You all know what happened ten years ago. Four jets were hijacked and two of them flew into the World Trade Center, a symbol of America and free trade between people of decency and good will.

You also know this lead to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as well as a lot more terrorism.
This, I submit, is both true and untrue. 9/11 had to be countered, of course. A superpower like the U.S. can not take a hit of that magnitude without responding, that would have been a confession of terrible weakness and lack of will. So, war and retaliation there was.
But we also have to remember the deeper underlying causes. The reason 9/11 happened was the realization among some Muslims that the new world is pressing on with freedom of expression, modern means of communication and—don’t ever forget it—democracy.
The fanatical (yes, I use that word) Islamists hate Democracy. The priests don't discuss, they decide. They don't want free citizens around them, they want subjects. And the “ordinary” persons' duty is to obey.

All this has been under attack, a silent but relentless attack for centuries. During the 1990s and leading up to 9/11 the reactionaries in the Islamic world had enough of it. They decided to make war, to post a truly gigantic statement saying that the war is not over, that “the West” has not won. If they could put enough scare into the Americans and—with the help of pictures of the towers falling—if they could convey to believers that the decadent West was falling, Islam would regain a good deal of its power. Maybe, who knows, it woud spread? Maybe the West would chicken out and give in to various demands.

As we know, it didn't happen. America went to war, not very wisely and not without committing errors of all kinds. Well, not perfect (since there is no perfect war) but with enough force and enough understanding to show that even if 9/11 took about 3,000 lives—innocent people, including Muslims—it didn't make a dent in the superiority of the free people of the world and our nations. Islam is basically a conservative, not to say reactionary creed. It wants to turn back the clock and give more power to the king and his princes in Saudi Arabia, madmen like the very religious murderer Khadaffi, the likewise pious Bashir Assad in Damascus, etc.

They will not succeed. The attack on the WTC might have been the most spectacular terrorist deed in modern times. It took, as I have written, many lives and destroyed a few buildings. But without being cynical, I can say that we could take that. All civilized countries on the globe went to the aid of the U.S. Free men and women everywhere condemned the hijackers and their leader from behind, Osama bin Laden, himself deposed recently.
In other words: We won, we who think conflicts should be resolved with words, not explosions and murder, we who think religion should be private and we who believe in freedom of choice. America took a terrible blow, but look at it now—more than ever the leading nation in the world. Look at the same time at the Middle East.
I need to say no more. Chaos and bloodshed everywhere and no end in sight.…

Remember Mehdi Ghezali, the ”Cuba Swede” who was incarcerated at Guantanamo? He was there between January 02 and July 04, whereupon he was released and sent back home to Sweden where his father had campaigned for him—quite often dressed in a blue and yellow Swedish flag.
When Mehdi came home to Örebro, he was more or less treated as a hero. He had been, it was said, tortured by the beastly Americans (possible, but not proven). He was totally innocent of, well, anything (unlikely, based on the evidence). He was, in fact, a fairly normal young man, born to a Finnish mother and an Algerian father, brought up in Sweden and holding dual citizenship (which is quite alright), and trained as a welder (although he never really worked). The “Cuba Swede” today is 30 years old.
It must be said that he is either quite an accomplished criminal or a person with an almost unbelievable ability to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, habitually suspected of crime, but always down on his feet. Consider:
Early on, the police suspected the young man of having stolen jewels and other stuff in Karlskoga (of Bofors cannon fame). When the police came to his home, they were met by the father, who explained that Mehdi was not available as he was doing his military service—in Algeria. The claim has not been substantiated (although it would have been possible).
Next, Ghezali spent a year in prison in Portugal, arrested on the suspicion of burglary of stores and robbery of tourists. He was released without trial and promptly went to Saudi Arabia to visit the holy places in Mecca and Medina and study at an Islamic university. The latter proved impossible—he was not admitted—so he went to London by way of Stockholm. In London, it seems, he studied briefly (if at all) for Sheik Omar Bakri, a well known Islamic fanatic. He then went on to Pakistan to try to enter one of the madrassas that teach Islamic fundamentals ... and Jihad, holy war against infidels like you or me.
By the way, nobody on the outside has an inkling how the young man found money to pay for his globe hopping. And Ghezali does not tell, in spite of the fact that many news organizations have asked.
On the 8th of December 2004 he was caught in Pakistan after a group of prisoners he belonged in had attacked the guards in a bus they were traveling with. Ten of the prisoners were killed and so were 7 guards. Ghezali was, for reasons unknown, sent to the U.S. as a suspect al-Qaida supporter. He stayed at Guantanamo for 930 days, after which he was proclaimed “no longer a threat to the U.S.” and let free to go to Sweden.
In Sweden, his blue and yellow father (see above) had developed quite a following. Indeed, Mehdi was popular. So popular that the “government plane” (the aircraft used by the prime minister and sometimes the king), was sent to the U.S. to pick him up.
At the landing: applause, interviews, crowds—it could have been a Hollywood star coming to visit.
After that, silence ... until Ghezali and a few others were arrested in Dera Ghazi Khan, a place well known to al-Qaida, on the 28th of August this year. He was taken to Islamabad together with three other Swedes and a little baby, accused of having tried to enter without a visa. The young lady and the baby were released but refused to leave the country. As for Ghezali, all we know as this is written, is that there will in all probability not be any government plane supplied when and if the time comes to fetch him.

On September 17 it was confirmed by senior administration officials that the Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe. The decision will have implications in many areas in Europe. Here is my analysis from a Swedish and European perspective:

By Ulf Nilson, Stockholm Sept. 22, 2009

At this very moment, when president Obama just abandoned—well, drastically changed—the missile defense the U.S. planned to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic, the armed forces of Russia are engaged in two very big war games, both pointing westward. Operation Ladoga (named for the big lake) is mostly of concern for Finland. Operation Zapad (West!) is more or less aimed at the Baltic countries, but is regarded with some suspicion in Sweden, too.
The suspicion is quite understandable for mainly two reasons. First, the forces involved are huge by Swedish standards: some 80,000 soldiers, 200 tanks and another 600 armored vehicles. The numbers should be seen against the fact that today Sweden could maybe field 30,000 badly trained infantry soldiers. As for tanks, well at the moment there are 17 (yes, seventeen!) tank crews being trained. (The figure is classified. Guess why!)
The very unpalatable truth is that Sweden, as the then supreme commander, Håkan Syrén, said a few years ago, “can not be defended."
Secondly, this is where the issue of the pipeline comes in. Preparations are already well under way for a natural gas line from Viborg in Russia to Greifswald in Germany. For almost half the way it is going to run inside Sweden’s economic zone in the Baltic. It will come extremely close to the island of Gotland. Indeed, the company that is to build the pipeline has already invested money in the port of Slite on Gotland, and this despite the fact that Sweden’s government has yet to OK the project.
What if Sweden says no, for environmental reasons (most likely) or other considerations?
Well, all we know is that a certain Mr. Putin in Moscow has repeatedly stated that the pipeline is very important AND that the Russian marine must be prepared to defend it.
“I don’t think we will go to war over the question,” a seasoned Swedish military expert said recently. If for no other reason than that we can’t go to war.
In other words, some of Sweden’s independence has been compromised. How can a government without any kind of military resources say no to a powerful and aggressive neighbor?
The same question presented itself when president Obama made clear that the U.S. will NOT build a missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. The two Eastern European countries, both once satellites of the Soviet Union, had welcomed American presence on their soil. Now, when the U.S. has clearly bowed to Russian demands that the defense line not get built, the fall feels a good deal cooler. Given the fact that the two countries are members of NATO, there is no panic, but there is no doubt that President Obama’s move is deeply unpopular. The Eastern Europeans realize that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. will receive payment in the form of Russian help with sanctions against Iran, but of that we know nothing so far—and besides, what good will such sanctions really do?
There is, in other words, that unpleasant feeling that Russia is on the upswing, the U.S. accommodating and retreating.
It should be added that the facts presented in this article have hardly been mentioned in Swedish news media. The attitude of "see no evil, hear no evil" is deeply engrained in the Swedish psyche. We have, after all, been at peace for 200 years, so why bother? To apply for NATO membership would, of course, lead to greater security but then the Russians might see that as a truly rude move.
They might even get mad at us and we wouldn’t like that, would we?

Death panels, Sarah Palin said, and the sky almost fell down.
Well, even if she wasn’t exactly right, she had a point. Maybe more of a point than you would like to know.
A few years ago, my first wife’s grandfather, who happened to be the last elected mayor of Stockholm, took ill. One day when his grandson, a doctor, came to work, his colleagues told him:
“Well, last night your old man was dying. If he hadn’t been your grandfather, we would have let him go.”
For the sake of my then brother-in-law the old man was not left to die, but that is only part of the story. The fact is that he recuperated, left the hospital and lived for several more years, smoking cigars, drinking gin and (believe it or not) even having a love affair.
So, to let him go would have been—dare I use the word?—MURDER.
Well, not legally, of course. To kill people by withdrawing treatment is quite legal in Sweden. I have no certain idea of how frequently oldsters are left to die, but I am sure it is very frequently, since in Sweden there is a kind of contempt for old people.
We (I am 76) are looked upon as a kind of parasite. After all, we have paid pensions ... in other words, salaries without work. And we eat, take up seats on the bus (without going to work!) and block hospital beds from younger persons who need them more—they are productive, are they not? They contribute to society, whereas we old-timers only consume. Indeed, there are Swedes who think that life should end at 65 (retirement age) even if they don’t dare to say so (except after a couple of shots among friends).
There used to be a time, I remember it well, when children took care of their elderly parents: visited with them, bought them things, clearly demonstrating love and affection. Today there is very little of that. The old ones are left to fend for themselves, quite often in so-called “homes” that are rather a kind of slop house. The terrible disease called Loneliness and Hopelessness is abroad in the land, more so than in any country that I have knowledge of. Indeed there are times when I find my fatherland quite inhuman: too much stress on efficiency (that hardly exists) and too little on humane behavior.
Come to think of it, we treat our children much the same way. Since the tax laws were “reformed” in 1971 (Palme!) it has been more or less necessary for both parties of a marriage to work outside the home. Which means that the children must be taken care of collectively. In other words, Swedish children are in a sense, wards of the state. They sleep at home but have very limited contact with their biological parents. It is perhaps saying too much that Sweden has abolished family as we used to know it—too much, but not much too much.
The fact is, to return to the beginning of the column, that there have been “death panels” for a long time and in all countries. There comes a time when doctors and relatives have to decide whether it is a good thing to prolong a life that will end soon anyway. In two U.S. states, as in Switzerland, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg, even active “death help” is allowed—usually the needle. To break off treatment is allowed, as far as I know, everywhere.
So, in a sense, Palin was quite right, only she thought she described the future when it was, in fact, the present ….

I have mine, what about you?
I am almost embarrassed to say it, but it seems to me that the reactions to the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 show a lamentable lack of enthusiasm — most particularly in Sweden.
What I hear and read are comments stressing, above all, two things:
One. The “shoot” (as we called it at the time) was basically a propaganda enterprise. President Kennedy looked for something to turn people’s attention from the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs, strike the Russians a blow and regain the initiative in world affairs and world appreciation (not to mention the polls at home). Well, he succeeded to a degree: The moon landing caught the attention of 500 million television viewers — then the largest audience in history — and behind them the whole world. As for the real balance of power, however, it meant not much.
Two. The money could have been spent more wisely trying to eradicate poverty and disease on Earth.
To which I say: Baloney!
To take the second argument first, the money would not have been spent on fighting poverty and disease. The world simply does not work that way. And besides, the enormous sums spent on construction of the rocket, the space craft and the satellite and the computer networks necessary created thousands of jobs and knowledge that slowly but surely trickled down (yes, I use that expression advisedly!) all around.
And besides, even if there was an element of propaganda involved —and, of course, there was — the most important thing revealed was that man is man, a passionate creature, curious, adventurous, condemned to try the impossible (or should I have written blessed with a will to try the impossible?). Blessed with a spirit apparent in Columbus or Wasco da Gama just as later on in Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins. And others.
Man wants to know the universe in which fate placed him. He wants to know, not necessarily for practical, scientific or even political reasons. He wants to know because he is man. He has it within him, indeed it is his destiny, to ask questions and, if need be, try to answer them even at the risk of his life. Are there other similar beings on far off stars? What do they look like? Can they talk? Do they believe in God, and if so, which one?
Can we find another star, so that if on some not so distant day a nuclear war (think Israel, Iran, North/South Korea, Pakistan, India) makes this planet a poisoned wasteland, we might raise our tents and start anew? Can we overcome gravity once and for all and become —should we so wish — masters of the universe?
Right now, it seems, we are playing it safe, tinkering around with the space station, sending out unmanned probes, planning a more or less permanent station on the moon. But wait, wait, the impulse is there, today as much as forty years ago. The problems of propulsion will be solved, and the eternal quest for knowledge, and yes, of course, the adventure and glory will drive new astronauts further and further from this rotating home of ours. Trips to the moon, I safely predict, will be commonplace if (at least to begin with) rather costly. In the enthusiasm after Apollo 11, Pan American issued tickets to the moon. And even if that airline no longer exists, maybe somebody will honor the ticket.
I still have mine and I’m still ready to go, forty years older than when I saw that fantastic rocket streak away in the Florida sunshine.
Forty years older, but still dreaming ….

If we had lived by the old rules, we wouldn't be in a terrible crisis. We wouldn’t have been hit with what, to quote Warren Buffet, was a financial Pearl Harbor.
Right?
Yes, right. The old rules said that you should not buy what you couldn’t pay for. And if you did borrow, you should make sure – before the transaction, please – that you would be able to make the installments. Conservative folks, like myself, of course, waited to buy that car until we had the cash. Same with the house.
This was fairly stupid, I would have to admit. I could have used a car – and a house – long before I could buy either. I could have traveled more and my kids could have had their own rooms much earlier. But as I said, I played by the old rules.
That there were other rules didn’t really dawn on me until I came to the US in 1963. I was 30 and had never borrowed a penny, which made me, on Manhattan, undoubtedly a country hick.
So, I walked into a car dealer’s shop. Soon enough I found a Chevrolet Impala that pleased me. It cost about $3,000 at the time. So I asked the sales man if I wouldn’t get a somewhat better price since I paid cash (I had the money in my pocket). To my great surprise, he said no, no. They made so much money on the interest on the loan (which I didn’t want) that they preferred installments. (I paid cash anyway; it wasn’t prohibited.)
A little later, I applied for a credit card (Carte Blanche). On the application I noted that I had no debts. The application was promptly refused. Confused, I asked my friend and colleague, Arne Thorén, why he, who had debts, could get a card, while I, who was without debts, couldn’t.
"Stupid," Arne said. "Having no debt proves that you have NO CREDIT."
I applied again, citing a few debts I didn’t have. And so I got my card.
And this is where I turn the argument upside down. For with my new card I could buy things, like a new electric typewriter (my first), in spite of the fact that money had not arrived from Stockholm. I could take friends and clients to dinner; the ticket to the Washington shuttle was only a signature away. And so on.
More important, much more, is the fact that thousands, no millions of projects depend on credit. If we had lived by the old rules - cash only – where would we have been? I am fairly sure that we wouldn’t have produced the doctors and the medicines that help us live so much longer; we would have much fewer books to read, probably no Internet, much fewer resorts to visit, etc. If we, the people as well as the banks, hadn’t taken the risks, hadn’t bet on the future without being at all sure that the bet was a winning one, we simply wouldn’t be where we are, but in an older, less fascinating world. We would, indeed, have been poorer in many ways.
This is not to say, of course, that Wall Street did everything right. It did not. In fact neither Wall Street nor Main Street can escape blame. All too many people, literally millions, thought that you can get something for nothing – and the bankers, brokers, and analysts egged them on. But again: While many of us will suffer (let me tell you I lost a bundle), there is no risk, no risk at all that we will land back in the 1930's. We might be poor for a while but on a much, much higher level than at that time or in the 1940's or 50's. We’ll have to adjust and start all over again, but then, isn’t that what life is all about…?

No, it is not going to be as bad as in the 1930's, when 25 percent of the US labor force was out of work and the situation was equally bleak in many European countries (not to mention Asia and Africa, where nobody bothered to count in those days…).
And no, again: most people are not, repeat not going to lose their life savings. In fact life will become harder for many – sick, unemployed, elderly and others – but most will cope, and in time things will straighten out….
This is not to say that the crisis is not serious. It most certainly is. To mention but one probable, if not inevitable consequence, it is likely that the week beginning Monday, Sept. 15, decided the presidential election. When the stock market takes the worst dive within living memory; when tens of thousands of people are forced to leave their homes; when unemployment rises as dramatically as the banks are falling; when everybody thinks there is worse to come; well, then you are not going to vote for any representative of the party in power. So, in my opinion, the race for the White House is over. McCain can just as soon pack up. It’s true that he is a maverick (as well as a hero and a very likeable guy), but barring a miracle it’s all over and Sarah Palin can concentrate on moose hunting for at least 4 years to come. For Barack Obama, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch and – not the least – AIG, was a windfall.
Right off I can count on only one event that would (perhaps) change the scenario and that’s war with Iran. I confess that the thought scares me very much, not the least as quite a few experts have voiced concern that the “best” time for Israel/US to strike is the window between Nov. 4 and Jan. 20, when the sitting president has nothing to lose and the incoming one does not have to accept responsibility.
But this was an aside. What happened? The truth is that nobody – and certainly not I – knows all, or even a tenth of the facts. But put in simple and perhaps simplified terms, greed got the better of the finance industry. Loans were given to people who were not credit worthy who recycled time and time again in “instruments” and “derivatives” that were soon enough worth nothing. This exercise is of course dangerous but as long as everybody trusts that the show will go on, nothing happens. It’s when people and institutions start paying their debts with borrowed money and – after a while – stop paying both short and long term loans that the whole skyscraper house of cards comes crashing down. When too much debt is covered with securities and sometimes insurances (see AIG) worth nothing, the meltdown is inevitable. And, in today’s global world, unlike in the 1930's, everybody will suffer.
It is very painful to have to write that exceedingly many bankers, brokers, financial advisers and the like knew very well what would happen. But increased turnovers (even if what turned over was thin air) begat larger bonuses in – very important – absolutely real money.
I think a video from Wall Street that I saw here in the South of France captured the situation very, very well. A young Master of the Universe broker from Lehman Bros carried his personal belongings along the street in a couple of cartoons. When he came to the parking lot, he dumped the cartoons in the trunk…
…of his brand new Rolls Royce….