I was struck by the unexpected tone of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech — instead of spending the entire address laying out a vision to achieve world peace, he spent the first half addressing the odd position in which he finds himself: receiving the prize while serving as commander-in-chief of a nation involved in two wars.
In the process, he laid out the most compelling ideological foundation for a progressive view on national security I have ever heard him give:
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that 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 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’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is 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 is sometimes 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 because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet 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 other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
This is where progressives should stand on national security: we must acknowledge that there is evil in the world and show a resolve to make tough choices when America’s vital national security interests are at stake. Our preference is to not use force, but when all other options have been exhausted and our security remains directly threatened, force may be the last resort.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, Military, Progressivism
I absolutely agree, thank you for highlighting this.
I cannot agree. There is no justification for the war in Afghanistan. What separates the policy differences between progressives and conservatives after this speech – nothing. How quickly things have changed.
Ask yourself this question: what vital national security interests are at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Our interest in Afghanistan is not being attack by al Qaeda – I know it’s a tough pill swallow, and the president obviously didn’t take this decision lightly. But with the strategy, we stand the chance to permanently remove al Qaeda’s capability of attacking the United States.
Now, Iraq is was a war of choice, which is very different issue. Our security interests were never clear and the Bush’s administration’s surge was necessary only because of its own incompetence.
The overwhelming majority of al Qaeda is not located in Afghanistan. The US is fighting the Tailban in Afghanistan. Even if the US ‘wins’ in Afghanistan it will not permanently remove al Qaeda’s capability of attacking the United States.
I am amazed that ‘progressives’ now take the position that this war is now justified simply because Obama has taken this position. Perhaps individuals with these views should be called neo-progressives. Bush destroyed the Republican party with his radical policies and I see Obama doing the same. I refuse to change my position on a MAJOR issue simply because Obama has.
On a positive note Jim I disagree with you but I still enjoy your writing. ;o)
Mr Arkedis thinks President Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech is a ‘lesson’ for progressives. It was in fact a slap in the face to all progressives everywhere, and the Nobel committee in particular. It was a self-serving speech which not only sought to to justify the wars the President has inherited, but also the last 60 years of American foreign military adventures. He reduced just war theory to special pleading for American unilateralism, and invented a dangerous new concept of ‘just peace’. I hope Mr Arkedis’ opinion does not represent the standard of ‘pragmatism’ among American progressives, .
The Cult of Personality of surrounding Obama is disturbing. If he were to support waterboarding it would not surprise me if neo-progressives jump on board justifying it.
Steve – Here’s the thing: Obama never changed his position on Afghanistan. He was extraordinarily clear throughout the campaign that he viewed it as the “central front” against AQ and explicitly stated that he would focus on it if elected.
My support for his Afghanistan policy is hardly “jumping on board” – read this from March, for just one example:
http://www.allourmight.com/?p=488
[...] but also discussing the regret any great nation should feel as it sends its citizens to war. As Jim Arkedis pointed out, this involved presenting a progressive justification for military action, that force [...]
[...] perhaps not so surprising that Brooks’ most recent column follows up on a point I made a few days ago: that Barack Obama’s foreign policy is grounded in thoroughly progressive values. [...]