War and Peace
For all of the dramatic and unpopular initiatives that President Obama is pushing in Washington, it would be easy to overlook his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize. But that would be a mistake. His speech was nothing short of excellent, and made all the better by the fact that he wrote nearly all of it himself. Here are some excerpts:
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.
But 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 others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
….
peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
…
America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements — these movements of hope and history — they have us on their side.
17 Responses to “War and Peace”
Thanks for pointing this out, as I missed the coverage of the speech. I think his writing is very precise. Note in this quote he says “governments” rather than “countries”:
“It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation.”
His point is clearly made, but a less careful writer might have missed the chance to be powerful and subtle at the same time.
Thanks for pointing this out. It is an excellent speech, and I certainly missed it.
One nitpick, because I know there are people who torture a certain word:
America has never fought a war against a democracy
What is democracy? Certain classes of lefties will regard any government that has voting as a democracy. I’ve heard 1933 Germany referred to as a democracy. Saddam’s Iraq had voting. We invaded Panama, a democracy. (The ancient Athenians are called a democracy, although it strikes me more as an oligarchy with a large oligarch class.)
Most people who casually throw out the word “democracy” actually have two principles in mind: voting and rule of law. Weimar Germany and Ortega’s Panama were not that sort of democracy.
I think the nitpick is important; the lazy use of the word “democracy” suggests that rule of law doesn’t get as much explicit attention as it should.
Aren’t there sorts who think that voting will somehow beget rule of law? Instituting voting and convincing the masses that there’s a law that outranks the government logically involve two very different tasks.
rule of law- humbug. This country is an oligarchy. Ruled by a clique which has both parties and the press, altogether less than 1000 people – They write and interpret and tell the public what the hive decides must believe. You want to kneel to this? This advance into Afghanistan is pure Jacobin. It’s a culture war against an alien culture, talking sides in a civil culture war in Afghanistan between the modernists in the cities and the Takik, Usbek, Pashtun hill billies that love to fight and want no part of it- when it had a Russian face they defeated it, and you must be prepared to kill them all, because they will not kneel. This not some Serbian dictator who panics when their electricity is turned of by an air strike, and their elevator does not work. This enemy is diverse, with no head of state to capture and order their soldiers to surrender. Read the Hoc resignation letter a few times. The US can win only if it does a lot more killing that it is prepared to do. I think a different but related reason for our war posture in this area of the world is an attempt to put more US forces on the ground to surround Iran, first in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan, because the pro Israeli hive has decided that Hezbollah is a cats paw of Iran, the great bogey man of the world since the kicked Israel out of Lebanon. It backfired in Iraq, which is now run by Sunni’s and are much more pro Iran than Saddam was. The leadership now comes from the Badder brigades, which fled to Iran during the Iran Iraq war. All our little machinations usually have a revolting turn because we can’t play the complex chess game on the 10 dimensional chess board that is politics in this region of the world. We approach the problem with naive ideas about a retread ideas like “democracy” which is what the red queen in ALice said- it means precisely what I say it means.
I’ve always said that Obama is the most skillful orator in American politics since Reagan, and finally he has made a speech that would make the Gipper smile. I’ll have to find the time eventually to read the entire text, but I think it’s absolutely remarkable he made this speech in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. This has to really rankle some hard-core pacifists on the left, perhaps even including some of the committee that selected him for the Prize.
BTW, I loved the nod to de Toqueville with the use of the phrase “enlightened self-interest”.
Who is the “self” here? Pape’s book “dying to win” shows that t he danger from militant blow back is a result of occupation of other peoples countries. Whatever else is accomplished by a surge of troops, it’s not making the citizens of the US safer.
Maybe reading “perfect soldiers” by mcDermott can be instructive about what motivated the 911 bullwhackers. They cam essentially from a radical mosque in Hamburg Germany, Time spent in Afghanistan was minimal. they got their flight training in Florida. Where is the enlightened part then, and who is the SELF interest being promoted.
“Where is the enlightened part then, and who is the SELF interest being promoted.”
I’m not familiar with de Tocqueville’s phrase, but I do know that people have subjective views on what self-interest is. The bloody history of humanity should testify to that.
The al-Qaeda drones thought they were getting into Allah’s best graces, and some people are so bitter toward X they take perverse pleasure in taking X down even if they’re taking themselves down in the process. For a fictional example, plug in Khan’s final screen appearances in Star Trek: Wrath of Khan.
Read the book “Perfect Soldiers”. It is not a political diatribe. It is a serious dispassionate look at the 911 hijackers one by one, where did the come from, what motivated them etc. If it were not for US troops actually in Saudi Arabia (as they were left there after the 1991 Gulf war) and for the unconditional support of Israel in the face of a brutal occupation, we would not now sending even more troops into the heart of a Muslim country, and boosting alQaeda fortunes there in the process. As of earlier in the year, what do you think the estimate of National Security advisor General Jones -re. how many al Qaeda are in Afghanistan? Take a guess.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861
How many will be there if we decide to crush radical Islam and defeat the Warlords, and enforce the will of the corrupt western leading central government in the back country? Fewer than 100?
The long range strategy was: get US out of business of propping up corrupt ME regimes, and Israel. How to do it? Drag US into long, drawn out conflict/occupation in the ME that will eventually bankrupt the Treasury and sour the American public on that part of the world (Same basic gameplan we devised in the late 1970s- 1980s re: Soviet Union in Afghanistan). How to accomplish that? 9/11 worked like a charm.
We are involved in 2 counter insurgency wars now in the ME. Counter insurgencies have equal three parts: political reform, economic development, and counter-guerilla operations. These kinds of wars are difficult to win. They’re long, expensive, and the occupied need to be on board with the kind of political reform being pushed by the occupier. Plus, the occupier needs to control the entire country (without pissing off citizens!) while the insurgents can simply pick and choose their targets at will.
It didn’t work out so well in Iraq. We just rearranged the deck chairs politically, ousting the Sunni leadership and replacing it with Iran-friendly Shia. The surge brought in more troops to Baghdad so as to enforce newly created religious/ethnic enclaves. It has not erased the potential for new religious/ethnic conflicts.
It probably won’t work in Afghanistan either. The original Bush plan there was the way to go: Turn the tribes against foreign Jihadis. Next, work with Afghans on a political deal acceptable to them and us. Commit to international economic development and develop a good intelligence network on the ground.
Re: Obama’s speech. Apparently the Bush Doctrine is dead and our former policy of cooperation among nations in politics and economics has been resurrected. Hallelujah.
Hmmm. The long range strategy was: get US out of business of propping up corrupt ME regimes, and Israel. How to do it? Drag US into long, drawn out conflict/occupation in the ME that will eventually bankrupt the Treasury and sour the American public on that part of the world (Same basic gameplan we devised in the late 1970s- 1980s re: Soviet Union in Afghanistan). How to accomplish that? 9/11 worked like a charm.
We are involved in 2 counter insurgency wars now in the ME. Counter insurgencies have equal three parts: political reform, economic development, and counter-guerilla operations. These kinds of wars are difficult to win. They’re long, expensive, and the occupied need to be on board with the kind of political reform being pushed by the occupier. Plus, the occupier needs to control the entire country (without pissing off citizens!) while the insurgents can simply pick and choose their targets at will.
It didn’t work out so well in Iraq. We just rearranged the deck chairs politically, ousting the Sunni leadership and replacing it with Iran-friendly Shia. The surge brought in more troops to Baghdad so as to enforce newly created religious/ethnic enclaves. It has not erased the potential for new religious/ethnic conflicts.
It probably won’t work in Afghanistan either. The original Bush plan there was the way to go: Turn the tribes against foreign Jihadis. Next, work with Afghans on a political deal acceptable to them and us. Commit to international economic development and develop a good intelligence network on the ground.
Re: Obama’s speech. Apparently the Bush Doctrine is dead and our former policy of cooperation among nations in politics and economics has been resurrected. Hallelujah.
doodle is right. The worse part is that after we are there in force, we will get blowback here in the US, and the pro invasion crowd will say – SEE I told you they were dangerous. The blowback will probably come from some mosque in the western world or Africa anyway, This a formula for perpetual war chasing an enemy that will grow the more we show raw force. Pakistan is a fertile ground for growing Taliban sympathy every time we kill people with drones and airpower. It’s almost as if the people that are promoting this course of action want blowback. Some want us in the foxhole with Israel, and they would not be displeased at another 911 or at the US being despised as they are. Other die hard liberal types like Christiana Amanpour that have taken sides in this civil war against the “undemocratic” Pashtun hillbillies, and side with their soulmates in Kabul. For them its a crusade. For her husband Jamie Rubin, its a perfect storm of both reasons. Crusade against undemocratic forces, wipe out the Burka, Surround and Menace Iran, provoke blowback against the US to cement US Israeli posture in the world.
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=320
All the neocons, former luminaries that wrote for National Review, are now Obama’s best friends. The compass needle for figuring out who they will lionize is both their inherient liberalism (former Trot- always a trot) and their fealty to Israel. It’s not about money either.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/14/despite-sense-of-entitlement-us-companies-lose-iraq-oil-auctions/
Whatever else you can say about this crowd, they are principled. just that their principles are rooted in a foreign land. With the Iraq misadventure, this bunch and Bush as well, have managed to change the trajectory of Turkey against the US. This old ally was with us, fought with the US in Vietnam. Meanwhile, in 1967, Israeli was busy with their own war, and filling the USS Liberty of holes when it suited them. Some Ally. Where they with us is Vietnam like Tuekey. no. Israel will do what benefits Israel. They have interests, not friends.
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/12/15/us-silent-about-taliban-guarantee-offer-on-al-qaeda/
We are fighting the “country” people, and siding with the westenized liberal “pro democracy” urbane but corrupt city dwellers, and what how does the press frame the issue. The Taliban has offered to guarantee that they will not allow any group that supports attacks on foreign countries. They basically want to be left alone- by the pro west Afghan army, by the Russians when they were there pushing the same moderist message down their throats with the barrel of a gun, and by US.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf
This is the Hoh resignation letter. Pro war “promote democracy” kill the taliban types might want to reflect on it. There would have been no Hezbolah if Israel had not invaded Lebanon. There would have been no 911 if the Us had not stationed US troops in Saudi Arabia after the 91 Gulf war. What sort of horror awaits us if we don’t mind our own business and station troops in other peoples countries and fan the flames of a culture war there. Some of the people that want us there would not be displeased with such blowback. It might be desired by them- perpetual war against a world wide Islam- US an Israel together, side by side against tjhe world. Yeah- thats the ticket. Whats in it for the US? Nothing but pain,
All that “enlightened self-interest” means, according to Tocqueville, is that sometimes one improves his or her own interest by working for the interests of others. When one comes to understand this, they have an “enlightened” self-interest.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/12/16/no-fault-espionage/
oh- now I see.