A Problematic Defense of the Use of Force

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama himself acknowledged the problem with a “Commander in Chief in the midst of war” receiving the prize. Declaring that “force is sometimes necessary,” he provided justification for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The president’s message of nuclear disarmament, broadcast to the world, was commended by the Nobel Committee for “creating a new climate in international politics” that respects “dialogue and negotiation.” He is still lacking in concrete accomplishments, but this year’s Nobel Prize was for expressing his hope that international peace will become a reality.

The United States, a military heavyweight that accounts for six-tenths of the world’s military expenditures, is in the middle of two wars. Surely the president, who is sending many young people to the battlefield, cannot abandon his duty in that regard. However, with the arrival of Obama, who has repudiated the road taken by the previous administration and its “war against terror,” serious questions have arisen within the international community, which hoped for global “change.”

At odds with the world’s interest in it, the American people are scornful of the peace prize. According to a poll by an American research organization, 66 percent of respondents said Obama “did not deserve” the peace prize. With only 26 percent of respondents saying he “deserved” it, the poll made for a dim assessment: Obama had done nothing worthy of the prize.

Surely, there is also unease about a “war-time president” who just resolved on December 1st to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Opposition to the surge is growing in Muslim countries, where it is seen as “an action antithetical to peace.”

We cannot agree with the affirmations of this wartime president, which run counter to his message of peace through international cooperation and diplomacy.

“Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms.” “The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

He insisted on a realism that holds that we cannot eradicate violent conflict from this earth in the near future. History, he argued, has shown us that man is imperfect and that there are limits to reason.

Yet, Obama denounced a dependence on violence, saying that “war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.”

We discerned a desperate desire to deflect criticism of this “peace prize for a war-time president,” but as these two preemptive wars continue, international opinion can only worsen.

The force in Afghanistan will balloon to around 100,000 after the surge. Withdrawal will begin in the summer of 2011 but there is no end in sight. Together with Iraq, the cost of these wars is approaching $1 trillion, and in the midst of thinning finances, war weariness is beginning to spread at home.

Obama, who has called for international cooperation, said “all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”

Echoing the Bush line of dividing the world into friends and enemies by evoking the “Axis of Evil,” Obama sanctioned the use of force by saying that “evil does exist in the world.” His image as the champion of an ideal world without nuclear weapons is faltering.

We cannot identify with the logic of “expanding the war to end it.” Obama should be able to turn “dialogue and negotiation” into a reality.