Swedish army?

New York Times innehåller idag en lång och intressant artikel som hävdar att Bush och hans administration styrs av känslor och åsikter snarare än fakta och nyanserade diskussioner. Väl värd att läsa i sin helhet, men för oss svenskar är nog den mest intressanta biten ett stycke om en diskussion angående vilka länder som skulle kunna tänkas sätta in fredsbevarande styrkor i Israel-Palestina-konflikten. Källa är den demokratiske senatorn Joe Biden:

The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

Några veckor senare kom dock Bush fram till Lantos och erkände att han hade rätt: de där svenskarna hade nog en armé i alla fall.