Excerpt from Obama’s speech to the Nobel Committee:
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. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.
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.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, 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.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
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 leaders and soldiers of NATO countries – and other friends and allies – demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. 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. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali – we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, 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.
In the eleven months that BO has been President, he has apologized for America’s Actions around the world. Somehow or another, the actions he took in Afghanistan, and the fact that the USA has tried to keep the peace when others did not want to suddenly Dawned on Obama and the excerpt above is where he finally realized the Exceptionalism of the USA and what it tries, sometime unsuccessfully and other times successfully do around the world to promote peace, even if it means war.
A Congratulations from me to this speech. Maybe, and hopefully I pray he will see the unique role the USA plays in the wrold. This is a very good start.
If he’s right, we say it.
Well, at least he didn’t blame Bush, or self-righteously yammer on about Gitmo and “Torture” …
Eric:
Well, at least he didn’t blame Bush, or self-righteously yammer on about Gitmo and “Torture” …
It’s the first step in the right direction in 11 months.
I had intended to write something about this myself over the weekend, but never could get the words to flow well.
National Review’s Abe Greenwald suggested that President Obama’s speech sounded almost wholly neoconservative. He throws several caveats in concerning the President’s performance and policy, but has this praiseworthy paragraph:
Donald Douglas asked if President Obama was “going neocon.” And I noted last month that President Obama, now that he has the actual responsibility for our defense, seems to be doing things not all that differently from his predecessor. Mr Greenberg said:
What has become known as American neoconservatism started from liberal roots: the first influential neoconservatives were mostly liberals who became disenchanted with their positions, because they simply were not seen to work, primarily in foreign policy. Many of the neocons were Jewish, which in the US primarily means that they were Democrats, and even as they moved toward neoconservatism they had little problem with some liberal positions in domestic policy; moderate social liberalism, on things like the welfare system, the strict separation of church and state and abortion was fine with many — though certainly not all — of them.
I bring this up because President Obama could easily follow the same intellectual path. He’s a liberal, certainly enough, but his primary spheres of interest have been almost entirely in domestic policies. Other than his oft-stated opposition to the war in Iraq, his foreign policy statements were mostly vague, his positions during the campaign mostly platitudes. He could become a John Kennedy liberal, a really perfect neoconservative model, moderately liberal on social issues but adamantly conservative when it comes to foreign policy and a belief in both robust democracy and American exceptionalism. (Those with longer memories will recall that John Kennedy ran to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy in the 1960 election campaign.) I would expect to see some grudging praise of some of President Obama’s foreign policy in the next issue of Commentary.
It’s still too early to tell in which direction the President will lead. He seems to have been genuinely upset with the way President Bush did things, but now that he’s the President, now that he’s the commander-in-chief, he has changed his own policies somewhat, moving them to something that could have happened under Mr Bush. I’m not certain that he likes doing things the way he is, but if he has been mugged by reality, he’s also been mugged by responsibility.
It was a surprising speech.
Yea but he undercut it all by saying it is international institutions that are mankind’s best hope for a Star Trek Utopia. No thanks.
He’s just another executive of these guys…..
http://world911truth.org/the-new-american-century-pnac/
Well said!
More 9/11 Twoofer kookery that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely, Obama’s speech.
What the documentary has to do with is the global agenda. Obama is just another cog in the mechanism. If you had actual curiosity, and intellect, instead of pre-programmed Conservative perspective, you’d realize what the scholars, and structural engineers have realized. It isn’t even difficult to see it. Unless opf course you’ve insulated yourself with heavy denial. Frantically attempt to avoid any real awareness. But it isn’t you per se, I’d expect to reach. You are probably hopelessly well insulated with your denial.
For the honestly objective, this structural engineer (among hundreds) has recognized demolitions, with its complete 14 characteristics. I suggest you look, Eric, and see if you can challenge him. At least verbalized here. I dare you! Do you have the attention span?
http://911blogger.com/node/22152
I couldn’t get thru his gobbledygook, what with the lousy audio quality and all. Why is it that all these 9/11 “Truther” sites are so badly run, as if chimpanzees were hired to design them? Can’t any of these people afford a professional to design their websites, or are they all basically 10 year olds in their PJ’s hunkering in Daddy’s basement??
I noticed there were only 3 comments on that whole site. One of them said Americans and Brits were basically Nazis.
And you wonder why we call these people “Kooks”!
Blu,
We don’t censor this site. But your posts have Sub-Zero to do with this thread and topic.
For Blu, everything comes down to her conspiracy theories. It’s proof that the US government is inherently sinister and evil, and everything that goes on in the world is part of the vast conspiracy to kill large numbers of people and cover it up in the name of making huge profits. If you live in Bizarro-world, this type of “Logic” actually starts to make sense …