Myopia on a pathological level

The Swedish government plans to further "streamline" the Swedish Defense (in Swedish). In 2008, Sweden will be able to, within a year, deploy 2 multi-purpose fighter divisions, 1 airforce base battallion, 3 army brigades, 3 (!) howitzers, 1/2 surface-to air battallion, 0 helicopter battallions, 0 naval base battallions and 4 mine sweepers.

Defense and security policy is simple. In the absence of a centralized world government, national security hinges on presenting a credible threat to invasion. Countries either build national defense structures, or become allies to stronger military powers, who protect them in return for a certain loss of national discretion. Unilateral disarmament implies handing over de facto sovereignty to other powers.

Swedish neutrality was always at best a bad joke, but having a national defense made it possible to stand outside of Nato. Without a defense, Sweden will have to join an external power, not by choice but by necessity. From a democracy view-point, making the decision to unilateraly disarm without real policy debate is troublesome at best. Personally I am in favor of Sweden joining Nato. However, without anything to contribute, I do not see why they should let us enter.

And then there is that little detail of Sweden's responsibility as a guarantor of peace in conflicts which do not immediately affect Swedish security. UN missions? Not practically possible.

When Swedish Social Democrats bargain with the foundation of the Swedish state to gain short-term benefits with post-communists and civilization-hating greens, the short-sightedness takes virtually criminal proportions.