FrankRep
12-14-2009, 12:53 PM
Perpetual War for Peace in Obama’s Nobel Speech (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5759-perpetual-war-for-peace-in-obamas-nobel-speech)
Jack Kenny | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 December 2009
Barack Obama campaigned for president on the theme of “change” and “hope.” As the first year of his presidency draws to a close, there remains more possibility of hope than evidence of change.
Indeed, there was much evidence of continuity of foreign policy in Obama’s speech in Oslo Thursday night as he formally accepted the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The president praised the work of his predecessors in both keeping the peace and using military force when necessary, even in “peace-keeping” missions. And without mentioning George W. Bush, Obama emphatically endorsed the rationale for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, now more than eight years old. In so doing, the president acknowledged the irony of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize while waging two wars in countries half a world away from his own.
“One of these wars is winding down,” he said, referring to the war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan, home to al Qaeda training camps, he described as “a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.” He spoke also of the need for balancing long-term diplomatic goals against immediate cries for action against human rights abuses.
“In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies,” the president said. “Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.”
But while Obama spoke of nonviolent diplomatic alternatives —as well as sanctions that “exact a real price” — to hold "regimes that break the rules” accountable, he also said “the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.” And he made clear in his remarks that his idea of the legitimate use of military force “extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor.
“More and more, we all confront difficult questions of 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,” Obama said. “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… 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.”
Since most people are not pacifist, few would dispute that military force is necessary for a nation’s self defense and serves better as a deterrent rather a response to aggression by other nations. The mere desire for peace, as Obama said elsewhere in his speech, cannot by itself secure it. As he pointed out, “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.”
But Obama appears to be continuing the practice, now decades old, expanding the concept of national defense and even collective security to include virtually everything and every place. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” he said. But what constitutes a threat to the American people? Clearly, it is no longer a question of responding militarily only when our nation and its vital interests are threatened. Obama appears to be saying we have not only a right, but an obligation to intervene in civil wars and internal upheavals in other nations.
“Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations,” he observed. “The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.”
Trapping civilians in unending chaos killing more civilians than soldiers, wrecking economies, tearing civil societies asunder, mass refugees, sowing the seeds of future conflicts—sounds like a description of the “new world order” brought to Iraq and Afghanistan, courtesy of the kind of “international cooperation” Obama endorses. True, he opposed George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. But what he opposed in the particular, he endorses as a general principle: that the United States and whatever allies we can get to join with us should intervene in civil wars, “ethnic or sectarian conflicts,” secessionist movements and insurgencies anywhere on earth. It is all part of defending America.
And to America, “the world’s sole military superpower,” falls the responsibility of defending the territorial integrity of nations all over the globe, beyond any previously existing defense commitments. Thus Obama in his Nobel speech endorsed the first U.S. war with Iraq after Iraq had invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990. Yet a free and independent Kuwait had never been defined as a vital American interest. The feud between Iraq and Kuwait over borders and oilfields had been long-standing, but the claim that Saddam Hussein’s goal was to enter and overrun Saudi, Arabia was never substantiated. Indeed, the only troops massed at the Kuwait/Saudi border were those of the U.S.-led coalition forces.
Obama’s praise for NATO’s role in the current Afghan war and in the war in Bosnia in the 1990’s, one could almost forget that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed after World War II as defensive alliance to protect the member nations of Western Europe. It was also viewed as a temporary alliance. General Dwight Eisenhower, the first NATO commander, estimated it would last ten years. Yet sixty years after its creation and twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact alliance, America continues to expand NATO right up to the Russian border. And Obama has proclaimed NAT0 “indispensable” to “peacekeeping” efforts the world over. We must “strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping,” he declares, while continuing to ignore the warnings of our nation’s Founders of the dangerous folly and permanent and entangling alliances.
Thus, U.S. military commitments are like the interstate commerce clause, undefined and open-ended. While we send our troops all over the world to protect borders of other nations, our Department Homeland Security appears unable to adequately guard our own. Meanwhile, the “new world order” proclaimed by President Bush the elder and the “nation-building” his son promised not to pursue continue to drain the treasury and pile up the debt on the people our national leaders are sworn to serve.
As “peace” goes marching on.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5759-perpetual-war-for-peace-in-obamas-nobel-speech
Jack Kenny | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 December 2009
Barack Obama campaigned for president on the theme of “change” and “hope.” As the first year of his presidency draws to a close, there remains more possibility of hope than evidence of change.
Indeed, there was much evidence of continuity of foreign policy in Obama’s speech in Oslo Thursday night as he formally accepted the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The president praised the work of his predecessors in both keeping the peace and using military force when necessary, even in “peace-keeping” missions. And without mentioning George W. Bush, Obama emphatically endorsed the rationale for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, now more than eight years old. In so doing, the president acknowledged the irony of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize while waging two wars in countries half a world away from his own.
“One of these wars is winding down,” he said, referring to the war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan, home to al Qaeda training camps, he described as “a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.” He spoke also of the need for balancing long-term diplomatic goals against immediate cries for action against human rights abuses.
“In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies,” the president said. “Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.”
But while Obama spoke of nonviolent diplomatic alternatives —as well as sanctions that “exact a real price” — to hold "regimes that break the rules” accountable, he also said “the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.” And he made clear in his remarks that his idea of the legitimate use of military force “extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor.
“More and more, we all confront difficult questions of 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,” Obama said. “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… 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.”
Since most people are not pacifist, few would dispute that military force is necessary for a nation’s self defense and serves better as a deterrent rather a response to aggression by other nations. The mere desire for peace, as Obama said elsewhere in his speech, cannot by itself secure it. As he pointed out, “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.”
But Obama appears to be continuing the practice, now decades old, expanding the concept of national defense and even collective security to include virtually everything and every place. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” he said. But what constitutes a threat to the American people? Clearly, it is no longer a question of responding militarily only when our nation and its vital interests are threatened. Obama appears to be saying we have not only a right, but an obligation to intervene in civil wars and internal upheavals in other nations.
“Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations,” he observed. “The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.”
Trapping civilians in unending chaos killing more civilians than soldiers, wrecking economies, tearing civil societies asunder, mass refugees, sowing the seeds of future conflicts—sounds like a description of the “new world order” brought to Iraq and Afghanistan, courtesy of the kind of “international cooperation” Obama endorses. True, he opposed George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. But what he opposed in the particular, he endorses as a general principle: that the United States and whatever allies we can get to join with us should intervene in civil wars, “ethnic or sectarian conflicts,” secessionist movements and insurgencies anywhere on earth. It is all part of defending America.
And to America, “the world’s sole military superpower,” falls the responsibility of defending the territorial integrity of nations all over the globe, beyond any previously existing defense commitments. Thus Obama in his Nobel speech endorsed the first U.S. war with Iraq after Iraq had invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990. Yet a free and independent Kuwait had never been defined as a vital American interest. The feud between Iraq and Kuwait over borders and oilfields had been long-standing, but the claim that Saddam Hussein’s goal was to enter and overrun Saudi, Arabia was never substantiated. Indeed, the only troops massed at the Kuwait/Saudi border were those of the U.S.-led coalition forces.
Obama’s praise for NATO’s role in the current Afghan war and in the war in Bosnia in the 1990’s, one could almost forget that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed after World War II as defensive alliance to protect the member nations of Western Europe. It was also viewed as a temporary alliance. General Dwight Eisenhower, the first NATO commander, estimated it would last ten years. Yet sixty years after its creation and twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact alliance, America continues to expand NATO right up to the Russian border. And Obama has proclaimed NAT0 “indispensable” to “peacekeeping” efforts the world over. We must “strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping,” he declares, while continuing to ignore the warnings of our nation’s Founders of the dangerous folly and permanent and entangling alliances.
Thus, U.S. military commitments are like the interstate commerce clause, undefined and open-ended. While we send our troops all over the world to protect borders of other nations, our Department Homeland Security appears unable to adequately guard our own. Meanwhile, the “new world order” proclaimed by President Bush the elder and the “nation-building” his son promised not to pursue continue to drain the treasury and pile up the debt on the people our national leaders are sworn to serve.
As “peace” goes marching on.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5759-perpetual-war-for-peace-in-obamas-nobel-speech