When President Barack Obama joined the ranks of Henry Kissinger
and the other gentle souls who have received Nobel Peace Prizes,
he did something that I don't think anyone else had previously
done in a Peace Prize acceptance speech. He argued for war:
"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 Jr. 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.' But as a head of
state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided
by [King's and Gandhi's] 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 may sometimes be necessary is not
a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history . So yes,
the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the
peace."
But, you know, I've never found any opponent of war who didn't
believe there was evil in the world. After all, we oppose war
because it is evil. Did Martin Luther King, Jr., stand idle in
the face of threats? Are you serious? Did King oppose protecting
and defending people? He worked for that very goal! Obama claims
that his only choices are war or nothing. But the reason people
know the names Gandhi (who was never given a Nobel Peace Prize)
and King is that they suggested other options and proved that
those other approaches could work. This fundamental disagreement
cannot be smoothed over. Either war is the only option or it is
not -- in which case we must consider the alternatives.
Couldn't we have halted Hitler's armies without a world war? To
claim otherwise is ridiculous. We could have halted Hitler's
armies by not concluding World War I with an effort seemingly
aimed at breeding as much resentment as possible in Germany
(punishing a whole people rather than individuals, requiring
that Germany admit sole responsibility, taking away its
territory, and demanding enormous reparations payments that it
would have taken Germany several decades to pay), or by putting
our energies seriously into the League of Nations as opposed to
the victor-justice of dividing the spoils, or by building good
relations with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, or by funding
peace studies in Germany rather than eugenics, or by fearing
militaristic governments more than leftist ones, or by not
funding Hitler and his armies, or by helping the Jews escape, or
by maintaining a ban on bombing civilians, or indeed by massive
nonviolent resistance which requires greater courage and valor
than we've ever seen in war.
>>> Read the Full Article