Ok, reading that completely weirded me out. He mentioned war a lot and while I may not have a problem with what he said, the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize winner was saying it as his acceptance speech is stark WTF moment.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their 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; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Most of the speech seemed like a very sharp scalpel cutting into the cynicism of the world, and even the cynicism of this award-- you don't know you're cut until you see the blood. But then I came to this, and my response to the first thought "I cannot be guided by their examples alone" was "why not." And second that non-violent movements *have* halted armies, in Poland, and Germany, and Czechoslovakia, and yes, India (getting rid of the Raj, unfortunately, they didn't follow their own examples)

He may be right in terms of geopolitical reality; however, in making this speech, he offers a defence of the status quo. He preserves the idea that war is a justifiable mechanism of dispute resolution.

My understanding of the Peace Prize is that it aimed for something better than that, go to beyond that idea. Obama made the point that war has been with mankind always -- yes, but it doesn't have to be that way. I understood that to be the point of such a prize.

I find it astounding that the Nobel Peace Prize laureate is not, in fact, a pacifist.

The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

I would suggest that it's not at all clear that those conditions were indeed met for the two wars America finds itself in. In making that claim of legitimacy, Obama reasserts the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, no?

The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

I cannot reconcile this with the message of his speech. Gandhi and King argued that non-violence was possible even in the most trying of circumstances. To dismiss that practice as 'impractical' may be correct in terms of global realpolitik, but it does serve that 'faith in human progress' at all. You cannot admit that Gandhi's and King's doctrine of non-violence, that that kind of human love is to be the guiding principle, and cast it aside when it's not 'practical'.

We go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard, as another President said...

(I also can't believe that he cited Reagan as a model of arms control. Srsly, dude -- what the hell..?)

"doesn't serve". Sorry.

And I'll shut up now.

You cannot admit that Gandhi's and King's doctrine of non-violence, that that kind of human love is to be the guiding principle, and cast it aside when it's not 'practical'.

Sure you can. Leaders do it all the time. Same with human rights issues.

Also that silly satirical blog I adore is secretly quite deft with the faux punditry.

I don't have a problem with his speech in general, what bothers me is that it's being made by a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. As commander of the world's largest and most powerful army, there's a huge dichotomy there, one that can never be bridged. Almost by definition, no sitting president can get the Peace Prize, it's just a basic conflict of interest.

Oh I agree with you. I also disagree with the speech, but the bigger point here is that he shouldn't have gotten the award to begin with. I'm not sure whether I think it was good that he addressed the main issue already on everyone's minds as he accepted the award rather than dodging it entirely, or bad that he accepted the award at all, or bad that he accepted the award with a War Is Sometimes A Necessary Evil lecture. Or maybe all of them.

Agreed.

And at least he didn't have to have his picture taken with the King and Queen of Norway, joined by a giant novelty cheque.

The whole thing is weird and kind of depressing. My kingdom to the first person to retool the Kenya Weebl video to be a hilarious commentary on its absurdity.

Apparently Obama remarked "I was almost convinced that I deserved it." Sardonic self-deprecation combined with a light joke at the committee's expense is something I can get behind.