Obama's Nobel war of words

[CHIMO]

Since Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel peace prize at the beginning of October, he has been at great pains to show humility and explain that he understands that there are many who are more deserving of its receipt. But to decline it was not an option. So today, the President went about defending himself with his acceptance speech in Oslo

Much of it was unsurprising in that it was lofty, philosophical and well-versed in the tone of humanity. But it was not a speech that Obama – who I view as an extraordinarily intelligent man – can have made without being aware of its flaws. Much of it was taken verbatim from the book of "just war" theory. That is, certain wars are just and others are not.

Before we had just war theory, we had the divine right of kings which enforced the notion that kings could go to war as and when they wished because they answered only to God. In the theory of the just war, Cicero and later, St Thomas Aquinas, believed that human beings were moral creatures and so before war could be waged, two criteria must be proven: jus ad bellum, which lays out certain criteria for reasons to go to war, one of the most important being that the use of force must be the last resort. Secondly, that there must be jus in bello, refering to the actions permissible once engaged in war.

As a basic knowledge of political science suggests, it is possible, and explicable, for both sides in most wars to stake their claim in the just war tradition. This is particularly true in an age where we no longer fight "Clausewitzian wars" – wars fought between the militaries of formal states. Wars are increasingly fought among informal "armies" and those who we could not formally call military combatants. This new state of affairs is certainly what is taking place in Afgahanistan and Iraq. And in such cases, President Obama must well be aware that if one is going to defend war on any basis, it must be taken into consideration that the same defence will be available to the other side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-war

[Fearless]

1. Amen.

And let's see how long this lasts until it's removed.

[panader0]

2. "for both sides in most wars to stake claim in the just war traditon."

I'd have to say in ALL wars. It's not too hard for me to understand why the Arab/Muslim world doesn't like the US. Perhaps their cause is more just. After all, they aren't the invading/imperial/ occupiers side of this. The West has meddling in the Middle East ever since the discovery of oil.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. "Evil"? " A just war of self defense"?

"War is necessary"???????
Necessary????????

I just listened to major excerpts of the speech on KO.
EVIL?????

I am stunned.
No, I think a better word is SHOCKED.

[paulsby]

5. i'm not shocked at all

obama aint no pacifist, and god knows his speech is completely consistent with the democratic party's vision.

[bemildred]

4. War is what you do when you cannot get your way by law, diplomacy, or reason.

That does not make it a good idea. That is a much more complicated question. Obama will regret this resort to expediency, as have so many before him.