Peace to the Sound of the Bugle, and War Under the White Flag

He came and went swiftly, skipping the traditional lunch with the king of Norway, as well as the no less traditional march in his honor: it’s an understatement to say that Barack Obama wanted to avoid the fuss around his Nobel Peace Prize. He hadn’t tried to conceal his embarrassment when the prize was announced, which he proved in Oslo. But then why did he accept this honor, if he was to hide it under his blazer and run for his life?

As expected, the contradiction symbolized by the ink still wet on the order to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan did not affect yesterday’s speech, which Barack Obama gave with great mastery. We learned that “the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace” from the Romans, who often practiced the first when rarely obtaining the second.

Rhetoric, however, for which the American president has now won all possible awards, allows him to escape from many a trap, while generating traps of its own when overused. Nine days ago, Barack Obama announced his intensification plan in the war against the Taliban while explaining the counterarguments in detail and planning a very short, maybe too short, calendar for what he pitches as a final military attempt. After George Bush, explaining his doubts as to what led to a decision to wage war can seem to be courageous. But a more ugly truth must also be stated. The call to war demands an even bigger emotional engagement when its justification is so difficult: leading young 20-year-old men to war by patronizing them is as contradictory as a speech about peace that advocates war, even if it is “just.”

There is a time for peace speeches, and a time for war speeches. The risk that Obama may not achieve a successful war or peace is great, but it continues to grow when he delivers speeches advocating both. And what will remain is a tragically ironic Nobel Prize.