Barack Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace, delivered in Oslo, on December 10, 2009, elicited a good deal of appreciative and bewildered comment. The speech presents itself as a meditation by a benevolent man of power on questions of war and peace. Yet, before a world audience on an international occasion, Obama made the most overtly nationalist declarations of his career in politics thus far. In explaining his interpretation of a prize for peace, he made the broadest defense he has yet offered of American military action throughout the world. There is internal evidence that major portions of the speech were written by Obama. Boldface headings in the abridgment below are mine; excerpts under the headings are quoted verbatim.
Wars are better when we kill as few civilians as possible.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
The U.S. won the Cold War and made many people rejoice. The result: free trade the world over, and greater world unity.
The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together.
The terrorism of non-state actors is unique in the scale of the violence it inflicts on civilians.
Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
The practices of Woodrow Wilson on the one hand, and Gandhi and King on the other, can to some extent be reconciled.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago [to form the League of Nations]. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak - nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.
Historically, America has not sought to impose its will on other countries. The service of our armed forces throughout the world has been uniquely important to the happiness of people everywhere.
The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
The world of nations supported the U.S. in our just wars in Afghanistan and the Gulf.
I believe that all nations - strong and weak alike - must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was a moral and political success, and co-operative interventions on that model must be pursued so long as instability exists in the world.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The perpetuation of NATO is essential to the pursuit of peace.
I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable.
The U.S. must continue to fight more wars than any other country, and we must be exemplary in fighting our wars justly.
I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
Harsh sanctions, such as those now in contemplation against Iran, are a necessary weapon, short of war, to reduce the threat of states that endanger the stability of a region.
Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament.
Authoritarian despotisms, and even totalitarian regimes, may be reformed in the long run by diplomatic ventures like that of Nixon with China and Reagan with the Soviet Union.
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable - and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
As Reinhold Niebuhr taught us (on my reading of him): we know that we cannot always practice non-violence, yet we will be improved in all that we do practice if, in doing whatever we do, we have love in our hearts.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached - their faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Though I hold an office and, in some degree, continue policies that make me the successor of George W. Bush, I stand before you as the successor of Martin Luther King. The paradigm of the combination of these roles is the UN peacekeeper who, from an isolated and exposed position, risks his life by shooting a gunman who would break the peace.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
"Obama forcing us to live in area between absolutes! Brain hurts! Complicated!" - Jon Stewart
One, to explicitly expand the already easily misused notion of “just” wars to include “humanitarian” intervention. Formerly, that excuse for intervention went by the less politically correct rubric of “white man’s burden”.
Two, to deny ulterior motives or undesirable consequences for US interventions, past, present, and future. That denial was accomplished by a selective and chauvinistically pro-US interpretation of past history. Furthermore, the claim was made that present and future US interventions should be construed as defensively humanitarian.
John Quincy Adams, among many others, have long warned against the arrogantly simplistic foreign policy that Obama is attempting to popularize.
[If America] “by once enlisting other banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extradition, in all wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom....She might become the dictatress of the world but would no longer be ruler of her own spirit....Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy."
- John Quincy Adams
James Madison wrote "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other." War required armies which lead to debt and taxes, all three of which "are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
"As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man."
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html
Quote from Gen Smedley Butler American Military.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."[26]
Is the USA and it's military anydifferent today? I don't think so.
We've also put a timeline on something that, if implemented in the intended way, should be ongoing for years. HAs no one heard the term "exit strategy?" There is one, because there can not be one. There's only one exit strategy in war -- when the enemy surrenders. What of the chances of THAT happening?
The entire operation seems neither here nor there. It's "making a showing." And war is just too serious to be treated in that way.
Obama's strategy of getting the Afghan people and the Europeans to die and get maimed in order to strengthen a brutal, corrupt, drug-pusherocracy in a country that poses no threat to the US or Europe even if the Taliban win can only work in the minds of the Poison Ivy League wrong group-think commander-in-chief and the always-wrong, teenage wannabe testoseroner military brass and their illegal private army contractor allies -- all of whom make a large fortune out of escalation and keeping the killing and injuries going.
This needs to be put into the hands of the adults -- the "out-now-safely" crowd that was right on Vietnam and Iraq. As stupid as continuing in Vietnam and Iraq was and as harmful it was to young Americans and Vietnamese and Iraqis alike, Obama's Afghanistan strategy is even more dishonest, anti-American and dumber. Additionally, Obama is dishonoring American soldiers by ordering them to fight, kill, die, maim and get maimed to strengthen a brutal, corrupt drug pusheroceracy opposed by nearly all patriotic Afghans.
Immediate, safe withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq is the only honorable course and only way to improve our national interests. Otherwise we dishonor our troops.
That's what I thought when I heard the speech.
At west point, the President gave us an equally moving synopsis of this period in history.....and further, spoke eloquently, and forcefully about the continuing need for the US to shoulder this burden ....
along with a (suitably understated) plea for our traditional allies and the emerging superpowers (notably China and India) to take THEIR place along side the US in this noble endeavor.
I also admire his references to nuturing the expansion of the education of girls, and the rights of women worldwide in both venues.
Like so MUCH of the Presidents beautifully crafted, and masterfully delivered rhetoric.......when set alongside his ACTIONS as chief executive.........I'm put in mind of an O. Henry short story.....he the master of the surprise ending
I've seen this act enough to know what I'm looking at.
Amid the beautiful music in Oslo and at West Point.......Obama has made no case...... NONE!...for this ill concieved , ill advised, and unwinnable war in Afghanistan....and SURPRISE! he means to RADICALLY expand this travesty.
Those of us who did not drift off into dreamland during these beautiful arias now stand up and say resoulutely ...NO!
STOP THE WAR! US OUT OF AFGHAISTAN! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.BRING EM HOME
tm
The Nobel Committee knew what they were doing when they gave it to America's first African-American president, a man whose political skills and symbolism to billions is certainly emblematic of peace.
More to the point, they gave the award to the Commander-in-Chief of the strongest and largest and most aggressive military in the world--and a country in the middle of two wars (one, arguably illegal).
Under the circumstances, OF COURSE, Obama's speech was nationalistic (i.e. that of a clearly AMERICAN president). And it was the ruminations of an essentially peaceful man who finds himself deciding the life and death of others.
In short, the speech was honest, thought-provoking, and pragmatic--like the President himself. (And to those who say, "It was just like George Bush", please re-read the previous sentence, ....and think again.)
Obama's sanctimonious sop is just a self-righteous cover for ulterior motives like oilfields, pipelines, war profits, and subservience to political benefactors.
http://c4ss.org/content/1529
First the US supported Taliban elements and AlQaeda to topple a secular government.
Then we toppled the Taliban in order to kick out AlQaeda (which then was a Saudi conspiratorial group unhappy with US military support for the despotic Saudi sheikdom).
Then we installed a corrupt government of drug lords backed by permanent US bases to keep the Taliban from coming back, lest that lead to AlQaeda returning ( with more members, because we now have invaded and occupied additional countries, established additional bases, and contributed to ethnic cleansing and the displacement of millions).
Now, as ’collateral damage’ we must bump off not only civilians who get in the way , but ‘insurgents’ who don’t like foreign occupation, and ‘radicals’ who oppose the corrupt governments we install and support.
Our leaders defend all their actions as morally “just” because supposedly it will keep us ‘safe’. Conveniently for them, their hypothetical cannot be empirically disproven. Thus, they conveniently hide any unsavory motives such as pipelines and war profits under a nationalist cloak of omniscient benevolence.
Fairly standard rehashing neo-liberalism, allbiet a bit offensive considering the venue
I suppose the main problem with the central thrust of speech, is that it didn't apply to our current wars, which are preventive and nation building wars. Instead of defensive wars against already aggressive enemy. If it were just against the aggressor we would not be fighting the Taliban, just Al-queda
His main point of course was Hitler, how peace doesn't work in that case
But Remember, in the Hitler scenario, the guy who invaded countries pre-emptively to create a more perfect society...was Hitler. Nobody said you can't fight back, just not attack first
It then got jumbled a bit more when he talked about Mao and Russia and how not going to war was the answer in those cases. Considering both Stalin and Mao killed as many people as Hitler, it doesn't seem to match up. Why was war clearly the answer in the case of Hitler but peace was clearly the answer for Mao?
If it were just German jewsand other minorities being persecuted inside of Germany as horrible as that is it would not be the same at all. After all similar things were happening in America, India, Africa, Russia, Asia, ect. at the time
What made Hitler super evil was that he tried to take over the world and impose his particular brand of racism and ideology on everybody by force
The USA Governent has killed over 1,000,000 in Iraq alone, never mind the 4 to 5,000,000 Vietnamese, or Cambodians, citizens in Latin America etc.etc, in it's ongoing wars to secure the world for Wall Street.
It is so hypocritical of Americans to talk about other nations killing people. Who has the most sophisticated killing machine in the history of the planet and is always using it, or looking for an excuse to use it? Why that would have to be the good old USA.
"In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament."
Yes, but you seem opposed to those rules based on your stance on Iran and Israel one country has followed the rules, the other hasn't yet you punish the innocent. and reward the guilty
"In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable - and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies."
Yes, because Nixon wasn't seeking regime change they got along...how does that apply to you, who claims to be for diplomacy but has an official policy of regime change in the countries liek Iran that you oppose
"Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control ..."
I'm sorry, Ronald Reagen and arms control? How ridiculous
Look at what happened to your country on 9-11. 9 terrorists with box cutters shut down your country and federal government and they only destroyed a few buildings. You could not even find George Bush for three days afterward. Think of New York 100% flattened and every other city of note in the country flattened and a couple of hundred millions dead as well, how would the country respond to that? As one Russian General put it a few years ago when Bush was opting out of Nuclear Control Treaties, "do Americans think they are immune?" Well no one is immune.
"The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will..."
First,You didn't defeat Germany, the Russians defeated Germany, you defeated Japan. And you still occupy Germany, the Balkans, Korea and Japan, so there clearly is some some interest at play huh? As far as enabling democracy, in some cases this is true, when they elect leaders we like But there are actually more examples of the United States opposing democracy, for example all throughout South America.
"The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, "
This is just simply false that world opinion favors the war in Afghanistan;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_on_the_war_in_Afghanistan
"That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Again more obvious lies. You refuse to conform to international treaties when it comes to POW's. You refuse to join the ICC. You refuse to extradite convicted torturers, ect.
Actually over time the % of civilians killed in combat has risen not fallen. You in particular have a very bad record on this, due to your reliance on drones and missiles
"The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. . "
Yes, the unilateral dismantling of many of Russia's satellites and foreign bases was good. However it was unmatched by the United States. NATO has been expanded since the Russians shrunk.
"Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale."
While in theory this is true, international terrorism has in reality caused minimal deaths compared to organized warfare.
"There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."
But if its individually then doesn't that apply to all of your enemies as well?
I think that's all the critic they give me room for