New orders?

What will the future for the Swedish Armed Forces look like? Well, a lot depends on the success of the current international operations that Sweden has taken or takes part in.

The Air Force has recently pulled out of Libya. The military part of the operation has been a success. Gadaffi is dead an the rebels are in control of most of Libya. However there are a lot of weapons that has not been accounted for. There is a huge risk for a civil war in Libya if the National Transitional Counsil does not take control of the country and disarm the rebel forces. The "Arab Spring" has resulted in the removal of tyrants, but can very well result in the installation of new ones. In Tunisia the islamic party Ennahda has won the election. Hopefully it will not enforce religious laws on the population. In Egypt there are still riots on the streets even after Mubarak was forced to resign. And these were the "peaceful" rebellions. What will happen with Libya?

In Afghanistan the future looks very unclear. ISAF will pull out in 2014. The Swedish troops in Mazar-i Sharif will start to pull out during 2012. This is a decision by the Swedish government supported by he Social Democrats and the Green party. 150 soldiers will leave during 2012 and in May/April 2014 the unit will leave the country. During 2012, three of the provinces will be transferred to ANSF control. The Swedish helicopter unit will stay. Unclear for how long. They have today two HKP 10 Super Puma and will after 2013 replace them with HKP 16 Blackhawk. After 2014 about 200 Swedish personnel will be in the country training Afghan units. But who will ensure their safety? If the security situation in Afghanistan will not be good enough in 2014 I seriously doubt that any Swede will stay in he country. Unfortunately the violence has increased in he northern provinces. If this is due to increased activity in the south and a change of operations in the north is hard to tell.

If the result of these Peace Enforcing missions will be countries left in chaos, then I believe that the Swedish government will change its policy and return to Peace Keeping missions.

But what do the Swedish politicians have to say about the future?

In a recent article in the Swedish paper "Svenska Dagbladet", Peter Hultquist (Socialdemocrat) and chairman of the Defence board of the Swedish national assembly (Riksdagens försvarsutskott) said that the opposition will not see Sweden lead another EU Battlegroup in the future. He also criticize the new logistical organisation and most of all the professional soldier system that last year replaced the conscript system. He stress the importance of supporting the Swedish military industry and in the near future the new A26 submarine.

I agree on the need to cancel Swedish involvement into EU Battlegroups. There is no future in building up the EU military capability as an alternative to NATO. The only countries that realy want this are those outside of NATO, such as Sweden and Finland. The other can not afford even a NATO-membership, even less extra cost for an alternative force structure. If Sweden want to take part in Rapid Reaction Units, then it should be NATO QRF. The Sedish Air Force squadrons are very adapted to this, which clearly the Unified Protector campaign showed. The Gripen Aircraft has NATO IFF, Link 16 and Have Quick radio. The pilots are trained in NATO-tactics and the staff units are used to NATO ATO - Air Task Orders.

I also agree on the need to investigate alternate solutions to the professional army. The recruitment basis for officers and soldiers will be too small. I also fear that the Swedish civilian population will have less understanding of what the Armed Forces are used for. My suggestion is to return to the conscript system, but have a three month training, much like the three month "boot camp", GMU - "Grundläggande Militär Utbildning"/Basic Military Training that is used today. Volunteers can the go on with the rest of the training to become soldiers, NCO:s or officers.

The development of the A26 submarine is also good in order to keep the knowledge of submarines development at Kockums. However Kockums is no longer a Swedish company, but owned by German ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. To say that Swedish military industrial knowledge is preserved is not accurate. The socialdemocrat politicians has also historically has a close connection to the industry. In some cases this has resulted in just developing military material rather than developing military capability.

Well, what is the governmental response on the Socialdemocrat critique?

Ceciilia Wennerström and Hans Wallmark of the Moderat-party response by saying that future Battlegroups will be pulled from regular army and air force units. They also say that the reason that the air force unit could be sent to Libya was due to tha fact that it was part of the Nordic Battlegroup NBG11 in standby alert. They also focus on the need to support EU military capability.

Well, what to say?

There is a big discrepancy. In the same article they say that the reason to why Sweden succeeded in sending the Air Force unit to Libya was because it was on high alert, but also that in 2014 any unit could be sent abroad without being specifically put on high alert.

Both statements are wrong!

The Swedish Air Force has always been on high alert and taking part in around the clock Combat Patrols over Sweden as part of the Swedish QRA - Quick Readiness Alert. The only difference today is hat the squadrons are trained in NATO-tactics and that the aircraft are NATO-compatible. That the Air Force can respond quickly without being part of a Battlegroup is shown by the change of the uit down in Libya when F17 Wing (that was part of NBG11) was replaced during the summer by F21 Wing that was on ordinary Air Force alert.

To say that any unit could be send abroad as is after 2014 is also not correct. There are no Swedish units that look exactly as needed for international missions. It must be put together specifically. And then it is also a need to train the unit for the mission in order for them to up and running. As best individual platoons or even maybe companies can be sent as is. The rest including civilian doctors, nurses etc has to be recruited. The army units hat are planned to be sent to Afghanistan know exactly what they are preparing for and can be sent for pre-deployment training about half a year in advance. But to say that all units will have this capability at the same ime will never be possible. It is too costly for the Armed Forces. It all depends on the level of training they have received to say that they are on high alert. In the Air Force there are four combat squadrons. One will be on alert. One will be on rest after an alert period. One will perform basic training of new personnel and one will be preparing to be on high alert the next period.

This kind of articles are unfortunately only propaganda. The Swedish minister of defence has not earned his nick-name "Baghdad Bob" for nothing. He and his followers has not changed their opinion even though a lot of officers are complaining that the planned future for the Armed Forces has not received a balanced budget. To have a complete Armed Forces in alert cost a lot of money. Professional soldiers are more expensive than setting up units for international missions when needed.

The focus on EU is also catastrophic. Sweden is today in need of an international ally. EU will never be this ally. The only available ally is NATO. Do Sweden want to continue in this direction which will sooner or later result in he need to join NATO?

The problem with both the Socialdemocrat and the Moderat defence polisy is hat the budget is too small to handle all ideas. The Moderat future will end in that the Armed Forces will strive to keep their personnel due to lack of training and lack of money to pay decent wages to the professional soldiers and NCO. The Socialdemorat future will end in that the Armed Forces can not rain due to much of the economy is lost to "sponsor" the Swedish military industry.

It is fortunate for the Moderate party that I agree on their economical politics that has steered Sweden clear from the economical disasters that has affected the rest of Europe, because I do not agree on much of the current military politics! Unfortunately the Socialdemocrat ideas are not much better financed. And since the rest of their politics is not financed as well I will stay away from voting on them.

SvD1, SvD2, SvD3, SvD4, SvD5

Italy is Pulling Back

Italy is starting to pull back units from the NATO "Unified Protector" mission over Libya. The reason is lack of money. The financial crisis in Europe has resulted in Greece having to get loans from the European Central Bank in order to stabilize their economy. Italy and Spain is next on the PIIGS list of countries who are very near the same financial disaster as Greece. Both Italy and Spain are involved in "Unified Protector" and probably both countries will reduce their involvement in the operation.

First to leave is the Italian aircraft carrier Garibaldi.

"We have cut back costs in Libya, from 142 million euros forecast in the first half of the year to less than 60 million for the second half," Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa said after a government meeting.

The news came after Italy's Cabinet moved to cut spending military spending.

The plan had been drawn up to pull the Garibaldi, its three fighter jets and 1,000 personnel out of the mission as they were "no longer necessary", La Russa said.

What will the future be for the Italian Air Force? Lt. Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis, Chief of Staff, Italian Air Force has in an interview discussed his view on "Unified Protector" and the Air Force future. Focus is of course the replacement of Tornado and AMX with F-35A/B aircraft.

Q. The Italian Air Force has planned to replace its AMX fighter bombers with the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B, starting from 2014, before replacing its Tornados with the F-35A. But Defense Undersecretary Guido Crosetto has hinted that buying just F-35As might be the order of the day, given the delays in the STOVL program.

A. We still have a need for both an F-35A and B. The delay of the B is not a problem. We are ready to reconsider the whole thing in light of the probation period for the B. We are ready to switch to the A as the initial order. We do not forsee IOC [initial operational capability] before 2018 in Italy for either type, and the first ones will remain in the U.S. for training purposes. The buildup of the F-35A fleet would be at the end of the decade, as the Tornados draw closer to being phased out.

Q. One advantage of the getting the Bs first was that the AMX, which they are due to replace, will be retired before the Tornados. What happens if the AMX phaseout starts before the Bs arrive?

A. AMX phaseout will start gradually, and it is scheduled to take place without losing significant operational capabilities due to the fact that aircraft with the latest upgrades will be dismissed last. In this way, we will still perform all the assigned missions, only with fewer aircraft.

The UK has used their Eurofighters for strike missions. But Italy has focused on using Eurofighters for CAP - Combat Air Patrol to secure the NFZ - No Fly Zone. Initially this was performed by F-16 ADF. The air to ground missions have been performed by Tornado IDS and AMX. SEAD missions by Tornado ECR and IDS. Recce missions by Tornado IDS. Italy are planning to remove the Eurofighters altogether from Unified Protector since there is little need for fighters over Libya and instead increase the number of AMX involved. This is of course also a financial decision since the Eurofighters are more expensive to operate than the AMX.

The Italian Eurofighters have during June been on Iceland for training. Maybe they will support NATO in the air defence over the Northern Seas together with UK and Norway instead of the Libyan mission? In this way UK can focus more on the Libya mission.

Will Italy be able to continue with the introduction of both Eurofighter and F-35?

There is one big advantage by operating two different types of aircraft. If there is e technical malfunction that affects the whole fleet of aircraft there is an alternative solution to be able to continue flying. That is one of the major reasons why USAAF traditionally has been operating at least two different types of fighter aircraft and also why there are at least two different design bureaus involved in an offer to produce the next fighter aircraft. But this is also a very costly solution. Two aircraft types results in two logistic needs for spare parts etc and the need for training pilots and technical personnel on two types. However since Italy buys the aircraft together with other nations they can use other nations facilities for training and other nations logistics for international missions.

Tranche 3B of the Eurofighter development has been put on ice. This means no AESA-radar for the Eurofighter and bad news for UK/Italy company Selex Galileo. But since Italian Alenia Aeronautica is a member of the Eurofighter consortium, they will most likely put political pressure on the Italian government to continue with the Eurofighter upgrades. Italy has a big part in the Eurofighter production.

19.5% Italy (121). Alenia Aeronautica: Left wing, outboard flaperons, rear fuselage sections

Note: Italy has already cut down the number of Eurofighters on order from 121 to 96.

My guess is that the Italian Air Force will have to cancel their order of the F-35B. The rising prize of the F-35 in combination with the Italian bad economy will result in cuts in their Air Force. But there are Italian companies involved in the local production of F-35 and they will of course also put political pressure on the Italian government.

I also believe that it will be very expensive for the Italian Air Force to have both Eurofighter and F-35 with the same type of capabilities. Most probably the Eurofighters will focus on the Air dominance missions (as they have done so far during Unified Protector) with a second hand role of doing air to ground missions while the F-35 will focus on what the Tornado and AMX do well ant that is strike and recce missions. The Eurofighters will most likely never be upgraded to increase their air to ground capability. I am not exactly sure what Tranches the Italian Eurofighters belong to and if all will be retrofitted to Tranche 2 standard or only to Tranche 1 Block 5 standard by the R2 update program. Today only the UK has Typhoon FGR4 with capability to carry Litening Laser Designator Pods and Paveway Laser Guided Bombs. (The picture above is from flight testing).

Here is a summary of all Eurofighter Tranche and Block variants.

It will be interesting to see which aircraft manufacturer (EADS, Lockheed Martin) that has invested the most in Italian aircraft industry. My money is on that the Eurofighter will win this financial battle.

Together with the cuts in the Air Force Italy will most likely be one of the first nations to start cut their forces in Afghanistan. Today there are 4.200 troops in Afghanistan. Since Obama has set the time line for 2014 withdrawal, this gives the excuse for Italy to start removing their troops. The economy will in this case be a more decisive factor than actual success in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The bad Italian economy can affect Sweden's military operations as well.

- Italian withdrawal from Libya will increase the need for other countries to continue. Swedish Gripens fly 25% of all recce missions over Libya and deliver 37% of all photos produced. The UK has sent four extra Recce Tornado down to the Mediterranean, but there will always be need for intelligence. Maybe Italy can provide extra intelligence with their Raptor UCAV, but they are still not yet operational. This might also put extra pressure on Sweden to start using the Gripen in air-to-ground role, but I suspect that even if NATO asks for this type of capability, there will be no Swedish political will to do these types of mission.

- In Afghanistan the Swedish government is planning to remove the Swedish troops by 2014. The removal were planned to start 2011, but so far nothing has happened! On the contrary Sweden has sent down to HKP 10 Super Puma helicopters that will be replaced by HKP 16 Blackhawks in 2013 and there is ongoing plans to send down Shadow 200 UAV at the end of 2011. There has been very few political discussions on how the other nations troop removals will affect the security in Mazar-i Sharif and how to synchronize the Swedish removal with that of the others. If some nations, e.g. Italy start to emove their troops ahead of the major pull back, then other countries will have to take a larger part of the overall mission. Since the economy of Sweden is one of the strongest in Europe I would not be very surprised if NATO asks Sweden to increase rather than decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan until 2014.

ANSF Taking the Lead

The build-up phase is now over and it is time for ANSF - Afghan National Security Forces to take the lead in protecting the civilian population from the Taliban.

Nato has handed over control of the central Afghan province of Bamiyan to Afghan security forces. It is the first of seven areas to be passed to local forces under a plan announced by President Karzai in March.

Bamiyan is one of the country's most secure provinces but it is a poor region, heavily reliant on foreign aid.

The handover is seen as a critical step in a transition of power before foreign troops end combat operations in 2014.
...
However the quality of Afghan police and soldiers is patchy and correspondents warn of fears that they will be unable to withstand a renewed summer offensive from the Taliban.
...
Analysts say Nato will find it difficult to effect a successful transition without an end to the war and some kind of political settlement with the Taliban.

Bamiyan is the first out of seven regions to be handed over to ANSF. The other six are Kabul province, Panjshir province, Herat city, Mazar-e Sharif city, Lashkar Gah city and Mehtar Lam town. This will affect the Swedish/Finnish PRT in RC North, since Mazar-i Sharif is in the middle of the four provinces (Balkh, Samangan, Jowzjan and Sar-e-Pul) that are part of the PRT. There will be an increased need for cooperation when operations are at the border of the city. There is a risk that Taliban units use the city for protection and hiding if ANSF is not up to the task of keeping the city safe. The Swedish main base is at the edge of the city, but the civilian aid personnel work inside the city.

See this BBC report from Bamiyan. The locals do not seem so sure about ANSF capabilities as NATO is. If Bamiyan is not safe enough, what about the other provinces? In the UK, the Prime Minister receive a lot of warnings regarding the plan to withdraw before 2014.

Pulling British troops out prematurely from Afghanistan could "dangerously weaken" remaining forces, MPs said.

The Commons Defence Committee said David Cameron's plan to withdraw by the end of 2014 could undermine the international coalition's strategy.

And the MPs said they were still not yet convinced the troops now in Afghanistan had sufficient helicopters.

The 2014 timeline now forces all nations to withdraw their troops. maybe the pace is too fast? Are ISAF really following their own Shape, Clear, Hold and Build doctrine? President Obama was very clear in December 2010 that this strategy would be continued. The US and UK forces in the south has focused on the Clear and Hold phases.

The goal of the surge is to "clear" key population centers of insurgents, then "hold" them to prevent insurgents from returning. The next step is to maintain law and order to allow Afghans to "build" normal lives. This is called a "clear, hold, build" strategy, which US forces also used in Iraq.

But has there been enough focus on the Shape and Build? I am afraid that many Taliban fighters have just moved ahead of the coalition forces. It reminds me very much of the US cavalry war against the Apache Indians during the 1850-1900. The big difference is that our troops are not here to stay. Time is on the Taliban side.

My opinion is that more focus should be at the village or Tribal level, not at the national level. But this has not been president Karzais goal, since he risk to loose his power over the population.

The Pentagon has been pushing the small triumphs of its Local Defense Initiative, which attempts to leverage tribal militias into anti-insurgent "neighborhood watches."

But Kabul has pushed back against the initiative, fearing that the arming and promotion of local militias could lead to a civil war similar to the one that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviets left and which led to the rise of the Taliban.

The problem with the US strategy is that i relies heavily on Pakistan continuing to support ISAF. But after the Usama Bin Laden raid, the US relations with Pakistan has gone sour.

I have seen very few comments in Sweden about when to realistically pull out the Swedish troops. Of course the opposition parties (s), (mp) and (v) all want to pull out the troops as fast as possibly, but no one has any better plan then to start pulling out in 2011 (which has not yet begun) and leave all the provinces to ANSF by 2014. Instead the Swedish unit has been reinforced with MEDEVAC helicopters. HKP 10 Super Puma until 2013. They will then be replaced with HKP 16 Blackhawk. There are also plans to send a UAV unit with the new Shadow 200 that is being delivered from the US.

With a future tactic, starting 2014, to have very few troops on the ground and then support them with UAV and CAS, I would say that the "armed nation building" and Counter Insurgency will soon be back at pure Counter Terrorism. That is if ANSF is not ready to take up the responsibility for security and safety in Afghanistan.

SvD1, SvD2, DN

When is a No a No?

The NATO intervention in the Libyan civil war clearly shows how different the European countries act. I does not even depend upon if they are NATO-members or not. Finances and political will out-weights their NATO-obligations in a time when the threat from Russia is almost non-existent.

France went into action with haste and did not even wait for the rest of NATO to act. With support of USA and UK they stroke first with long distance missiles (US and UK only) and then with precision attacks to take out the Libyan air defence. North Africa has always been of particular interest to France.

In the Scandinavian countries there are also big differences. Norway and Denmark are at the front and are dropping more bombs per aircraft than any other country in the Alliance. Denmark is even out of bombs and have asked Holland for more. Finland choose to not send any of its F/A-18. Sweden, a non NATO-member, chose to send 8 Gripen aircraft and 1 C-130 tanker for air refueling. The aircraft are limited to recce missions only since the Swedish politicians are very afraid of civilian casualties.

Germany, one of the biggest and most powerful NATO-members also chose not to intervene in Libya. But this is just a political masquerade. Germany has agreed to send more AWACS personnel to Afghanistan in order for other NATO-countries to send personnel currently in Afghanistan to support the mission in Libya. Germany has also agreed to provide those NATO-countries that are out of ammunition with bombs from German supplies. I.e Germany are not doing the job themselves, but are making it easier for others to do it instead.

With the number of "smart" bombs dropped on Libya estimated at more than 2,000 some Nato allies have seen their stocks dramatically depleted.

Both Denmark and Norway are understood to have asked for more bombs through the Nato Maintenance and Supply Agency and the German defence minister Thomas de Maiziere has granted permission to release stocks.

Note: Out of 2000 "smart" bombs, Denmark has dropped 487!

I wonder for how long the NATO-countries can afford to drop the expensive "smart" bombs? Will the start using "dumb" bombs when the stocks are out and the finances does not cover buying more bombs from Germany or USA?

In this happen there will be more demand on the skill of the pilots to correctly identify their targets and then release the bombs at the correct coordinate. The precision will of course not be as good as with laser- or GPS-guided bombs. Therefore the safety margins and the ROE - Rules Of Engagement must be changed. Each country then also have national caveats within the ROE allowing their personnel to do less than what the ROE in itself states. Within the ROE and the national caveats there will also be more up to the pilot to say "no". After all, he/she is the only one with good information about the ground scenario. In Libya the NATO-forces lack FAC - Forward Air Controller that can identify the targets more precise. There are some Special Forces units on the ground that are cooperating with the rebels, but there is no information about them being used as FAC.

In Afghanistan there are rumors that Danish and Norwegian pilots (among others) have refused to bomb targets that did not look legitimate to them. Precision weapons have one big disadvantage, and that is the need for precision intelligence. It does not matter how small targets you can hit, if it is the wrong target. Precision weapons also make it possible to bomb closer to civilians and your own units which increase the risk if something goes wrong.

During the Iraq War there was numerous incidents with blue-on-blue and civilian casualties. Australian pilots have reported 40 occasions when they did not deliver their weapons because the targets was not correct.

But it appears there were fundamental differences between the US dominated headquarters and Australian pilots over what constituted a valid military target.

Squadron Leader Pudney said under Australia's rules of engagement pilots had to ask themselves on each mission whether it was right to drop their bombs.

"Each guy would have made that decision once to half a dozen times in the conflict. It was presented as being just one pilot in one incident, but it was all of us several times," he said.

If e.g. the Swedish politicians does not want their pilots to take these decisions then it is correct to do as they have done to limit the Swedish Gripen to only perform recce missions. But someone has to do the fighting otherwise the Gripen photos will be of no use other than documenting Gadaffis war on his people. Unfortunately there is no possibility for a pilot to say "Yes" to a mission his leaders have forbidden him to do. In this case it is only for him to watch, as was being done i Rwanda and Srebrenica by the UN-forces. But sometimes you can be punished for doing nothing. The dutch government has lost a case in the Haag tribunal for not protecting three men in Srebrenica. 8000 people were killed in Srebrenica, will their families sue the dutch government also?

What will this court decision lead to? More countries taking more responsibility for their actions and getting involved to protect civilians or some countries avoiding the international missions completely in order to avoid any risk of doing anything wrong.

SR

The Willing Unwilling Swedes

Sweden has come a long way since the Cold War. From stating "Non-Alliance in Peace aiming for Neutrality in War" Sweden has joined NATO PfP - Partnership for Peace program in 1994 and EU - European Union in 1995.

By tradition Sweden has a long tradition taking part in UN-led Peace Keeping missions.

Our contribution to the United Nations started as early as 1948 when Military Observers were sent to the Middle East. The first Swedish battalion under UN-flag was deployed in Gaza 1956.

The first Peace Enforcing mission was in Congo 1960-1964. This was also the first official engagement for the Swedish Air Force, deploying a squadron of Saab J 29 "Flying Barrel". (The first unofficial engagement for the SwAF was during the war between Finland and the Soviet Union in 1940 where Fighter Wing 19, a "volunteer" wing of Swedish pilots and technicians, fought for Finland using Swedish Air Force surplus aircraft that was given to Finland as a gift from the Swedish government.

After the end of the Cold War at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the independence of the Baltic States in 1991, the Swedish military command was a bit taken by surprise. The army was focusing more and more on international missions and their material standards were not very good compared to the Navy and the Air Force. The supreme commander decided together with the politicians that there was a unique opportunity to raise the standards of the army units. This was unofficially named the "The Strategic Time-Out". Unfortunately no-one decided when this time-out was supposed to end.

The first true test of the Swedish capability to perform "modern" Peace Keeping/Peace Enforcing missions came during the Bosnian War 1992-95. (I recommend Morgonsurs stories from that war). In 1995 the Swedish UN battalion was transfered to NATO-command, the blue UN berets was replaced by brown and the unit insignia was changed to NATO IFOR. Strangely, this was not a very big issue in the political debate even though the communist party did not like the connection to NATO and therefore also to USA. This was the year when Swedish policy on taking part in NATO-missions truly changed.

Sweden continued to take part in NATO-led missions in Kosovo 1999 - today and Afghanistan 2001 - today and lately in Libya where the Air Force is taking part with combat aircraft for the first time since the Congo War (not taking into account cargo aircraft and helicopters).

During these years the Swedish national defence was torn down into pieces. The Air Force was drastically reduced to today 6 squadrons and the Navy is almost non-existing. Worst of all was that the war-time bases was closed down. The Swedish strategy of defending the country without relying on outside help was no more. After the cold war historians have discovered that there was preparations made to get help from NATO if there was ever a war with the Soviet Union. However this was not trained in any way, so the help would have been quite ineffective.

In 2010 the last brick of the Swedish national defence was torn down when the conscript system was canceled. Nowadays boys and girls only do their military service on a voluntarily basis. The capability of the armed resistance in Sweden has therefore been cut down from 700.000 to 60.000 (including the 30.000 strong home-guard).

Sweden has signed the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008. After this date the European Union is a legal body and the work for a common foreign, security and defence policy has started.

The treaty foresees that the European Security and Defence Policy will lead to a common defence agreement for the EU when the European Council resolves unanimously to do so, and provided that all member states give their approval through their usual constitutional procedures.[34] Additionally, the area of defence has become available to enhanced co-operation, potentially allowing for a defence integration that excludes member states with policies of neutrality. Countries with significant military capabilities are envisioned to form a Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence.

The challenge with this security policy is that it is in writing close to NATO Article 5. Most countries in Europe are NATO-members and has no issues with this. But, Sweden has agreed upon helping NATO-countries and get helped by NATO-countries without being full member of NATO! The military command of the EU, EUMC has very little power compared to NATO and must rely on NATO assets and command structures. A EU-led mission will in all practicalities be a NATO-led mission.

To top all of this Sweden has in 2008 issued a one-way "Declaration of Solidarity".

Sweden would not stand passive if a neighbour is threatened or attacked. We expect others not to stand passive if Sweden is threatened. We must be able both to provide and receive support, with relevant capabilities, also of a military nature.

In practicality most of Sweden´s neighbors are NATO-members (excluding only Finland and Russia). The declaration of solidarity can result in Sweden being forced into a conflict in the Baltic region taking the NATO-side. This will most likely result in a conflict with our biggest neighbor, Russia.

But, even taken into consideration all these small steps towards NATO membership the Swedish politicians refuse to debate whether to request for full membership or not. According to polls the Swedish citizens are against a NATO-membership. The Swedish minister of defence, Mr Tolgfors, states that "there are a de factor solidarity between European countries". But in the same article he also reflects upon the fact that Sweden is doing more for NATO than most NATO-countries. Due to bad economy many European countries (and NATO-members) are not able to take part in Libya. Will they be able to support Sweden or other countries in the future? If the economy is so bad that some countries can´t fulfill their NATO-obligations, then EU military issues will most likely be put on hold.

The ironic thing is that during the Cold War Sweden needed NATO for support, but didn´t train this. Sweden couldn´t be member of NATO due to the official neutrality and couldn´t rely for the help to come. In order to be able to defend the country until NATO decided to help, Sweden had a strong national defence. After the Cold War, Sweden supports NATO and is well trained to both help and receive help from NATO. The capability to defend Sweden is lower than ever and Sweden therefore rely more than ever on NATO-support, but there is still no NATO-membership to guarantee this.

Sweden´s political struggle to admit the NATO-connection has led to very strange decisions regarding the continued mission in Libya. The Air Force unit which is in high demand from NATO is being reduced by three aircraft, but the mission activity will increase. Instead Sweden is planning to send a naval unit and a psy-ops unit that NATO has very low need of. A typical Swedish "lagom" compromise. No-one is happy with the result, but no-one is also angry. All to keep the balance between a minority government and a opposition with the communist party sometimes taking sides with the right-wing nationalist Swedish Democracy party. Political agreements often result in strange bed-mates.

But maybe the politicians are just doing what the Swedish voters want? Both national and international missions. Both keeping the quantity and quality of material. Keep the old type of defence capabilities and building up new units for information warfare. All within a shrinking budget for the Department of Defence. The Minister of Finance, Mr Borg, has more to say about the future of the Swedish Armed Forces then the Minister of Defence. The money does not cover the needs of the armed forces, but the politicians can´t acknowledge the need of NATO-membership due to the low interest of NATO-membership by the Swedish voters.

To quote Mother Teresa:

"We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."

Baltic Watch

The Swedish defence policy has during the last years focused on international operations. The national defence capability to stop invasion of Sweden has been demobilized and a lot of hardware has either been scrapped or sold on the second hand market.

Instead of being a neutral country between NATO Norway and Denmark and the Warszawa pact Russian Baltic states, Poland, East Germany, Sweden has moved closer and closer to NATO. First only as an observer taking part in NATO PfP exercises, but nowadays more NATO compatible then most NATO countries.

As of now the Swedish Air Force is part of the NATO United Protector mission against Libya. But there are still Air Force activities in the Baltic region.

The Swedish Air Force has been involved in the NATO PfP exercise BALTOPS. COMAO - Composite Air Operations has been trained together with units from other NATO countries and led by NATO E-3 AWACS.

In the Baltic states, NATO is responsible for the QRA - Quick Readiness Alert to guard the air space. As of now the French Air Force has replaced the previous JG 71 Jagdgeschwader Richthofen old F-4 Phantoms with their Mirage 2000. An interesting fact is that when Germany replaced the Czech Republic Gripen fighters in with their new Eurofighter Typhoons in 2009 they had serious problems with the availability of the Eurofighter. They had to repelace the Eurofighters with F-4 Phantoms after only a week of operations. Since Germany are still using the F-4 for QRA missions in the Baltic states there must still be technical problems with their Eurofighters. The German F-4 pilots use the nickname "Der Wunderwaffe" for the Eurofighters.

During the German session in the Baltic region there was time for a joint exercise with the Swedish and the Lithuanian Air Forces. This was the first time that the Swedish Air Force took part in NATO QRA training exercises, see the film below.

This training was going to be used live very soon. On July 14 Swedish Gripen fighters together with the French Mirage intercepted a Russian Il-20 "Coot" over the Baltic Sea. The Russian air craft was just watching the BALTOPS training, but the Swedes took the possibility to train together with the French aircraft.

Sweden is part of NATO operations in Afghanistan and in Libya, and now the Swedish Air Force take more or less official part in NATO QRA. When will the Swedish politicians officially acknowledge full Swedish NATO membership?

Avalanche Warning

The Afghan winters can be very cold and normally the Taliban fighters cease fighting during the winter season. Avalanches are a rare thing during the winters and even less this time of the year. But I bet that Mullah Omar can hear the rumbling sound of the avalanche that will start when the US troops start their tactical retreat from Afghanistan.

President Obama plan for removal of the troops has a very tight schedule.

Mr. Obama announced plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 “surge” of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country. He said the drawdown would continue “at a steady pace” until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014.

Slovenia has decided to pull back their troop contribution to ISAF

. When USA leaves, this will also give an official go-ahead for other countries to leave. Countries that were not happy with being in Afghanistan, but needed to show NATO/USA how much they want to cooperate will be the first to leave. The Dutch has already left the country and France will also reduce their troop contribution.

President Karzai was positive to the removal of the US troops. However reading between the lines one can guess that he will start to cooperate with the Taliban in order to stay alive in the future. The afghan people also realizes this.

“During the Taliban regime there were no suicide attacks, but since these people have shown up in our country we have faced lots of adversity,” said Nasrullah, a shopkeeper in Kabul’s dilapidated downtown, who like many Afghans uses only one name. “When they leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will stop fighting; it is only because of these foreigners they are fighting.”
...
“This drawdown will embolden the morale of the Taliban, and actually it has already emboldened them,” the elder said. “The Taliban are saying to the elders not to support Americans or you will be killed, and now they say, ‘The Americans are leaving and your lives will not be spared.’ ”

In the senate the US politicians are talking about all the positive things that have been accomplished during the US/NATO rule. But will it remain so when the foreign troops leave the country? I seriously doubt that.

The war will most probably change from Counter Insurgency to Counter Terrorism. Instead of troops on the ground the US will support the afghan forces with Close Air Support, UCAV attacks on Taliban leaders and UAV and satellite surveillance.

How will Sweden react to the US withdrawal?

- Less troops in the south will give the Taliban the possibility to either take back lost territory in the south or reinforce in the east and the north where there up until now have been a relatively low-intensity war. This can result in heavier fighting in RC North and in the Swedish/Finnish PRT in Mazar-e Sharif. If the Swedish personal losses increase it can end in a public out-cry to pull back the troops ASAP. The Swedes are supporting the war in Afghanistan, but if the cost is to high the support will diminish.

- The Swedish politicians have publicly decided to start pulling back Swedish troops during 2011 in order to have completed the hand-over of the security to Afghan troops in 2014 when most of the Swedish troops will be sent back home. This clearly is a direct copy of president Obama plan. But can Sweden follow their intentions if the security level in PRT MeS is reduced? Or will the Swedish politicians just use the US withdrawal as an excuse to leave Afghanistan in the same way as Slovenia is doing?

Unfortunately, the US plan reminds me of the withdrawal from Vietnam. First a "surge" in 1972 with the Linebacker campaign to bring the north Vietnamese to the negotiating table in Paris. Then a pull-out of US troops and a Vietnamization of the war using South Vietnamese troops to do all the fighting and ensuring the public safety. However the South Vietnamese were not able to stop the north from invading and in 1975 the last US helicopters left the US embassy in Saigon just as the first North Vietnamese tanks entered the city.