"Obama's War and Peace"

[Clio the Leo]

Obama's War and Peace
How the president accepted the Nobel while sending more troops to fight in Afghanistan.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009, at 2:56 PM ET

When President Barack Obama sat down with his speechwriters to outline his Nobel lecture, he must have known that his core task would be to reconcile what many of his hosts in Oslo probably regard as irreconcilable—accepting the peace prize while seriously escalating a war in Afghanistan.

There was an easy, or at least obvious, way out of this. He could have cited the time-honored principles of a "just war"—self-defense, proportional use of force, and so forth—and then moved on to the standard bromides about our nobler natures, the oneness of mankind, etc., etc.

But Obama took a harder, subtler path, using the occasion to outline nothing less than a vision of moral realism for the conduct of war and peace in the modern era—as clear and complex a statement on the subject as any American president has delivered in nearly a half-century.

Critics may dismiss the speech as a hodgepodge—a steely invocation of Realpolitik here, a rousing chorus of democracy promotion there—but they would be mistaken.

<snip>

Read in its entirety, Obama's speech seems a faithful reflection of another theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, who, during World War II and the Cold War that followed, sought to reconcile the principles of Christianity with the imperatives of national defense. In his influential 1952 book The Irony of American History, he wrote that American idealism must come to terms "with the limits of all human striving, the fragmentariness of all human wisdom, the precariousness of all historical configurations of power, and the mixture of good and evil in all human virtue."

Obama's speech doesn't mention Niebuhr, but back in April 2007, early on in the presidential campaign, David Brooks asked Obama whether he'd ever read Niebuhr. The candidate replied, "I love him, he's one of my favorite philosophers." Asked what he took away from Niebuhr, Obama answered, "I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world"; that "we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate these things, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction"; that "we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naive idealism to bitter realism."

http://www.slate.com/id/2238081

[NJmaverick]

1. It's nice to see a thinking person's perspective, thanks for the change of pace

from the usual drek:hi:

[Clio the Leo]

3. Yes, I think I'll start reading Neiber when I'm done with Plouffe's book. NT

[tblue]

2. So Obama made a good speech.

Haven't heard it in entirety, but what excerpts I did hear were well written and thoughtful, putting this moment in perspective, and displaying his ability to make people nod and say, "Hmmm...Can't argue with that." That is Classic Obama. Then this morning, I read about the amicus brief defending torture enablers. Yet another stab in the heart from this administration. So, frankly, I'm done with the speeches. A speech doesn't cure what ails my heart. I can barely stand the sound of his voice anymore. I am a lifelong Democrat and for the first time ever, I feel like a Democratic president is driving me out of my own party. I never dreamed I could feel this way. I am literally in mourning. Don't tell me how I should feel, because you can't change it. Only Obama can.

[Clio the Leo]

5. If only we'd listened to the GOP, they tried to warn us...

.... about all of those "empty" speeches.

But the fact that you're putting all of the onus on the President to begin with might be the cause of your frustration. ;)

[Cha]

6. Wow, you poor thing.

[treestar]

27. You don't understand the amicus brief

check some threads on DU on it.

Mourning seems a bit overwrought.

[tblue]

28. I have read some. If this were the only thing Obama did that horrified me,

I would be upset, but not dejected. I will try to read up on the amicus. It just seems so unnecessary and so damned wrong. I heard Jonathan Turley speak about it, and he seemed to react pretty much the way I did.

[rug]

4. The notion of evil is dangerous in the realm of politics.

[vaberella]

7. I'm currently reading that book right now...from Tolstoy. Huh, I love it.

I have already adore Tolstoy---but this is a great read.

[Clio the Leo]

9. I think I found my new signature quote....

.... if Congress will ever get the darned health care bill passed so I can take Teddy's down. ;)

[Cha]

8. President Obama doesn't take the easy way

on anything ..no reason he should start now.

[Clio the Leo]

10. 'xactly. NT

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. An interesting point for discussion

I would offer that Niebuhr makes no great revelations. It seems quite obvious that human wisdom is fragmented and that ALL configurations of power are temporary. I do not find such observations to be any more insightful than offering that when you look into the sun, your eyes will hurt. I would also disagree with the absolute nature of his claim that ALL human virtue is a mixture of good and evil. A mother's love and a dozen other aspects of the human condition contradict that notion. I can understand why a theologian would struggle over the morality of an activity like war making. It does seem like a huge, glaring contradiction for a Christian to NOT object to an endeavor like war.

IN regard to this line,
"a vision of moral realism for the conduct of war and peace in the modern era"

Moral realism? I have no idea what that means. Is it moral to make war for domestic political considerations? Are there degrees of morality? Can one be 60% moral? For example, what if Obama's decision to fight the war in Afghanistan is because he believes it to be a clear and present danger/national security imperative AND partly a shrewd domestic political move to keep him inoculated from attacks by the rabid right wing? Is that "moral realism"?

[Clio the Leo]

12. Launching a troop escalation to stave off the attacks from the political right?

While an interesting theory, I'm afraid that's a leap of cynicism I cant make.

[Cha]

15. Anybody who says that doesn't

know Obama.

[Clio the Leo]

17. I almost said that ...

.... but there are as many "Obamas" as their are people who know of Obama.

And the "REAL" one belongs to each of us.

"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope"

(I've always been a bit of a post-moderninst)

[Cha]

18. Most certainly doesn't know

my Obama and I don't even know what a post modernist is.:)

[Clio the Leo]

21. Well, the way in which I meant it....

.... deals with the notion that there are no absolute truths.

Some viewed the President more dove-like because of how he's handled Iraq, some viewed him as hawkish when it concerns the nation's security. Post modernism would argue that BOTH of those are correct because the definition of who or what Barack Obama is lies with the one defining him and not his definition of himself.

[Cha]

22. Thanks for that explaination

..there certainly are strong differences of opinions on just exactly who is President Barack Obama.

I view him as not being labeled but trying to do the best for whatever is called for at the time.

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. I think it is more than a theory

I think history provides ample proof that our country's leaders have engaged in war for domestic poltical considerations in the past. I think that it is almost a certainty that Obama and his people have thought long and hard about the pros and cons of the escalation vis a vis the electorate and the attacks they would suffer in different scenarios from the right wing.

[Clio the Leo]

20. I dont disagree with either of those points.....

... I'm certain he considered the political ramifications of his decion, but to say that it was MOTIVATED out of an effort to stave off of the attacks of the right, (which is what I got from your post) un-uh, ain't buyin' it. ;)

I think where the politics come in to play are in how he's framing it and the timeline (in part based on political reasons) both in the speed of getting in and the desire to begin troop return quickly.

But the decision TO do it .... he obviously does not benefit from it in any way politically. Most of the people who approve of the escalation aren't going to vote for him in 2012 anyway.

[boppers]

29. "I do not find such observations to be any more insightful"....

Wisdom isn't found in saying new things that folks had never thought of, it's found in saying things that we all, on some level, already knew, but had never said.

WRT to your bizarre claim about "mother's love" contradicting the notion of humanity being a mix of good and evil, I offer Andrea Yates, and any number of other violent, cruel, selfish, murderous mothers. Mothers often love their children, but they also beat and murder their children, sell them into slavery, and inflict immense cruelty upon them, often in the name of "love".

As far as understanding moral realism, I'll simply posit an old game: A streetcar is out of control, and barreling downhill. You are the conductor. You can turn the car onto one track, and kill 2 people, or leave the car on the track it is currently on, and kill ten people.

If you take an action, you are taking action that will kill two people. If you do not take action, you will kill ten. There is no action you can take, or not take, that will not kill people.

There is no action Obama can take that will eliminate war, and unjust death. Ideological purists find this frustrating, as it reduces ideal moral positions into realities, where morality isn't so simple as "right and wrong", all choices are tainted with some wrong occurring, so choices have to be made.

That's moral realism.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Didn't we hear speeches about the 'evil doers' in the previous administration?

Why are we recycling "evil doers" again?

[Gregorian]

14. Here comes that hope again.

The man has me wondering. And I think he's like a long term stock market investment. Stocks are going down, and he's putting money in. It doesn't make sense to me, but then I have a feeling he knows what he's doing.

As someone who is as close to a pacifist as I can be without having had to exercise that concept, I don't approve of escalating the troops. But he's not Bush. He's not there to stay, to conquer. I certainly don't know what is going on. And I doubt many do.

Obama's alright.

[Clio the Leo]

16. I have a feeling he does to.

;)

Well said.

[asphalt.jungle]

23. the 2007 David Brooks article that started it all.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=3

---
On the one hand, Obama hates, as Niebuhr certainly would have, the grand Bushian rhetoric about ridding the world of evil and tyranny and transforming the Middle East. But he also dislikes liberal muddle-headedness on power politics. In “The Audacity of Hope,” he says liberal objectives like withdrawing from Iraq, stopping AIDS and working more closely with our allies may be laudable, “but they hardly constitute a coherent national security policy.”

In Chicago this week, Obama argued against the current tides of Democratic opinion. There’s been a sharp rise in isolationism among Democrats, according to a recent Pew survey, so Obama argued for global engagement. Fewer Democrats believe in peace through military strength, so Obama argued for increasing the size of the military.

In other words, when Obama is confronted by what he sees as arrogant unilateral action, he argues for humility. When he is confronted by what he sees as dovish passivity, he argues for the hardheaded promotion of democracy in the spirit of John F. Kennedy.

The question is, aside from rejecting the extremes, has Obama thought through a practical foreign policy doctrine of his own — a way to apply his Niebuhrian instincts?
---

looking back it seems like David Brooks had a better read on him than most of his "he lied to us" critics ever did. It's funny how moderate-conservative types like Brooks and Sullivan went into it with their eyes wide open.

[impik]

25. The more i think about it, the more i'm sure that

most of the "progressives" didn't read Obama's books or really listened to his speeches, or they wouldn't be so 'surprised'.

[Garam_Masala]

24. Alas...if only speeches could solve all problems

this would be a wonderful wonderful world! Nirvana!! Camelot!!!

But then I wake up out of that wonderful dream and the reality hits
me in face like a ton of bricks!

[FrenchieCat]

26. Problem with your comment is that a speech is communication

which in itself is key to negotiating, which in turn is what helps avoid conflict, armed and otherwise. What I am saying is that a speech is not mere words that somehow have nothing to do with reality....in fact, they have in the history of the world shaped actions that follow. So yes, a speech is not the answer to everything, but it certainly goes a long way, depending on who is giving the speech to what leads down the road to the reality that we are faced with at any given moment.