(3) promote the right of United States citizens to engage in commercial exploration for and commercial recovery of space resources free from harmful interference, in accordance with the international obligations of the United States and subject to authorization and continuing supervision by the Federal Government.

“(b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the President shall submit to Congress a report on commercial exploration for and commercial recovery of space resources by United States citizens that specifies—
“(1) the authorities necessary to meet the international obligations of the United States, including authorization and continuing supervision by the Federal Government; and
“(2) recommendations for the allocation of responsibilities among Federal agencies for the activities described in paragraph (1).

Ҥ 51303. Asteroid resource and space resource rights

“A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United States.”. (emphasis added here)

(b) TABLE OF CHAPTERS.—The table of chapters for title 51 is amended by adding at the end of the items for subtitle V the following:

“513. Space resource commercial exploration and utilization …….
51301”.

SEC. 403. DISCLAIMER OF EXTRATERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY.

It is the sense of Congress that by the enactment of this Act, the United States does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body.

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY ON THE RISE OF CHINA

December 5, 2015

The Diplomat on October 15, 2015, published an interview with Professor Francis Fukuyama on the rise of China, East Asia tensions, and the role of the United States. He was interviewed by Emanuel Pastreich, Director of the Asia Institute.

Francis Fukuyama is a leading American political scientist, political economist, and author best known for his books The End of History and the Last Man(1992) and the Origins of the Political Order. He serves as a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. Excerpts below:

Q: We have to start with the simplest of questions. If we want to understand the challenges in East Asia today, we must first consider why it is that Asia has become so central in the global economy and why it plays an increasingly large role in global politics. How do you explain the enormous shift that we are witnessing today?

A: Well, there is a significant difference between the economic and the political spheres. Obviously, the biggest shift is to be observed in the economic realm. We can trace it back to the industrialization of China after the Cultural Revolution and rise of the four tigers: South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. But the shift in terms of political power is a much slower process than the economic shift.

So if we talk about the rise of Asia, we must be sure that we are clear about what aspect of the rise we are referring to. If we ask the specific question, “Why has East Asia’s economic development been so successful?” We can speak with more confidence about a clear rise, although that rise does not necessarily fulfill all the traditional expectation for growing power and influence. We can be sure, however, that China will continue to increase its influence in global affairs for the foreseeable future.

Q: Why has it been so hard for China, Korea and Japan, in spite of astounding economic growth, to have [a] cultural impact? Certainly the cultures are extremely sophisticated and the level of education is very high.

A: We are seeing some changes these days, but the building of institutions, the growth of global networks, and the acceptance of new cultures takes generations.

Korea has done well in terms of culture. If you look at the spread of K-pop, Korean soap operas and Korean movies, Korea is producing a highly competitive culture that is expanding rapidly, even including spheres like manga and anime that were once exclusively Japanese. But such cultural influence has very little to do with GDP.

Q: I suppose that the dominance of the English language is also an important factor.

A: The power of English has a long history, dating back to the British Empire, but its continued dominance is in part a reflection of culture, and in part a reflection of U.S. dominance in international business. In spite of the remaining dominance of English, we can perceive significant shifts. People are starting to learn Mandarin around the world, and that trend will continue. For some in Africa, Chinese seems like a very significant language. Eventually cultural influence will follow from growing economic power, but the lag time is significant.

Q: Certainly China has a long tradition of good government and of institutional innovation. From the Tang and Song Dynasties to the Ming and Qing Dynasties, China has been able to generate internal reform on many occasions. There have been some scholars like Daniel Bell at Tsinghua University, in his book The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, or Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University in his book The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State, who argue that China is fundamentally different than other nations in that it is a civilization, not a nation state. Is there perhaps something transformative of China, that seeks to remake the entire world, not just expand into new markets?

A: I’m a little skeptical of such efforts to see some sort of new Confucian vision in the chaos that is the present Chinese political economy. I just do not see an integrated package; it’s an incoherent package. The official message coming out of China in its official sources is still taking Marxism-Leninism as its base. Perhaps there is a sincerely interest in the past, but basically Chinese are pretty confused about Confucianism.

Q: But in the West things are at last shifting a bit. Western intellectuals are taking a stronger interest in Asia and reading and writing about China and its culture and politics. How broad is the interest in East Asia in Washington D.C.?

A: Although interest in Asia has risen remarkably, it is probably still far from what it should be.

Q: And what about Europe? How has the rise of Asia impacted France, Germany, Italy and other European powers?

A: What is striking about Europe is just how little attention they pay to China. Although I wish the United States took Asia seriously, compared with Europe, we are doing a pretty good job. You would be amazed to see how much Europeans still are talking about the challenge from America and the American model for business. They are having trouble getting their heads around the fact that China going to be a major player in the world and that what happens in the Chinese economy impacts the European economy.

Q: Let’s talk about the current tensions in Asia, specifically those between China, Japan, and Korea. Although some make grim analogies between Asia today and Europe just before World War I, it seems to me that the conflicts over islands are fundamentally different in its nature from the battle over territory occupied by large populations.

A: I think the conflicts are quite serious because they are powered by the rise of nationalism in Korea, Japan, and China. Young people in each of these countries are growing more nationalistic than was their parents’ generation, and that trend is quite dangerous. Honestly, I am quite worried by what I see happening today. The territorial disputes are not inherently critical, but they take on tremendous symbolic significance and they are at the center of a struggle over geopolitical power. The fight over the future of the Senkaku Islands is not just about a few uninhabited rocks. It is a contest over who will set the rules in Asia, China or Japan. It is this larger question that absorbs the interests of both countries.

Q: What are your thoughts about the U.S. and its position in East Asia? What do you think is the appropriate role for the U.S. to play in Asia going forward?

A: I think the U.S. needs to adjust to growing Chinese power but needs to be mindful of existing commitments. The accommodation of Chinese power cannot come at the expense of traditional allies – Japan, Korea, etc. Doing that is going to be very difficult.

Q: You suggest that the United States must engage China, and recognize its new status, but that there may also be some legitimate reasons for the United States to remain wary of China’s intentions. What specifically must the United States do to create a stable security architecture in East Asia?

A: I feel that the U.S. needs to promote multilateralism in Asia and to consider multilateralism to be in its own long-term interests. The United States has certain advantages in its bilateral alliances. But the use of bilateral relations in Asia can also undermine American influence.

For example, China would like to deal with all ASEAN countries individually, through bilateral exchanges. But can we solve the complex multilateral disputes over coral reefs in the Pacific by a series of bilateral discussions? I think we need to do so through ASEAN, other international bodies, or new institutions that we will build.

Q: Let me close with a question about technology. How do you think evolving technologies (drones, cyberspace and other technologies with dual uses) are changing the nature of conflict and international relations, and what are the implications of those changes for East Asia?

A: I think you can see profound changes already in cyberspace. Already there are essentially no rules whatsoever. For example, if you hack into another country’s computer system, whether the computer belongs to a corporation or to the military, does that constitute an act of war? Who counts as a representative of the government of a country in cyberspace?

We have no agreement about the remedy to growing cybercrime. In fact we do not even agree on what kinds of responses are acceptable. Even if you do know who committed the crime, experts do not agree on how serious it is. And numerous reports of hacking have tended to make the public somewhat skeptical.

I suspect that rules and regulations about online crimes are going to be harder to enforce simply because the technology is so rapidly changing and often it is hard to show there has even been a crime.

THE CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA –THE WEST FACES A THREE-HEADED MONSTER

December 3, 2015

Boston Globe on November 23, 2015, published a commentary by Niall Ferguson. He is professor of history at Harvard University, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and the author of “Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist.’’ Well known from BBC, for which he has produced several TV series, he is a leading scholar in the field of civilizational studies. Excerpts below:

“The terrible events in Paris” were a “setback,” declared a haggard and at times wild-eyed President Obama in a press conference that was painful to watch.

The world faces three distinct threats: an epidemic of jihadist violence, most of it in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia; uncontrolled mass migration from these places to Europe; and the emergence of a “fifth column” of Islamic extremists within nearly all Western societies, including the United States.

The jihadist epidemic is by no means confined to Syria. Last year alone, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace, 32,658 people were killed by terrorism, compared to 18,111 in 2013. The two most deadly terrorist groups were Boko Haram and the Islamic State, which together were responsible for half of the fatalities. Nearly four in five attacks occurred in just five countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria. But the plague of jihad extends as far as the Malian capital Bamako, where Islamist gunmen [recently] slaughtered hotel guests.

There is clearly an urgent need to end the civil war in Syria. But let’s not kid ourselves. Even if President Obama recalled David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal to run a counterinsurgency campaign against the Islamic State similar to the one they ran against Al Qaeda in Iraq, the jihadist epidemic would still infect a dozen other countries.

Threat number two is a wave of mass migration to Europe that has been triggered by the Syrian crisis, but is by no means exclusively Syrian or even Middle Eastern. Statistics on the “country of origin” of asylum seekers in Germany show that they come not only from Syria but also from Albania, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, and Eritrea.

At present, continental Europe has almost no way of controlling this influx, which grows larger with every passing month. Although the German government has now restored the Dublin regulation — which stipulates that asylum seekers can claim asylum only in the member state in which they entered the EU — in practice the entire apparatus for assessing applications has collapsed, as has the hotly contested scheme to redistribute asylum seekers between countries.

Even if every single one of the newcomers was an angel in human form, this would be a disastrous state of affairs, not least because continental labor markets are notoriously bad at integrating foreign-born workers.

The third threat is posed by a fifth column within Western societies of young Muslims or converts to Islam who join or at least sympathize with groups like the Islamic State. The overwhelming majority of these people are not refugees from Syria or anywhere else. Many are the children or grandchildren of an earlier wave of economic immigrants from former colonies. The biographies of the Paris terrorists tell the story.

What links the three threats together is the fact that at least six of the Paris terrorists spent time in Syria; and at least two of them were able to use the refugee route through Greece to return to France undetected. But that does not mean that the Syrian war or the immigration crisis were necessary for the Paris attacks to happen. Young Muslims are getting radicalized all over the Western world without going anywhere near Syria.

The ancient Greeks believed that the gates of Hades were guarded by a monstrous three-headed dog. Like Cerberus, the monster we confront today has three heads: rampant jihadism, uncontrolled mass migration, and homegrown extremists. To defeat it, we shall need to keep our own heads very clear indeed.

Comment: If the West had dealt decisively with jihadism in Syria to stop the civil war it would have prevented at least part of the mass migration to Europe. Had there been no civil war in Syria this would have meant less homegrown terrorists, returnees from the civil war in the former French colony. Failure to integrate refugees in Europe is one of the main reasons for jihadist strikes like those in Paris. The European Union ought also to have improved relations with Turkey long ago.

BRISTER I SVENSK FÖRSVARSBEREDSKAP

December 1, 2015

Regeringens förmåga att hantera och styra Sveriges krisberedskap har betydande brister enligt Riksdagens revisorer. Försvarsberedskapen är ett annat bristområde. Inte på grund av Försvarsmakten utan förorsakat av politikernas nedrustning av försvaret.

Om inte Sveriges väpnade styrkor kan försvara landet i mer än en vecka krävs planering för ett utökat psykologiskt försvar inriktat bland annat på att förbereda medborgarna på behovet av en svensk motståndsrörelse vid rysk ockupation.

Riksdagen bör snarast inrätta två delegationer: den ena för irreguljärt militärt motstånd och den andra för icke-militärt motstånd mot ockupanter.

Hemvärnets roll vid en praktisk planering av svenskt motstånd vid en kommande eventuell ockupation av Sverige borde vara av central betydelse.