In the Arena

A Noble Lecture

Oslo

How does a rookie President, having been granted the Nobel Peace Prize, go about earning it? Well, he can start by giving the sort of Nobel lecture that Barack Obama just did, an intellectually rigorous and morally lucid speech that balanced the rationale for going to war against the need to build a more peaceful and equitable world. The first half of the speech, in which the President made the case for Just Wars, will be the part that makes news. It was especially notable because it was delivered to an elite European audience, denizens of a continent where the most vicious warfare conducted in the history of humankind has been replaced by a facile moral superiority (made possible by the U.S. force of arms during the Cold War). But Obama’s clarity would also have been useful last week when he gave a more grudging, less straightforward, speech at West Point, announcing his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Here are the crucial paragraphs, which bear close reading:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth:  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 Jr. 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 work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.  I know there’s 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 may sometimes be 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, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause.  And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

There is something remarkably gutsy about using Martin Luther King Jr. as a foil before the Nobel Committee, which elevated King, and his movement, into an international moral crusade. But Obama brought it off. The audience didn’t applaud until the end, when it exploded; it was one of those audiences that was concentrating too hard on the words to interrupt the speaker.

The second half of the speech, about peace-making, was well-written and delivered, but it was more the sort of thing a Nobel audience is used to hearing: a call for stronger international institutions, a defense of basic human rights and greater economic equity.

Obama closed with an assault on the religious fanatics responsible for much of the bloodshed in the world and offered an aphorism that will undoubtedly make its way into compilations of deathless quotations: “No holy war can ever be a just war.”

And then a lovely peroration:

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, 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, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school — because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.

Let us live by their example.

This is precisely the way an American President should address the world. No matter your politics, Barack Obama did our nation proud today.

And also: There was a fun bit of byplay between the President and First Lady earlier in the morning, at a small ceremony where Obama was asked to sign the Nobel Guest Book. The President wrote and wrote–in his tiny, precise script, his left hand curled torturously around the back of the pen–and finally his wife asked, “What are you writing, a book?”

The First Lady was then asked to add a few words: “Mine will be shorter,” she said.

“She will resist writing something sarcastic,” the President said, “since this will be recorded for the future.”




Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • Paul-no not that one

    “an elite European audience, denizens of a continent where the most vicious warfare conducted in the history of humankind has been replaced by a facile moral superiority”
    .
    What is it that causes you to write that? “Elite” as a slur, “facile moral superiority” which you use to, again, show how serious you are.

    Your enjoyment of other people risking, and losing, life and limb is sickening.

  • hellslittlestangel

    “…the most vicious warfare conducted in the history of humankind…”

    Yes, like the firebombing of Dresden. Of course, outside of Europe, there was the genocide of Native Americans, the atomic incineration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the defoliation of Vietnam and massacres of its civilians, and the illegal invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq.
    .
    “…a facile moral superiority”

    You’re right, that kettle sure is black.

  • constantweader

    Paul’s right. It is possible, Joe, to say something nice about one person without “balancing” it by saying something nasty about people you don’t know. If most of those “elite, facile” folks in the audience were Scandanavians, the fact is that they do, on the whole, lead lives that ARE morally superior to ours. They have great health care, child care, elder care, etc., & they don’t usually go around shooting each other.

    Many of their parents, BTW, were incredibly heroic in “the most vicious war in the history of humankind,” saving the lives of thousands of Jews & fighting in the Resistance against Germany, all at great risk.

    When applauding a speech about peace, it might be best not to declare war on the audience.

    The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

  • Matt

    It was a speech that should silence the dangerous critics like Cheney who insist on tearing apart this president no matter what he says or does. It won’t, but their arguments will look utterly hollow in the face of a fine speech like the one Obama gave in Oslo.

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • bitterpill8

    Dissing Europeans is easy. Let’s not forget that Europe has had wars over centuries and its people understand the consequences having paid those bills with blood. I know my grandfather helped out in Europe. But he did not think he was doing anyone a favour.

  • Joe Klein

    Nonsense. I could argue that the vast expenses incurred by American taxpayers to protect the European continent during the Cold War makes us morally superior–but I won’t, for the reasons that the commenters here list: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, foolish wars in Vietnam and Iraq. (And I would add the 40 million killed by Stalin to the list of European depravities, a very real threat to western Europe that American aid, both military and economic, helped eliminate.)

    But that doesn’t change the rather facile–which is the best word for it–America-bashing that goes on in Europe. And it doesn’t erase the utter failure of most European countries, especially northern European countries, to fulfill their NATO combat obligations in Afghanistan. I visited the Norwegian troops in Mazar-e-sharif. They’re very nice, but they’re nowhere near the actual fighting.

    I realize that some commenters here are almost universally opposed to the use of American force overseas. You have a right to your opinions, but I disagree–not because of a nonexistent need to “balance,” but because I believe, as Barack Obama does, that war is occasionally necessary, even if it is, as the President said today, the ultimate face of human folly.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Cookie Puss

    It was just a speech. We’ll be chasing our tails in Iraq and Afghanistan for a million years. Merry Christmas.

  • http://thepage.time.com/2009/12/10/getting-set-for-the-ceremony/ Nobel: The Speech – The Page by Mark Halperin – TIME.com

    [...] Joe Klein: "An intellectually rigorous and morally lucid speech that balanced the rationale for going to war against the need to build a more peaceful and equitable world." tiiQuigoWriteAd(755778, 1290697, 600, 240, -1); [...]

  • 53_3

    I wish I contribute something to this discourse, but I really can’t. Good response on Obama’s part for making clear he doesn’t think he deserves the Prize. Good speech, and I think as time goes on, it will be one of the more famous speeches ever made.
    .
    I’m just waiting for the Spittle and Froth crowd, who are chafing after losing ACORN as a platform by the hands of their own investigator, to rally forth with something to be outraged about!
    .
    Just wait and see…

  • 53_3

    Joe:
    .
    America bashing is par for the course, just as Europe bashing is par for the course here.
    .
    I just want to venture the point on your discussion about lack of support in Afghanistan that we are looking at a legacy issue. After Bush’s rancid rhetoric about Old Europe, the Europeans raised the “bobblehead yes” response to a high art. That way, they appear to fall in line while avoiding giving any real support to Bush’s aspirations.

  • oregonmagoo

    Excuse MEee, but could somene kindly explain just exactly when a war can be “morally justified”? Maybe it’s just when it is the US declaring it? All this from a platform of “change”. From what? From his (Obama’s) initial stance of not supporting the invasion from the beginning. Yep, more like a flip-flop if you ask me.
    Merry Christmas troops, welcome to the sandbox. We’ll try to get you out soon, hopefully in 2011. Right!

  • http://seeseebutler.wordpress.com seeseebutler

    “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: 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.”

    If George Bush had said this Joe Klein would have been blabbering that it was “neoconservative” and “hawkish”. Joe would be telling us how counter-productive it was to U.S.- world relations. But the words come from Obama and Klein crawls out of Barak’s posterior long enough to drool.

  • http://tawnytraveller.wordpress.com tawnytraveller

    Agreed. The author’s contempt is shortsighted and dismisses many of the problems faced by such a small country in supporting what was seen as a ‘holy war’ of a maniacal president, Bushy Jr.

    Furthermore, given that America was the one who created and armed the Taliban in their last stint with USSR. I think the onus does lie a trifle more on America to tackle this problem.

    And, I will say this – if 9/11 had happened in any other country (Petronas Towers) – America would have sent a similar force and have had a similar presence in Afghanistan IF ANY given that it is already embroiled in a war of its own making, Iraq.

    It is very easy to throw stones at European countries here but don’t act like America is a champion of justice, it is defending its citizens against a very real and present threat that is all – there is no noble quest for justice here.

  • shepherdwong

    “I realize that some commenters here are almost universally opposed to the use of American force overseas.”
    .
    Is it possible that the commenters are just reflexively suspicious of the use of American force overseas, having been lied to about their use so often and having seen those forces used in ways that brought great moral same and tragic cost to the country and the world with no countervailing benefit in security or stability? Could they also be reflexively hostile to the sort of cheap moralizing about that completely justifiable suspicion?
    .
    Are Europeans being “facile” when they accept American military power to defeat Nazi Germany and check Soviet European expansion but reject Dresden and Hiroshima, Vietnam and Iraq? Quiet the opposite, I think. Seems they understand that “[t]o say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason,” the rub comes with the word necessary. Having provided political cover for the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, I’m not sure you’re in any moral or practical position to judge European pacifism.

  • vwcat

    I know it is considered popular with the press to team up with the right in bashing Europe and their bent towards anti war and peace.
    However, unless both understand the reason behind it, it will only be an empty put down.
    My mom as a little girl had her country invaded by the Nazis.
    This was the second bloody, terrible war fought in Europe, most of it in her country of France, within 20 years. In WWI they lost over a forth of their young men on the battlefield.

    This is why ‘elite Europe’ has no taste for war and are so very reluctant to fight in one. No matter the reason.
    Just thought you should know why Europe is not accepting of wars, Joe.

    I do agree that Obama did a fabulous speech but, I am guessing he will be criticized by your fellow journalists for it. Nit picking as always. Seems in the eyes of the journalist this past year, there is very little Obama does that they find okay. Unlike Bush in his first years, or other presidents in general.
    This president has been trashed, hounded and disrespected and found wanting in all areas.
    It is very sad that while this country should be proud that one of our presidents was selected for this honor, the reaction is the opposite.
    Instead of pride, we have reacted in jeers and sneers instead.
    How sad.

  • chaz1939

    Right on the money Joe! I truly believe that Obama represents the best of what America is all about but, no matter what he does or says, there will always be the Cheney/Limbaugh/Palin/Hannity/Beck crowd that tries to belittle and mock him for the efforts that he makes in trying to make the USA the once again proud nation and leader of the free world.

  • textee

    Didn’t see Obama’s speech, but if it followed the same pattern as every other stop on his endless America Sucks World Tour, I’m sure his audience of fawning America haters at the Nobel ceremony just ate up the predictable cr@p. Can we just keep the poor fool overseas for his last three years in office, please?

  • mxyzptlk1953

    On Cheney, you can’t say it better than Rep. Alan grayson did the other day: STFU!

  • mxyzptlk1953

    How about taking a few moments to read it, instead of writing “if…” when that’s not the case by any measure. It might be refreshing to you to know what you’re talking about.

  • hellslittlestangel

    Military superiority is the only kind of superiority this country’s got. We allow sick people to die untreated if they don’t have the money, we allow the top 1% to control more wealth than the bottom 90%, we sneer at workers’ unions, we have contempt for public education (and often education itself). We reject science and fetishize faith. We balk at spending billions on the public welfare, but not at hundreds of billions for weapons. We trumpet our “exceptionalism” in the vulgarest tone imaginable. We rattle our saber constantly because we have nothing else to rattle. We have the “respect” of the rest of the world right now solely due to superior firepower. We are like ancient Sparta — if ancient Spartans were a bunch of overweight jackoff couch potatoes.
    We have our good points, but totally unjustified self-righteousness isn’t one of them.

  • square1

    And it doesn’t erase the utter failure of most European countries, especially northern European countries, to fulfill their NATO combat obligations in Afghanistan.
    .
    Their NATO obligations in Afghanistan? Don’t be a fool. Eight years ago it may have made sense to use NATO as a tool for attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. After all, we were responding to a de facto military attack on a NATO member.
    .
    Of course, back then, the U.S. was in no position to complain about insufficient contributions from European countries since we first relied on the Northern Alliance to do the job for us and then pulled troops out and sent them to Iraq ASAP.
    .
    Now there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and the mission is only barely related to 9/11. But Klein wants to blame Norwegians for being insufficiently willing to risk their lives to conquer a bunch of unconquerable Central-Asian tribes. Is this criticism for real?

  • square1

    Shorter Obama:

    “Peace is a wonderful thing that we all must relentlessly strive for…Now watch this Predator attack.”

  • 70northsullivan

    Let’s not let little things like substance and fact get in the way!

  • notfooledbydistractions

    Well state vwcat (#10)

    “It is very sad that while this country should be proud that one of our presidents was selected for this honor, the reaction is the opposite.
    Instead of pride, we have reacted in jeers and sneers instead.
    How sad.”

    But I guess that’s just testament to the pettiness of his critics. Out of one side of their mouths they scream “Country First” and from the other they sneer. I think it’s a pettiness that stems from jealousy and their obvious failures. After 8 years of having flag pins and phony patriotism shoved down our throats from all angles, the least you’d think they could do is support our country and it’s recognition with this award. You don’t have to like or respect Obama – this is about our country. This is recognition of our country, and if that can’t see that, they’ve got bigger problems than any of us can help them with.

  • kristiia

    You don’t think World War II was morally justified?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I realize that some commenters here are almost universally opposed to the use of American force overseas.

    Again, Joe resorts to poorly conceived caricatures in order to be able to dismiss his critics rather than engage them. It’s not that people oppose the use of force overseas, it’s that they are fully aware that there are elements within this country that are positively addicted to the use of American force overseas.

    It’s certainly true that we have been the guarantors of Europe’s security at great expense to ourselves for a number of decades now. But it is also true that we have done so at great profit to companies such as Raytheon, GE, Boeing and the myriad of vendors they count on to provide them with parts. The fact that cutting a single item out of the defense budget is like pulling teeth, and that for every Congresscritter who ever says squat about our budget defecits is another one who insists that our Pentagon budget is sancrosanct.

    But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

    As long as we continue to glorify war, instead of regarding it as an occasionally necessary evil, as long as we enforce taboos that prevent us from evaluating the morality of our own actions, we will continue to enable the worst among us to represent the ‘vision’ of America as seen from the rest of the world.

    I’m very pleased with the direction that Obama appears to be heading in, but the status quo to which we’ve been clinging is quite unsustainable.

    Of course I’m leaving unmentioned the great symbiosis between the war cheerleaders, the oil gluttons and the climate deniers. We still have miles to go…..

  • hellslittlestangel

    Ouch.

  • 53_3

    How about send you overseas for the next three years, instead?

  • pintortwo

    I think we can all agree that “that war is occasionally necessary”. But we’re talking about this war, in Afghanistan. If our goal was to dismantle al Qaeda training camps and disrupt their ability to attacks us (a worthy goal) then we have achieved our objective. Attacking the Taliban into reconciliation (twisted logic to be sure), or eradicating them completely, will have no effect on al Qaeda’s ability to plan and launch an attack.
    .
    Al Qaeda’s greatest achievement was not the attacks of 9/11. It is the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They got their enemy to become mired in war without end. To sacrifice our youth. To stifle our economy. To fracture, as a nation, along ideological lines. To lose our moral bearings. To expose ourselves as a hateful people led by deceivers.
    .
    In light of the surge, and it pains me to say this, Obama does not deserve this award.

  • apollyon07

    53_3: Just letting you know I appreciated your thoughtful response to my comment on the global warming issue. I would’ve replied on there but it’s so far back I doubted that you’d see it. A lot of what you said really made me think (which is more than I can say for the lot of the MSM).
    .
    Obama’s speeches have been a mixed bag to me but I very much like what he said here. In the perfect world, war (and similarly, governments) would not be necessary, but sometimes you simply have no other choice. Let’s not forget that World War II was, as Winston Churchill described it, the “unnecessary war”. If only the war-weary world had at the time recognized the ominous threat in Hitler and the Nazi war machine, the Nazis could’ve been stopped and millions of lives would’ve been saved.
    .
    I’ve always thought that with war, if you go in, you have to go in to win. This has been the problem with Vietnam and the current Iraq war. You either commit 100%, or don’t go at all. None of this half-way, we’ll do just enough nonsense. Why waste lives on a half-hearted effort?

  • cfukara

    ” .. Nobel lecture that Barack Obama just did, an intellectually rigorous and morally lucid speech that balanced the rationale for going to war against the need to build a more peaceful and equitable world. ..”

    If we don’t consistently perceive those attributes – impartial rationality, lucidity, rigor – in JK’s postings, how would he recognize them in others?

    Does JK perceive consistency between BHO words and his overt/covert actions?

    Presumable JK reflected on the speech – while taking into account BHO’s actions and USA’s stances over the past year. Then he came up with his syncopated proclamations.

    Well. Dear patriots and countrymen, if you faithfully hung onto a commissar’s word – then you are a good comrade.

  • textee

    Can anyone identify anything Obama knows about war, the laws of war and just war theory? Crickets ….

    BTW, today, the clueless Ben Feller, writing for the execrable Associated (with terrorists) Press, breathlessly and comically alleges that Obama “has long admired” George Marshall. The clueless Feller also alleges that George Marshall is a “hero” of Obama. ROTFLMAO! Does anyone from the thinking community actually think that Obama knows a damn thing about his “hero” George Marshall or “has long admired” George Marshall? While Obama was palling around with William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wrigth, Van Jones, ACORN, et al., I’m sure Obama had George Marshall constantly on his mind …. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama_nobel

  • http://theregimen.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/the-nobel-president/ The Nobel President « The Regimen

    [...] Klein of Time has a reaction here. Towards the end of the speech the president offered this lesson, and it is quite moving. Somewhere [...]

  • grollican

    Been on the sauce again, textette? Or was your usual hatred of America just impossible to restrain?

  • grollican

    We could, of course, add the Palestinians murdered and tortured by the State of Israel to the list. As for Joe’s habitual European bashing, he might remember that much of Europe tried to stop the US from invading Iraq, an invasion which made Joe go all googly-eyed over George Bush and Tony Blair. This was, admittedly, in the days when Joe wasn’t pretending to be a liberal at picnics.

  • grollican

    Yes, but there are wars that commanders inherit which are, for one reason or another, effectively impossible to win in conventional terms. Under those circumstances, a good commander will try and achieve the best resolution he can, which may require some further, short-term commitment of men and resources, with the aim of achieving a more realistic and lasting peace. The point here is that Obama did not begin this war, and did not direct its strategy for the last 8 years. All he can do is to realistically acknowledge where the US currently stands, and do his best to achieve a halfway decent resolution. This task is not made easier by the strategic overstretch imposed by Bush and Cheney, as well as America’s current, unsustainable global commitments.

  • apollyon07

    Grollican: I agree with everything you said, I wasn’t trying to contradict Obama if that’s what you thought.
    .
    “…as well as America’s current, unsustainable global commitments.”
    .
    Very true, a good start to reversing this would be to cut off the spigot of unnecessary financial aid to other bodies, starting with the U.N.

  • http://aroundthesphere.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/much-longer-than-joe-pescis-1990-oscar-acceptance-speech/ Much Longer Than Joe Pesci’s 1990 Oscar Acceptance Speech « Around The Sphere

    [...] Joe Klein at Swampland at Time: How does a rookie President, having been granted the Nobel Peace Prize, go about earning it? Well, he can start by giving the sort of Nobel lecture that Barack Obama just did, an intellectually rigorous and morally lucid speech that balanced the rationale for going to war against the need to build a more peaceful and equitable world. The first half of the speech, in which the President made the case for Just Wars, will be the part that makes news. It was especially notable because it was delivered to an elite European audience, denizens of a continent where the most vicious warfare conducted in the history of humankind has been replaced by a facile moral superiority (made possible by the U.S. force of arms during the Cold War). But Obama’s clarity would also have been useful last week when he gave a more grudging, less straightforward, speech at West Point, announcing his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Just wonderingFull Video Joe Biden’s VP Acceptance SpeechBiden “Gravitas” [...]

  • pintortwo

    I thought this would be relevant:
    .
    Top Things that would Redeem Obama’s Peace Prize
    .
    -http://www.juancole.com/2009/12/top-things-that-would-redeem-obama.html

  • grollican

    Apollyon, since the US has failed to pay its UN dues for a long time, I am slightly puzzled as to what funding you propose to cut. Equally, while the UN may be imperfect, as is the US, there is no viable alternative. I would suggest that the US might profitably close its bases in Japan and Germany for a start.

  • pintortwo
  • 53_3

    “53_3: Just letting you know I appreciated your thoughtful response to my comment on the global warming issue. I would’ve replied on there but it’s so far back I doubted that you’d see it. A lot of what you said really made me think (which is more than I can say for the lot of the MSM).”
    .
    After a week of having to try to get commenters to see the light on civilty, facts, fiction and rhetoric, that is extremely refreshing to hear. Thanks, appollyon07!
    .
    “Obama’s speeches have been a mixed bag to me but I very much like what he said here. In the perfect world, war (and similarly, governments) would not be necessary, but sometimes you simply have no other choice. Let’s not forget that World War II was, as Winston Churchill described it, the “unnecessary war”. If only the war-weary world had at the time recognized the ominous threat in Hitler and the Nazi war machine, the Nazis could’ve been stopped and millions of lives would’ve been saved.”
    .
    That was the rub, indeed. To try to convince a populace to go to war again is a very daunting prospect. There is a comment from someone in Europe (on the other thread about Obama’s prize), that I think that’s pretty relevant to this.
    .
    “I’ve always thought that with war, if you go in, you have to go in to win. This has been the problem with Vietnam and the current Iraq war. You either commit 100%, or don’t go at all. None of this half-way, we’ll do just enough nonsense. Why waste lives on a half-hearted effort?”
    .
    I agree, within limits. We can’t just nuke someone willy nilly either, now, just because we want to win – except when our own country is at stake, which even with 9/11, it wasn’t.
    .
    Because of this, the threshold for war should be fairly high. One of the first things we should do is avoid wars based on ideology rather than actual conditions on the ground. That’s where Bush screwed up (ideology was the Bush Doctrine), and so did the architects of Vietnam (the Domino Theory).

    It’s even stickier, as hindsight tells us that a preemptive war would certainly have prevented WWII, how would they have known back then and had been able to prove that contention. What we see as obvious now wasn’t obvious then.

  • cfukara

    ” .. if you go in, you have to go in to win. .. Why waste lives on a half-hearted effort?

    Left unspoken are a few issues:

    1) “go for the win” suggest a requirement that we must choose our victims carefully: They must be weaker opponents or we must be able to absorb whatever damage the opponent may inflict on us and then crush them. And should the opponent turn out to be more resilient than we anticipated (as in Vietnam and Afghanistan), then we must embrace an imperial war of annihilation ( as in the west’s decades-old simmering “civil” wars by proxies in the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, ..)

    “if we go in” seems to embrace the cause of imperial adventurism. That we know that kids, women, men die in wars. That we know that invasions/wars kill mostly civilians and that we have the final say – on the life-and-death of innocent people. “Vengeance is mine”.
    Did we retreat from the age of enlightenment? What happened to the siren song about “respect for the sovereignty of other nations”?
    [In-your-face crass duplicity, we know.]

    Shouldn’t we emphasize something else? How do we decide to “go in”? Should we “go in” and “go for the win” even if – as in the case of Iraq – our stated reasons are suspect and our unstated aims are repugnant to the civilized world?
    Is the decision to overtly/covertly “go in” made easier if the adversary is perceived to be weak – as in Iraq, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Grenada, Syria?

    Even at the height of the cold war, a win was not assured in case of an invasion of USSR hence, we presume, a decision on “if we go in” overtly was deferred. Presumably, we would not invade China regardless of our many points of contention.

    Thus it may be concluded from your argument that to ensure their survival – as they must – every country of the world must seek to be armed for a successful (un)conventional campaign of mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis all possible combination of adversaries – so as to deter misperceptions and cavalier designs on their sovereignty by enemies without.

  • cfukara

    grollican: ” .. your usual hatred of America..”

    Do you usually love America, grollican?

  • kathy

    I agree with Joe on this one, right from the get go on the quality of the speech. As I said in Michael’s thread, it was a daring speech in some ways, because the audience was not likely to like much that he said.

    It seems that many of my fellow commenters, erstwhile supporters of Obama, have decided he’s Bush and now have a knee-jerk reaction against what he does. It would seem that some of you commenting on the speech neither listened to it nor read it.

    Paul D: Your first comment baffles me, and seems uncharacteristic of you. What part isn’t Joe right about: The audience wasn’t elite? The most vicious warfare wasn’t conducted here? (though there are surely equivalents elsewhere) The Europeans haven’t become disdainful of America’s role, even while letting us protect them with our blood and treasure?

    Please, in all seriousness, tell me where Joe implied in any way that he “enjoyed other people risking and losing life and limb.” It seemed to me that Joe (and to some extent, Obama) was saying that Europe seems to have forgotten that Americans risked and lost life and limb for Europeans in the past, and are still doing that without a lot of support now.

  • lysheen

    Don’t be silly. You’ve cherry picked one paragraph, which by itself is way out of context of the speech as a whole. This one paragraph would be something Gdub would say. But let’s be honest; the rest of a Ddub speech would be an elaboration of this one idea, as they always were. Bush has never given a speech even remotely similar to Obama when it comes to the topic of world governance.

  • michaelfury
  • acgt

    America, a world leader. We went in less than a year from an axis of evil to HOPE and back to an evil world to justify modern warfare against evildoers and perhaps humanity. I am depressed.

  • michaelfury

    Did you get an “attaboy” from Zbig, too, Mr. Klein?

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/

  • ispeak4theothers

    America will lose in Afganistan. There is no salvaging anything remotely resembling a victory. No draws either. The Taliban will win it all. Why? Read a history book about that region and explain to me how one can still hope for a victory. It is simply impossible.

  • rustyreturns

    First off thank you for your engagment of the commenters here in the swamp, Joe. I wish you did it more often.
    .

    “Is it possible that the commenters are just reflexively suspicious of the use of American force overseas, having been lied to about their use so often and having seen those forces used in ways that brought great moral same and tragic cost to the country and the world with no countervailing benefit in security or stability? Could they also be reflexively hostile to the sort of cheap moralizing about that completely justifiable suspicion?

    .
    While shepardwong proposes his comment in the form of a question to you Joe, it is really his statement. He could have simply said…
    .

    commenters are just reflexively suspicious of the use of American force overseas, having been lied to about their use so often and having seen those forces used in ways that brought great moral same and tragic cost to the country and the world with no countervailing benefit in security or stability. they also be reflexively hostile to the sort of cheap moralizing about that completely justifiable suspicion.

    .
    You see that is really the thought of the liberals in this country. This is also who Obama spoke with today. A totally un-grateful part of the world for the role that the United States of America has played over the past 100 years. A role that we have gone into Wars with the best of intentions, not as the “Great Satan” as we are so often portrayed here in our own country, but from those who have no appreciation for our past deeds.
    .
    You see Joe, the United States is not perfect by any means. But, overall we have as a nation tried to do what is right. To bring what we have and hold so dear to us, our liberties, rights and freedoms to the rest of the people in this World. We know that it is the best way to live, and allow a nation to continue growing.
    .
    I am very proud of our Country, and what our Country has done in the past. I am proud of those who have come before me, and hold deep respect and honor towards them. It was the people of the United States who won the Nobel Peace Prize today, not Barack Obama. While I will give him some credit, he did minimally allude to it in his speech. But his on-going rhetoric as usual got in the way. I only wish he would have acknowledged the award on behalf of those in the past who brought freedom, liberty and peace to the world, and our committment to keep doing the same in the future. If he would have simply done that, and then walked off the stage, it would have made such an impact to us all.

  • worc63

    Obama made a truly idiotic gaffe that neither Klein or Obama’s buddies in media have picked up on (why doesn’t that surprise me?): that Reagan “embraced Perestroika” which “improved realtions with the Soviet Union” and “empowered dissidents”! WTF?

  • repzak

    First of all I agree 100% with JK that BO’s speech was very nearly perfect. It should be held up – both for it’s content and it’s delivery – as one of the greatest speeches of the current century.

    That said JK’s weak,underhanded (although expected) and uninformed attack on the European allies is depressing. I quote:

    “And it doesn’t erase the utter failure of most European countries, especially northern European countries, to fulfill their NATO combat obligations in Afghanistan.”

    When some of the largest (proportionate to size) contributions of European allies have been the British/Danish contingent that has seen fierce fighting in Helmand for years before US troops started arriving. And last I checked both Britain and Denmark qualify as “nothern European countries”? Maybe JK is just exhibing a lack of geographical knowledge?

  • repzak

    No Obama was right. You are the one that don’t know your history.

  • cfukara

    How many innocent kids and women were maimed or slaughtered in the raging BHO-authorized surge of hostilities in sovereign Afgahnistan/Pakistan – for the duration of BHO’s speech?

    You may talk about the well-known duplicity of the west which is well known to American Indians and the Africans. You may talk about malice known to the Australian Aborigines and South American Aztecs and Incas. You may mention evil even. There is a precedence.

    It may as well be said that the curiously-precipitous award of the Nobel PEACE prize to a belligerent aggressor engaged in acts that

    - kill multitudes of innocent people(surge) even as he gives soaring speeches of acceptance;
    - hide evidence (thus enabling deniers) of possible crimes against humanity from the world (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo);
    - shield those who promoted/justified torture(Yoo);
    - fail to deliver to the ICC, or submit for prosecution in a neutral ground, the Hitlers and Goebbels and guards who masterminded and presided over torture, rapes, assassinations, executions and massacres by the multitudes;
    - result in economic devastation of other countries through sanctions that inflict suffering and starvation death on innocent people – especially kids – while in pursuit of vacuous bragging rights or profiteering from other peoples’ resources (sanctions on Zimbabwe, Cuba, Sudan, DRC, Iran, North Korea, ..)

    diminishes the dimming luster of the Nobel peace prize to a degree that even its questionable award to Kissinger and Begin was not able to.

  • cfukara

    kristiia: ” .. You don’t think World War II was morally justified? ..”

    Help us out: Tell us what YOU think.

  • 53_3

    I was around then. Reagan?
    .
    He was really good on capitalizing on situations, but other than that…

  • textee

    John Bolton on Obama’s speech:

    “It followed the standard international leftist line,” says Bolton. “He played to the crowd and filled the speech with clichés from the American and international left by saying ‘America cannot act alone’ and that he ‘prohibited torture.’ The speech was also typical of Obama in its self-centeredness and ‘something for everybody’ approach.”

    “It was so diffuse that though I wouldn’t call it incoherent, it was getting close,” says Bolton. “It was a lot about him, again, especially with his comments about being at the ‘beginning, not end’ of his labors for the world.”

    Obama made some “breathtakingly simpleminded statements in his section on humanity’s history of war and the ‘hard truth’ that war will not end in our lifetimes,” adds Bolton. “No kidding. I don’t know what that is supposed to prove.”

  • repzak

    cfuk> It’s quite possible to kill MORE people by not fighting. We can debate if it’s best to stay or leave Afghanistan, but your blind posts of hatred that totally ignores any differing POV are somewhat tiring.

    If Obama didn’t “surge” but instead pulled all troops from Afghanistan tomorrow, how many more innocent men, women and children would be raped, kill and maimed in the ensuring civil war?

  • Paul-no not that one

    kathy, Joe uses “elite” because he lacks the courage to use “fey”
    .
    As for JK’s enjoyment of other people fighting I would point to his response at 3.2 along with his cheering post of BHO no longer being “Mr. Ghandi (sic)”
    .
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/07/a-shoe-drops/#comments
    .
    JK is connected as all get out, but all his connections (at least the ones he seems to trust) are reflexively pro-military.
    .
    His draping of causes from Iraq to Pakistan with nobility sickens me.

  • tillkan

    His speech is proof that he and we all live under the dictatorship of the generals. So much for intelligence and morality.

  • cfukara

    ” .. Should we “go in” and “go for the win” even if – as in the case of Iraq – our stated reasons are suspect and our unstated aims are repugnant to the civilized world? ..”
    Blair’s so-called barbaric world must note that to the western world, the answer to that question is often “Yes” – and the soaring moralizing and rationalizations are idle/duplicitous pre-occupations and diversionary tactics.

    Consider historical and current invasions and occupations and resource plunder. Consider the cases of the UK/France Vs annihilated Indians of wealthy North America; Spain Vs the annihilated Indians of wealthy South America; UK Vs the annihilated Australian Aborigines; Europe Vs annihilated tribes of wealthy Africa.

  • worc63

    @ repzak — Sorry, but you and Obama are mistaken.

    Gorbachev introduced Perestroika to restructure the Soviet economy and bureaucracy (which included an anti-alcohol campaign; imagine the backlash if a president tried to bring back Prohibition!) In a letter dated March 24, 1985, Gorbachev emphasized to Reagan the need to improve relations on the basis of peaceful competition and respect for each other’s economic and social choices. In December 1988, Reagan, after speaking with Gorbachev, noted that the average Russian seemed to support Perestroika — NOT the same thing as endorsing Perestroika! Moreover, Reagan made it a point to champion democracy activists, and expose the Soviet Union’s abysmal human rights record.

    Hence, Obama’s claim that dissidents were “empowered” by the Reagan’s embracing of Perestroika is just plain wrong! Natan Sharansky was “empowered” NOT by Reagan’s arms-control summits with Gorbachev, but by Reagan’s “evil empire” speech — which he read in Pravda while imprisoned in a Soviet gulag! “We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth — a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.” Sharansky was elected Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel last June.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    All in all, a grand speech. However…
    No holy war can ever be a just war.
    Why not? If there can be such a thing as a just war, and according to Obama there can, then what specifically precludes a holy war from being such? Holy wars are not simply sanctimonious onslaughts upon the infidels, despite what Wikipedia may tell you. Can not a defensive holy war satisfy the requisites for just war, as laid out by Saints Augustine and Aquinas?

  • cfukara

    ” .. but your blind posts of hatred that totally ignores any differing POV are somewhat tiring.”

    It is unfortunate that you tire of other POVs.

    We welcome your point of view and we shall discuss it even.
    I have not totally ignored differing POVs – including your own. If you check the current thread, you may be surprised to find that I have responded to quite a few [ - unless you maintain that one who disagrees with your POV essentially ignores it. In which case you will be safer keeping your POV to yourself and out of the blogoshere.]

    ” .. If Obama didn’t “surge” but instead pulled all troops from Afghanistan tomorrow, how many more innocent men, women and children would be raped, kill and maimed in the ensuring civil war? “

    Do you know how many?

    OK. We won’t know for sure what may happens in an alternate universe. So are you engaging in a spot of “win by fear-mongering”?

    Here is an easier one: How many were “raped, kill and maimed in the ensuring civil war” after we withdrew from Vietnam – compared to the last 10 years in which we dumped bombs, insecticides and death in the region?

    Today, Vietnam’s economic growth is the fastest in the South East Asia region and second only to China in the Asia region.

  • pintortwo

    repzak- we’re not on a humanitarian mission in Afghanistan. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that there will be a civil war if our troops leave. In fact, Pakistan believes that the troop increase may lead to more instability in the region (link):
    .
    Pakistan’s policymakers believe the US military build up would lead to more violence, push more refugees into Pakistan and further strain socio-economic conditions.

  • abdullah69

    On the contrary, Al – qaeda’s greatest achievements were Guantanamo and the Patriot Act.

  • http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/12/10/left-and-right-pundits-applaud-obama-nobel-peace-prize-speech/ Left and right, pundits applaud Obama Nobel Peace Prize speech | csmonitor.com

    [...] Klein, a left-of-center columnist for Time magazine, writing from Oslo, was less grudging in his praise. He commended Obama for delivering “an intellectually rigorous [...]

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Actually, there is what could be described as an ongoing civil war between pro and anti-Taliban forces. This was already a civil war, essentially prior to our occupation, between the Taliban government and the Northern Alliance. However, the implications of a full withdrawal are few less troublesome than they would have been in 2005 Iraq, for example, which was faced with such severe ethnic, sectarian violence that the departure of US troops would have resulted in a full-fledged cleansing of one or the other.

  • shepherdwong

    “I am very proud of our Country, and what our Country has done in the past. I am proud of those who have come before me, and hold deep respect and honor towards them.”
    .
    The salient question for you is: are you ashamed of anything the country has done? Torture, war crimes, the slaughter of untold numbers of innocent noncombatants, purely to protect the lives of soldiers? If not, your pride is built on amoral self-deception and is therefore entirely worthless.

  • shepherdwong

    BTW, I mostly agree with this statement: “[i]t was the people of the United States who won the Nobel Peace Prize today, not Barack Obama.”
    .
    Though I think it’s more that it was the people of the United States who won the Nobel Peace Prize today because we chose Barack Obama. Clearly, considering the alternative, we earned that one.

  • shepherdwong

    “Obama’s claim that dissidents were “empowered” by the Reagan’s embracing of Perestroika is just plain wrong! Natan Sharansky was “empowered” NOT by Reagan’s arms-control summits with Gorbachev, but by Reagan’s “evil empire” speech…”
    .
    …but never again. Not by Perestroika, Glasnost, nuclear arms treaties, the collapse of the USSR, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the poor dissidents were never “empowered” again after hearing the words “evil empire”. So sad.

    In the sphere of U.S.-Soviet relations, the first year of perestroika was one of building trust and of intense learning for both Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. Although public rhetoric did not change to any significant degree, the unprecedented exchange of letters between the two leaders gave them an opportunity to engage in a serious dialog about the issues each saw as the most important ones, and prepared the ground for their face-to-face meeting in Geneva. One of the most important issues that came up repeatedly in the letters was the need to prevent nuclear war by way of reducing the level of armaments to reasonable sufficiency, where each side would enjoy equal security without striving for superiority. In this still tentative journey to find the right approach to each other, both leaders relied on the advice and good offices of another world leader for whom they had great respect and trust-Margaret Thatcher.

    .
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB172/index.htm

  • cfukara

    ” .. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. ..”

    Wars will always be with us.
    So, in times of peace, prepare for war.
    Get yourself the biggest gun you can get!
    It is survival of the mightiest.

    That is strange – coming from one who is honored as a beacon and promoter of peace.

    Why was the invasion of Iraq “not only necessary but morally justified.”?
    It is estimated that over 90% of the millions dislocated and/or maimed or slaughtered in Afghanistan and Iraq were innocent lives – kids, mothers, fathers. How did the USA determine that THAT mayhem is “not only necessary but morally justified”?

    Shouldn’t BHO, our hope for peace, be working toward a world in which the use of force will be unnecessary and morally reprehensible?

    Is the singular pursuit of peace and an end to wars a lost cause – as implies here by BHO? Is the Nobel committee merely a body that dishes out, with fanfare, a few free $$ to a few people each year?

  • cfukara

    “Clearly, considering the alternative, we earned that one.”

    Don’t know about that.

    For the moment, forget the rhetoric – the flute of a piper that has mesmerized the world of the, eh, damned.

    Concentrate on the actions over the past one year (rights at home, wars abroad, welfare/bailouts for the rich, ICC/crimes against humanity, “regime change”/destabilization of countries, economic sanctions that starve and kill the innocent by the millions, supremacy of Israel etc.)
    The differences with previous administrations is not THAT substantial and in some cases the state is worse or more polarized.
    We may as well be under a de facto regime of neo-cons. [Note the wingnut-friendly HCR bill coming out of a senate with 60:40 DEM advantage ..]

  • cfukara

    Is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein?

  • cfukara

    You have a point there.

  • shepherdwong

    “We may as well be under a de facto regime of neo-cons.”
    .
    Well just as with TARP and The Stimulus it’s hard to argue in the absence of the alternative, in this case a McCain/Palin Administration [*shudder*] and direct neocon regime. Otherwise, point taken.

  • cfukara

    !
    square1, in a nutshell, that is what has bothered me about BHO since mid last year.

  • grollican

    Fuckara, I love America passionately. We have no-holds barred, screaming gibbon sex every Tuesday. What’s your relationship with the old girl like?

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Certainly not. For the Kurds, maybe, just maybe. But as a whole, Iraq was a stable, law and order country prior to our invasion. However, by 2005 the situation required American military presence to prevent compete ethnic strife resulting in genocide. A withdrawal at that particular point would have had horrendous consequences for Iraq.

  • discostu570

    Like Joe Klein, I agree with Barack Obama that war is occasionally necessary.
    .
    Unlike both of them, I tend to think that if this war was actually necessary, we wouldn’t be the only nation on earth that chooses to fight it.
    .
    Barack Obama is a better speaker than George Bush, but I don’t see much difference in either the rhetoric or the policy. I appreciate that he can pronounce the word “terror” properly, and if that’s enough to improve our image overseas then I suppose that’s a good thing, but it doesn’t change the nature of our aggressive foreign policy. I prefer a President who can back his ideology up with intellectual rigour to one who openly relies on his gut, but if the policy is ultimately the same, history won’t show any distinction between the two.
    -
    I would heartily disagree with the President on one important point, the notion that the concept of a “just war” is rarely observed in history. Everybody thinks their war is just. Rarely if ever has anybody gone to war thinking, sure we’re jerks, but we’ll fight anyway. Our moral certainty is no different than that of our predecessors who wiped out the indians, nor is it different from the Taliban’s. Bob Dylan figured that out half a century ago.
    -
    Thinking you’re right doesn’t make it so, and neither does a standing ovation from a bunch of snooty scandinavians. In fact, a claim of moral superiority is the only thing every country ever to go to war truly has in common. Someday, hopefully, humans will outgrow the egoistic notion that God is on their side, but it seems our current President is just as guilty of that hubris as the last one was.

  • cfukara

    ” .. I appreciate that he can pronounce the word “terror” properly, and if that’s enough to improve our image overseas then I suppose that’s a good thing,..”
    :-)

  • abdullah69

    If you consider war to be the outcome of a failure in diplomacy, then no war can be justified, morally or otherwise.

    But when the US has less foreign service employees across the globe than the number of sailors in one carrier battle group then one has to believe the US considers diplomacy to be irrelevant anyway.

  • jupitero

    President B.Obama has expressed the following opinion : A non violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.

    (1) He was not there .
    (2) I don’t know how old he is -and probably he was not
    even born .
    (3) I was there !
    (4) I’m 75 year old and was a civilian.
    (5) I have lived the times of the Fascists, Nazists , Tito,s
    partisans , americans bombardments , english and Allied forces .
    (6) And I have seen only acts of violence .
    (7) and I /we people of that times ,have never been given the opportunity to elect any governments …which please me most .

    Claudio Zambiasi .04.12.1934

  • http://lanle.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-speech-war-and-peace-left-and-right-pro-and-con/ Obama speech: War and peace, left and right, pro and con « economics

    [...] Oval’s old pal Joe Klein, on the Time magazine website, writes that Obama “did the nation proud” with a speech that “balanced the rationale for going to war against the need to build a more [...]

  • cfukara

    ” .. Bush has never given a speech even remotely similar to Obama when it comes to the topic of world governance…”

    Words. Words.
    Soon to be dead kids in Afghanistan don’t care about words.
    Maybe the world would be better off with Bush of few words than with Obama of the crass duplicity.

    And they both remind me of cowboys: Obama reminds me of the cowboy in old movies who would smile and share whiskey with you in easy camaraderie one moment and he’ll be punching you full of bullet holes the next.

  • cfukara

    ” .. there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. .. 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. “

    Would negotiations short of total surrender, unchallenged supremacy in the Middle East and irrelevance of Palestinians convince Israel(USA) to lay down its arms?

    The BHO’s beguiling rhetoric sounds great to belligerent JK but, as it often happens, it falls short.

    Were we engaged in good faith negotiations with Saddam Hussein, the Taliban or Al-Queda?
    Bush#43′s negotiating position was often an inflexible “My way or the highway.” We had ultimatum after new impossible ultimatum – and changing goal posts – even as we readied our forces. [A stance reminiscent of our stance as Japan tried desperately to negotiate terms of surrender prior to our use of the atomic bomb in 1945.]

    Plans for a regime change in Iraq had been in the works among neo-con strategists for decades. Afghanistan was merely a stop-over – a test of concept, diplomacywise, for the Iraqi invasion/war of aggression.
    .
    With regard to the Al Queda: What were we offering them or their cause if they lay down their arms? Nothing. Death.

    So what does BHO mean by “negotiations”?
    Peace my way. Peace on USA’s terms. And that stance, according to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, is the best hope for world peace.

    Obama’s is as shrill a repudiation of what Gandhi and King stood for as you are ever likely to get.

    Check his actions. Make no mistake: BHO proposes that Gandhi and King were passive and naive.

  • emkay007

    Obama has told the Nobel Committee that they erred in giving the award to a “Head of State’ especially of USA, because he is bound to wage wars.

  • repzak

    cfuk>
    .
    “We won’t know for sure what may happens in an alternate universe. So are you engaging in a spot of “win by fear-mongering”?”
    .
    Kettle – meet pot. Yes I suppose you could define my words in such a way, if you admit you did the very same thing. You were most certainly fear-mongering on speculation about the effect of a “surge” without any facts to back you up.
    .
    But I do apologize for stooping to your level. I should do better.
    .
    pint> “we’re not on a humanitarian mission in Afghanistan.”
    .
    True, but actions have consequences, and responsible people (and nations) accept these consequences of their actions and take responsibility for fixing any bad ones. We can argue whether staying to fight helps or not (which you do next), but hopefully you don’t disagree that we have a moral obligation to take responsibility for the Afghan situation after the war and 8 years of occupation?
    .
    “In fact, Pakistan believes that the troop increase may lead to more instability in the region”
    .
    Interesting that you use the Pakistanis to bolster your argument. I’m thinking that the Pakistani have a vested interest in keeping the Afghan Taliban alive and fighting among other things. They have after all financed them for years as a counterweight to Indian influence in the region. Do you agree they have this interest? And in what way do you then think this might affect anything they say about what’s the best solution?
    .
    Exiled>
    .
    “Actually, there is what could be described as an ongoing civil war between pro and anti-Taliban forces. This was already a civil war, essentially prior to our occupation, between the Taliban government and the Northern Alliance.”

    Actually said civil war was over by the time of our invasion.

  • repzak

    Well not much I can add to shephardwong’s fine reply. But you clearly don’t understand what perestroika really was. Nor how behind-the-scenes diplomacy went hand in hand with public rhetoric to cause the chain of events that led to the fall of the wall and of the Soviet Union. Were you even alive at the time? The way you focus solely on rhetoric speeches sound like you learned it from a book.

  • repzak

    “defensive holy war” – now that ranks up there with “microsoft works” as an oxymoron…
    .
    I’m sorry – can you give me just one historical example of a “defensive holy war”? I believe part of the definition of a Holy War is that it’s aggressive in nature.

  • repzak

    cfuk> Glad to see you cling to your straw-men and fear-mongering:
    .
    “Why was the invasion of Iraq “not only necessary but morally justified.”?”
    .
    Why do you claim BO said things he didn’t say?

  • repzak

    cfuk> Nice bit of intentional quote-fcking you did there. Are you proud of how you lie about what was said?

  • michaelfury

    Here are the crucial paragraphs, which bear close reading:

    “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”

    “Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

    “The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.”

    - Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/

  • nolat

    Textee,

    Most of the comments and opinions expressed on this subject have been intelligent and well thought out, in stark contrast to:

    “While Obama was palling around with William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wrigth, Van Jones, ACORN, et al., I’m sure Obama had George Marshall constantly on his mind …. ”

    I am sorry that you miss the appalling and shameful years of the “Bushy Boo”, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Gonzalez, et al regime.

    Do you love your Country; or, just the “false patriotism and lies of the previous administration. Please, go back to bed and STFU!!!!!

  • 53_3

    I’m sure that we all want to hear more from the individuals you worship, textee, but I hate to tell you this:
    .
    They are all now toiling in obscurity in the trashbin of history.
    .
    And for very good reasons too…

  • 53_3

    I don’t think so.
    .
    By definition, a holy war is a war on infidels, and infidels are those that don’t ascribe to the particular religion prescribing the war.
    .
    Therefore, I can’t see any case for a holy war being just, as I believe that a fundamental human right is to believe in what one wants to.

  • rpu3141

    Words are cheap. Going in with a surge and leaving in 18 months can’t leave anyone with “hope” for any kind of a solution for any of the variously suggested results. It doesn’t matter what you “hope” for – expect to be on the losing end.

  • cfukara

    “erred”?

    He could have rejected it – and that would have been an honorable action too.

    [or does he want to have his cake and eat it too?]

  • pintortwo

    repzak- the Pakistani have a vested interest in keeping the Afghan Taliban alive and fighting… as a counterweight to Indian influence in the region.

    Yes, good point. But times have changed. I assume the Pakistanis feel their nuclear capability mitigates the need for a Taliban counter-weight. MAD between India and Pak has rendered the Taliban less “useful”.
    .
    Also, it just makes sense to me. Increased fighting between the US and Taliban will cause regional instability as refugees flee into Pakistan and civilian casualties mount. We don’t want a more unstable Pakistan, neither does Pakistan. The article suggests that Pakistan believes having the Taliban on their soil is more harmful than good. Of course, there are statements for public consumption and there are “true” feelings. Aside from being the official response, this article strikes me as the logical response for Pakistan.

  • http://www.thereisawayjose.com/?p=1292 The Strange Consensus on Obama’s Nobel Address | There is a way Jose

    [...] praise on what Obama said yesterday, i.e., on the Obama Doctrine; and (2) numerous liberals have done exactly the same.  That convergence gives rise to a couple of questions:   Why are [...]

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Repzak~
    Historical defensive holy war:
    Battle of Poitier (Tours) and Accompanying Campaign
    The precursor to the Holy Roman Empire, nominally led by Charles Martel, defeated the invading Umayyad army that was waging an offensive jihad to conquer Europe. Martel, acting in defense of Christendom, waged a defensive, just holy war against the Muslim invasions. According to historian Sir Edward Creasy, the Battle of Tours “gave a decisive check to the career of Arab conquest in Western Europe, [and] rescued Christendom from Islam.”
    ~
    53_3
    When holy war is declared upon you, your consequent and reciprocal defensive holy war is aligned with the jus bellum doctrine.

  • http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/president-obama-niebuhr-and-his-peace-prize/ President Obama, Niebuhr, and his peace prize « themormonworker.org

    [...] praise on what Obama said yesterday, i.e., on the Obama Doctrine; and (2) numerous liberals have done exactly the [...]

  • http://revista-amauta.org/archives/9852 The Strange Consensus on Obama’s Nobel Address | Amauta

    [...] praise on what Obama said yesterday, i.e., on the Obama Doctrine; and (2) numerous liberals have done exactly the same.  That convergence gives rise to a couple of [...]

  • http://www.drasties.com/?p=10309 Drasties – Dutch on the World – World on the Dutch

    [...] praise on what Obama said yesterday, i.e., on the Obama Doctrine; and (2) numerous liberals have done exactly the same. That convergence gives rise to a couple of [...]

  • formerlyjames

    Yes, it was a great speech. And, yes, wars are sometimes necessary. But left unresolved, is when, how, why, they are necessary. VietNam and Iraq are easy examples of when they are not, and yet many would violently disagree with what I present as given.
    .
    A further question is the setting. A war in a given sphere is defended, yet that sphere is obviously too narrow in light of the muslim american idiots picked up in pakistan just after the u.s. army doctor idiot muslim fool’s rampage at ft. hood.
    .
    The “war” is ill defined, elusive. If the current situation can be compared to past history, and it probably can’t be, I have no idea where it is going to end up. Talk about flailing about without a defined target, this is it. And for all of the eloquence of Obama’s speech, no answer or solution is in sight. God, allah, the spaghetti monster in the sky save us all because the fact is that all of the after life freaks, including the conference of catholic bishops will lead to the end for sure. Watch for the giant mushroom cloud in the sky.

  • formerlyjames

    I forgot to add that, in the words of our illustrious former President, known as W. or doubula, or idiot fool, depending on the source, islam is a peaceful religion, as are all religions, catholic, jewish, hindu, mamajamma, what have you.
    .
    And if you believe that, please contact me. I have a great deal on offer for ocean shore front property in Arizona.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Religions, generally speaking, but especially Christianity, preach peace, compassion, brotherhood, etc. Now, while individuals may exhibit warlike tendencies, and even carry out war in the name of their religion, this does not strip the religious teachings of their peaceful tenets. Moreover, there are secular causes of war as well. Ideology. Political Affiliation. Economics. Territory. Resources. Culture. Ethnicity. Need I go on? Human nature tends toward clashes, even war, over differences. It’s inescapable. To suggest that religion, more so than any other driving force, is a cause of war, or a derivative of war, is obtuse. Simply put, you have no religious conviction, and therefore you would seek to malign all religion to better comfort your lack thereof. We understand. It’s a reflexive defense, born out of a sense of inadequacy. You haven’t the faith to join the rest of humanity in something wonderful, and this is fine, it’s a giant leap to make. Yet, you could do without the lofty superiority complex and demeaning caricature of something you clearly no nothing about. Your tactless, and erroneous, depiction betrays your utter misunderstanding of history, human nature, war and peace.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    *…clearly know nothing about…

  • formerlyjames

    Thanks so much for your display of peace, compassion, and brotherhood, setting aside the presumptions as to what I know, don’t know, and what my own experience is. Thanks also for pointing out my “reflexive defense” based upon my lack of faith. I will watch with abated breath for the next sermon for your delusional pulpit.

  • cfukara

    ” .. while individuals may exhibit warlike tendencies, … this does not strip the religious teachings of their peaceful tenets. ..”

    Consider Christianity and Judaism.
    Let us modify that to read: “while individuals and god(s) may exhibit warlike tendencies and embrace carnage and even genocide .. .” – which renders a generalized claim of ” peaceful tenets” in religious teachings somewhat curious and indeed duplicitous.

  • cfukara

    formerlyjames: “And, yes, wars are sometimes necessary.”

    Mhh.
    “sometimes unnecessary”?
    Lets see: Genghis Khan? No.
    Charles the Great? No. Thutmose III, Datius I, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Cheng (Ch’in shih-huang-ti), Pompeius, Julius Ceasar, Attila the Hun, Hrorekr, … Bush the Renderer, Barrack the Word, .. ?

    Are wars ever, at any time, declared unnecessary by those who wantonly wage them and those who benefit from them?

    And, O yes, wars – when declared – are always necessary.

    ————off topic
    What would YOU say to the man who, as soon as he is chosen and installed as Pope of the Catholic Church at the Vatican, stands on the balcony to condemn all that is Catholic AND, eh, pontificates most enthusiastically about Protestantism or Hinduism or Shintoism …
    [Indeed, that is what we say to peace prize winner BHO who hypes war to the peaceniks gathered at the peace council in Oslo.]

  • formerlyjames

    cfukara, your examples are all of a unilateral offensive nature. My thought is simply that they are defensively necessary by the other side of those offensive actions. Afghanistan falls into both categories, currently the former. I am mostly in agreement with your view, and reluctantly clarify my thought.

  • formerlyjames

    See above. I posted in the wrong place.

  • cfukara

    ” .. cfukara, your examples are all of a unilateral offensive nature. ..”
    :-)

  • http://leftcoastledger.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/obama-the-oslo-shuffle/ Obama: The Oslo Shuffle « Left Coast Ledger

    [...] a speech that has the American media positively gushing and conservative pundits laying out kudos, Obama managed to have his cake and [...]

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Formerlyjames~
    Peace, brotherhood, and compassion do not suggest that one must not point out the blatant mistruths in others’ statements. When you falsely suggest that all religions are wagers of war, rather than seekers of peace, I will call your b*llshit.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Cfukara~
    Consider Christianity and Judaism.
    Why was Islam, the more violently inclined of the Abrahamic religions, exempt from your caricature? While I am respectful of the Muslim faith and fond of the Islamic culture, I also recognize the violent birth of Islam, ‘spread by the sword’ by their warrior prophet. Little has changed since, so I find it curious that you excluded Islam from your warrior religion exhortations.

  • http://themcglynn.com/?p=19006 The strange consensus on Obama’s Nobel address | themcglynn.com/theliberal.net

    [...] praise on what Obama said yesterday, i.e., on the Obama Doctrine; and (2) numerous liberals have doneexactly the same.  That convergence gives rise to a couple of questions: Why are the [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus