Obama to Nobel Committee – Pacifists are Stupid!

“America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.” Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech

I’m still trying to collect myself. I’ve watched carefully over the past couple of months as Obama has attempted to get his head around being Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, it is perhaps the most awesome responsibility in the world that any single person can shoulder. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the rapid aging all U.S. Presidents is in large part due to wearing this heavy mantel, and Obama is wearing it no less lightly than his predecessors. The stakes involved and inherent complexity make it impossible for any person to prepare for it – there is no equivalent level of responsibility in the world, and as a result the job tends to shape the inhabitant of the office rather than the other way ’round.

I have developed a deep and profound respect for Obama as he attempts to shoulder this responsiblity seriously and thoughtfully. The first evidence I saw of this seriousness was in his speech at Ft. Hood, commemorating our fallen soldiers. I think the subtleties of that speech were lost on many observers. First, I think you have to remember who he was speaking to in that speech and what his role is in that world. He was speaking as the Commander in Chief, and the troops were looking to him as their leader. He is at the end of the chain of command – and for those of you not familiar with the military, the chain of command is everything. It is a command and control organization where subordinates salute their superiors and follow their orders under the color of law. Obama’s speech clearly signaled that he was inside of this world now, speaking clearly about the heroism and honor of those who serve our country. It was a moving eulogy, and one that fit the occasion. One could feel the heavy burden of the vicious attack in his every word. I don’t think this was a speech he would have been capable of giving during the campaign.

The second signal Obama gave me of his seriousness was the timing, process and outcome of his Afghanistan strategy. While I disagree with his policy pronouncements, I saw him listen closely to his military leadership and the more sober members of his national security apparatus. His proscriptions were clearly a result of reasoned debate winning out over hysterical impulses.

Obama’s Nobel speech makes clear he has stepped up to a realism that in many ways is indistinguishable from that of say, George Bush the elder or Bill Clinton. While he claims otherwise, his positions do his talking for him. It is a traditional view of our role in the world, not really representing much in the way of ‘change’ for those of you keeping score, btw.

While as a libertarian I want a very different foreign policy, I’m not arrogant enough to believe that I have cornered the market on reason. Libertarian thought and principles would call for a non-interventionist stance in many conflicts we are embedded in around the world, closing down many of the 700 foreign military bases that we have and withdrawing our forces back to our shores. I’m not so stupid as to think that this would not cause dramatic instability in the world, and I know it represents a radical departure from the past. Continuity of our current policies has much to argue for it and it’s a legitimate course of action. I hope you crazy ideologues out there can get this – I can disagree with him and still respect him.

One of my greatest fears upon Obama’s election was that he was a dilettante, and as such might make deadly blunders with respect to foreign policy. It’s clear now that this is not the case, that he has embraced our traditional role as the guarantor of global security and that we are a force or freedom and human rights in the world. At least I can sleep at night…