“War or Peace President?”
December 10, 2009, 9:27 am
Posted by Eric Bugyis
From the NYTimes today, Obama accepts the Nobel “evoking ‘Just War’”:
OSLO — President Obama, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize here on Thursday, acknowledged the age-old tensions between war and peace but argued that his recent decision to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan was justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism.
“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth,” Mr. Obama said. “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.”
“Just War” sounds a bit too much like Weigel for my ears. Maybe he should get the prize next.
Obama is hugely disappointing. He is playing his part in the standard US scenario. His war in Afghanistan makes no sense, but no doubt he feels that if he withdraws he is toast and some budding Ike will replace him.
The USA can achieve at best only minor improvements in Afghanistan — which is hardly a cause worth dying for, or a cause worth killing for. It hardly meets the conditions of proportionality and reasonable prospect of success that are among the requisites of a just war.
It all seems part of a process of irreversible American decline.
The USA still has some good universities — but it is increasingly difficult for Americans to get into them — clever students from abroad usurp their places.
I think he has been a witness for peace in many ways.
Ugh – is there a way that our email addresses don’t have to show up when we comment?
Does not Catholic doctrine allow for just war?
Note that Hans Kung spelled out the conditions of just war in 2003 and pointed out that the impending Iraq War met none of them.
Obama is nowhere near Catholic standards on this!
Yes, he is infinitely better than Bush. But the system is rotten, and he is not a man to rock the boat.
Is it possible to fight a just war for an unjust reason? I think the Taliban in Afghanistan were a true horror: butchering their own people, persecuting religious minorities and completely degrading the lives of women. I think getting rid of them is a good thing; but none of those good reasons are why we’re fighting them.
Eric,
You make it sound as if George Weigel invented “just war”–the phrase or the theory–as if you couldn’t find it in the catechism or in Aquinas or Augustine or in the non-Catholic, non-neocon work of Michael Walzer.
Aw Matt, gimme a little more credit than that. Maybe I should have specified that trotting out “just war” as a moral cover for national and self interest seems like a Weigel move.
=While not happy with the “just war” justification, I thought the speech was thoughtful and with some balance and deserved better than an easy flip off.
Eric,
That’s why I wrote “You make it sound like” and not “You seem to think.”
It isn’t at all clear to me that Obama’s use of just-war language, in the Oslo speech or elsewhere, has much in common with Weigel’s use of it in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Nor do I think Weigel’s version of just-war theory can be adequately described as a “moral cover for national and self interest” — though it was certainly made to serve that function. I say this as someone opposed to the invasion of Iraq and to the new surge in Afghanistan.
I’d say Obama was once again channeling Niebuhr–no? Or at least that’s the story I’m writing now, and I’m sticking to it.
PS: My email is not prefixed by “1635″ though the historian in me will look for the significance of that date before Grant fixes the bug…
Having just read Obama’s Nobel speech, I’d say he doesn’t sound one wit like George Weigel.
I agree that Obama shouldn’t be confused for Weigel. Although it is interesting how the just war theory is always mentioned in passing by most figures invoking it, while they very seldom seem to explain how a certain war meets the jus ad bellum criteria. Even more rarely do they explain how, once the war begins, they are faithfully considering the criteria of jus in bello. More rarely still do these leaders think of the burgeoning conditions of jus post bellum. I would like to see, for once, the just war theory used to explain why we are NOT participating in war. Remember that Weigel accused the US Bishops of being unfaithful to the tradition by “inventing” the term “presumption against violence,” even though that very notion pops up at least as early as Augustine, and is sprinkled in throughout thinkers like Thomas, Vitoria, Suarez, and Murray. For once, it would be helpful to see, step by step, how each criterion is met before we enter into a “just” war.
“I would like to see, for once, the just war theory used to explain why we are NOT participating in war.”
Good question. I’d think the first step would be to compile the list of wars we’ve declined to involve ourselves in. It’s not as easy as it sounds!
So, the Weigel reference was a bit “off the cuff,” but I do think there are some formal similarities surrounding an invocation of “just war” as a rhetorical trope rather then using and defending it as a moral category, that is shared by both Weigel-esque neo-cons and Obama’s speech. Also, there’s a kind of cognitive dissonance growing between the “change” Obama was supposed to bring and the continued quasi-conservative agenda being pursued on several fronts. For example, in the speech, Obama speaks of “commerce stitching much of the world together” and suggests that America as the “only military superpower” is tasked with the job of making sure that nothing stands in the way of the community forming effects of the global market. But, what can I say, I’m a skeptic!
Lastly, David G., Weigel also seems to be a fan of Niebuhr. Check him out in First Things from 2007:
“There has been much talk of “realism” in recent months, most of it involving the misguided appeasement of tyrants such as those in Syria or apocalyptics such as those in Iran. An older realism—a realism like that of Reinhold Niebuhr—would not be out of place in the intellectual armament of those willing to think through the strategic and moral thicket that is Iraq today. As the past four years should have reminded us, elements of the Christian realist sensibility remain essential intellectual furnishing for anyone thinking in a morally serious way about U.S. foreign policy in the twenty-first century: an understanding of the inevitable irony, pathos, and tragedy of history; alertness to unintended consequences; a robust skepticism about schemes of human perfection (especially when politics is the instrument of salvation); a way of cherishing democracy without worshiping it. Yet, as Reinhold Niebuhr himself understood, realism must always be complemented by a sense of the possibilities of human creativity in history.”
Here’s another nice bit of American exceptionalism:
“But 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 others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity”
Sounds like somebody’s running for reelection…
One of these days it will be shown how Weigel, Novak and other neocons met with Bush or his reps who got them to politic with Rome for the war in Iraq. Neuhaus has already been substantially outed by his own former editor.
As far as Obama is concerned I would be ready for a replacement candidate. I believe that it took a lot of hubris to speak as he did accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Does he think because he justaposed justification for war with this award that it makes it right?
Further, the Christian community needs to continually look at itself. It still has too many symbols and relics of war which tend to glorify. We still fill our language with “knights” who, despite some charitable offshoots, were a troublesome bunch. And we still fashionably honor Compostela even tho that history features essential a bellicose Santiago who is still called to defeat enemies on our behalf. Spain still hosts that trail for financial reasons but its government seems to love peace more than its Christian critics.
Well regardless of what I or any of you think, it seems we are off and running in Afghanistan for the next few years.
I have noticed how President Obama has backed away (just a little bit, but still noticeably) from the idea of a firm draw-down date of June 2011. I imagine he discovered or was informed by the military that announcing the date when we will begin removing troops is a mistake. This shows at least, that the President is willing to listen to the generals and make changes accordingly.
I heard some expert mention 2015 as a more realistic date for having most of our troops back home, and so it seems we have a long way to go.
It is time then, to stand with our President and with our troops, and of course to pray for all involved.
Eric, Niebuhr is someone who can be all things to all people, which is a problem–his and ours. Paul Elie got at that in this Atlantic piece from 2007:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711/reinhold-niebuhr
But it’s pretty clear that Weigel was stretching Niebuhr pretty thin to cover his own posterior position, and that Obama is on to Niebuhr more than the theocons. I like Andrew Bacevich’s 2008 op-ed in the Globe:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/06/evangelical_foreign_policy_is_over/
The irony–so to speak–is that Bacevich opposes the Afgahn escalation (I believe), and so Obama may not turn out to be the Niebuhrian he thinks he is, either.
And a house-keeping matter; why is the blog displaying everyones’ e-mail?
Is that a feature of the new web-page design, or is it a bug?
David, Thanks for the links, and I will look forward to reading your take on Obama and Niebuhr. I must admit that I don’t know my Niebuhr all that well, but being made all things to all people seems like a common occupational hazard for “idea-people.”
“PS: My email is not prefixed by “1635″ though the historian in me will look for the significance of that date before Grant fixes the bug…”
Today in 1635 … Melchoir Teschner died.
http://wordwisehymns.com/2009/12/01/today-in-1635-melchior-teschner-died/
Aside from his homage to Wilsonian styled US foreign policy which I think symbolized the total caesura from the US’s historical self-understanding and positioned it as an empire, the speech was very good. It combined an important realism that any head of state and effective leader in the secular world must possess. However, he also praised the prophets and spiritual leaders who call us to higher ends. Nonetheless, he is a head of state and must therefore be prepared to make these kinds of choices and decisions.
As a strong supporter of Israel, I personally feel the best part about this award is the international community’s abandoning of the claim that withholding due process in the assassination of civilians who may be alleged to be associated with organizations which may be seen to be involved in criminal enterprises which may support terrorism is illegal or in violation or the Geneva conventions. This is welcome news to those who see Israel’s self-defense as a hallmark of these States’ foreign policy.
“the speech was very good. It combined an important realism that any head of state and effective leader in the secular world must possess. However, he also praised the prophets and spiritual leaders who call us to higher ends. Nonetheless, he is a head of state and must therefore be prepared to make these kinds of choices and decisions.”
I think George D’s comment is astute and worthy of further reflection.
Here’s where I’m stumped: that a president must be realistic means that he must take part in the untransformed ways of the world, on the world’s terms. No matter how ardently he desires true peace, he has to maintain the posture of military readiness, both to defend and to intimidate.
We know what kind of peace that results in: peace defined as a mere ceasing or interruption of hostilities; a sullen peace, a peace enforced by fear, rather than love.
How can we transition from the current ways of the world to Gospel peace? If a president tries to do it unilaterally, by disarming his missiles or withdrawing his troops, the rest of the world perceives it as weakness and moves to take advantage of it. But if he doesn’t take the first step, the status quo continues. How to end that impasse?
Jim,
I think there’s a place to talk about the pragmatic need for the use of force by a head of state without saying that use is morally justified. I agree that the “president must take part in the untransformed ways of the world,” but it is precisely because those ways are “untransformed” that some pragmatic decisions will be morally unjustified. I would have liked to hear him say that war is a moral tragedy, but it is a step he has decided is necessary for him and his country given the state of the world. Instead, he claimed the moral high ground, which leaves us at an impasse precisely because it does not distinguish pragmatism from morality. I think what is morally right is often very unpragmatic (and even pragmatically disastrous), but that’s not a very American sentiment. We usually like to think that pragmatic expedience and moral rectitude go hand in hand, and that the demands of justice do not outstrip our “enlightened self-interest.” Maybe that’s our protestant work ethic or something.
“I would have liked to hear him say that war is a moral tragedy, but it is a step he has decided is necessary for him and his country given the state of the world. Instead, he claimed the moral high ground, which leaves us at an impasse precisely because it does not distinguish pragmatism from morality. I think what is morally right is often very unpragmatic (and even pragmatically disastrous), but that’s not a very American sentiment. We usually like to think that pragmatic expedience and moral rectitude go hand in hand, and that the demands of justice do not outstrip our “enlightened self-interest.” Maybe that’s our protestant work ethic or something.”
Hi, Eric,
This distinction between what is pragmatic and what is morally justifiable is something I need to think about some more. It’s not clear that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is either pragmatic or morally justified.
the statement, “It is both necessary and moral” troubles me. At best it is ambiguous. What does “necessary ” mean here? Pragmatic? Expedient? How can a war that is moral be other than necessay? His just war theory needs some clarification.
With that reservation, I thought the speech was admirable. He obviously hates sending off the troops off to war. Poor man seems to have aged ten years in one.
Andrew Sullivan, who was so foolishly enthusiastic about the Iraq War in 2003, is still so infatuated with Obama. whom he sees as a Niebuhrian sage. that he cannot see the folly of the Afghan war. Al Qaeda are not Nazism and do not have an army that can be fought on a battlefield. They are not a serious “threat” to America. They are just a police problem, and had they been treated as such on day 1 they would not loom as large as they do. Obama’s sending of 30,000 makes him just the latest imperialist to be sucked into the Afghan quicksand, where he will meet round two of the punishment that lies in store for American hubris.
Obama is not being “realistic” in Afghanistan; he is following the usual Pentagon script. America declared victory in Iraq after five years of mayhem; they are not ready to do the same in Afghanistan yet; many more Afghans have to die first. And the victory is both cases is only a farce desiged to save America’s face.
I’d like to know why the print is hard to read. Anyway, I believe the idea of Obama getting the peace prize is a good ideal. I think after he got in office and was privy to information we are not privy to, he decided to pull a “george bush”. And I can’t blame him especially after the antics in Texas and the current 5 young men captured escaping to do harm. God bless him and his decision making.
I think one of the main problems with how we Americans have our military structured is the extensive use by our military of contractors.
If we have deployed 100,000 soldiers, most of them would be in support roles like cooking, logistics (hauling munitions and the like), laundry, mechanic pool, engineers, and medical teams. Under this example then, probably only about 30,000 of the deployed troops would actually be in combat; the other 70,000 would be in support services. This structure has a self-limiting feature built into it, in that everyone involved is in the military and everyone wants the war to end sooner rather than later, and that has an effect of policy.
Nowadays however, since we use so many private contractors for logistics, food and clothing services, and vehicular and logistics, etc., if we have 100,000 soldiers deployed, probably 80,000 of them are in active fighting.
Now all this is boring I know, but think about the ramifications of so many contractors.
Consider for example, the food service contractor. If he get around $10 per plate (which seems reasonable enough), and he serves 100,000 meals three times a day = 3 x 100,000 x $10 = $ 3 million per day, or $90 million per month. How long does the food service contractor want the war to continue? How long does the company that contracts fleet (vehicle) services want to war to continue? The upshot is the contractors want the war to go on and on, and they lobby Congress accordingly.
I noticed when Republicans held Congress, Democrats moaned long and loud about the Iraq war, however ever since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 however, they have become quieter and quieter. Why? Because when the Republicans ran Congress, they got the military contractor dinero. Now that Democrats are running Congress, they are receiving the same largesse. The temptation of all that money floating around and possibly making its way into pockets is too great for any politician to resist and frankly we (the public), should not set up a system that not only seriously tempts our politicians, but also has the effect of lengthening wars.
And so it seems the best policy is to direct the military to stop hiring private contractors; to do all that work in-house so to speak. These efforts would be more self-limiting in that it would require more soldiers and that, in and of itself would be a good thing.
War is ugly, very ugly and very sad, but it should also be expensive and difficult enough that we the people and our leaders think long and hard about getting into one, and that if we do find we need to go to war, it should be expensive and difficult enough that we want to end it sooner rather than later.