Since its inception in 1900, the Nobel Peace Prize has been one of the world’s most cherished awards. Given to individuals who have distinguished themselves in some significant way in the cause of peace, it has been bestowed on the likes of Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, and Nelson Mandela.
Among politicians and government leaders to have received it are Woodrow Wilson, Willy Brandt, Anwar Sadat, and Nelson Mandela.
In almost every instance, the winners have been selected for something they have accomplished (e.g. Mandela for his peaceful struggle against apartheid; Sadat for securing his country’s peace with Israel). In some, however, the award has recognized the ideas propounded by individuals, rather than the actual realization of those dreams.
Barack Obama, if he is worthy at all, falls into the latter category. Barely eight months into his presidency, Obama leads a nation that is still engaged in two wars, with one (Iraq) slowly winding down, while the other (Afghanistan) may actually escalate in the weeks and months ahead. He also has assumed responsibility for the drone attacks inside Pakistan that have killed innocent civilians (exact numbers depend on whom you ask, but no one would dispute that it is “more than a few”) and is continuing extraordinary renditions that might well constitute war crimes if unsubstantiated reports prove to be true.
His record on the subject of peace, therefore, is not the stuff to fill a résumé.
What Obama did bring to the selection committee, and from all reports, he was not seeking the recognition, was a tone of voice and an image of openness that is vastly different from the arrogance and militant defiance of his predecessor. That difference alone, when the individual we’re talking about is the leader of the most powerful military force in the world, may justify consideration by those who honor peace makers.
But speeches do not make the man, not when you are possessed of the power to destroy whole countries, if not the world. And policies that run afoul of those speeches do not create a consistent legacy, not when you speak of peace and practice war.
And so, while it is foolish, even mean-spirited, to criticize the president for winning the award, it is not at all improper to ask what he will do to deserve it, conceding, as even he presumably does, that to this point, he has done essentially nothing to merit the honor.
Obviously, any president who brokers a lasting peace in the Middle East would redeem Nobel recognition. Likewise, any president who could negotiate complete nuclear disarmament would more than qualify.
Those life-time dreams are not readily achievable, however, and do not warrant serious consideration as the road to Obama’s justification.
On the other hand, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the whole “war on terrorism” (however defined and whatever handle it is known by currently) might present a more realistic opportunity for greatness, in Peace Prize terms. And on those fronts, Mr. Obama may still be trying to find his way. That conclusion certainly seems apparent from the evidence at hand.
Notwithstanding the rhetoric of his campaign, this president has yet to order anything approaching a drawdown of military might in the three areas noted above. In Iraq, he is essentially following the withdrawal timetable embraced (albeit reluctantly) by President Bush. That war continues to represent a major incursion of American military power and presence in a land that never should have seen it and felt it in the first place.
Therefore, one noble step Mr. Obama could take would be to declare definitively that the justification for that war never existed, that its perpetration was a moral abomination, and that U.S. involvement in it is over. A complete withdrawal of all forces (not just “combat forces”) should then be announced on a timetable that recognizes only logistical requirements.
The Iraqi people would then be free of American influence, as they have every right to be, and would be able to choose their own destiny, be it civil war (as some fear) or peaceful reconciliation (as many hope) or something in between, as is most likely. Whatever the fate of Iraq, it should never have been invaded and occupied by Mr. Obama’s country, and he should honor the Nobel award by stating so and by acting on that statement.
In Afghanistan, Mr. Obama assumed office with the apparent plan to right what his predecessor had gotten wrong, to wit: to hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. The problem with this plan is that what Mr. Bush failed to accomplish seven years earlier is probably no longer realistic or pertinent now.
To be specific, Osama bin Laden has moved, and his operation has morphed. Al Qaeda, while still very much a threat to U.S. security, is not the same organization it was in 2002, when Bush led an international coalition into war in Afghanistan. That coalition no longer exists, and bin Laden, if he is still leading al Qaeda, is almost certainly not operating out of the nether regions of Afghanistan.
The justification for a continued presence in that country, therefore, is uncertain at best. And Mr. Obama seems to acknowledge as much as he struggles to find a new one. In the meantime, Pakistan may be the more probable hotbed of anti-American Islamic fundamentalism, and it is not likely to invite a U.S. military presence, nor should it have one.
Obama should commit to a well-ordered and carefully-planned withdrawal from Afghanistan. By leaving, he would allow that country to return to its own form of governance (one marked by warlords and tribal laws, rather than a western-style democracy that fit it about as poorly as a ten-gallon hat would fit Mr. Obama).
And finally, Mr. Obama ought to declare the war on terror (or whatever we’re calling it these days) done and over. Instead, he should seek dialogue with all who have grievances with his country and should find ways to show humility and understanding in addressing those grievances.
Men of peace do such things.
Wow. . .I was asking my dinner companions about this just last night!
When I first heard the news that Mr. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought that was kinda cool, but I was also confused. He was only a couple weeks deep in his first term when he got the nomination. I just didn’t know what he did to receive such a great honor. I had always assumed a Nobel required more than just being a “nice guy” or whatever.
Hey I’m all for peace, too. And I’m just full of brilliant ideas. And some people even find me adorable! Where’s my goddamn Nobel Prize?!
If I promise to write a brilliant, provocative piece later, can I claim my Pulitzer now? Sure, my raring ADHD, chronic procrastination, and severe dyslexia all leave me practically retarded. . . But hey, unlike all those long-suffering writers, I’m at least imaginative! What? I’m generally a semi-decent writer and despite everything, I’m super wicked smart, too.
Can I collect my prize now?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
All kidding aside, thank you for your perspective. You raise some good points. Nicely done!
And while I like your proposal, I just don’t know how realistic it is at this point. Regardless of how wrong our involvement in Iraq was, we’re now involved. And while everyone wants to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. .. Our withdrawal might lead to more instability and chaos. And honestly, isn’t it better we go over there than risk having that mess follow us back here?
Every news story seems to begin with, “Trouble in the Middle East!.” Since I was a little girl, all I’ve ever heard is, “Trouble in the Middle East! Violence erupted today in the Middle East!”
Has the Middle East ever known peace? .
I’m all for seeking a dialogue in an effort to resolve legitimate issues. Yes, men of peace display humility and understanding. But what about the not so peaceful?
Maybe, I just have a bad attitude. But I somehow doubt that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan is interested in holding hands and talking about their feelings, I just don’t know how possible it is to reason with anti-American Islamic fundamentalists. We’re talking about people who use religion to justify the subjugation of more than 50% of their population (just another reason why I’m an atheist).
I don’t mean to sound like, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists”, but. . . I don’t know how effective the President (or anyone) will be at trying to reason with such a perverse mentality.
When I was 17, this guy broke into my place during the night. My unfortunate encounter began when I found him rummaging through my stuff. I was living alone at the time so no help was around. And the presence of his knife gave me the impression he wasn’t dropping by to use my kitchen.
As soon as he saw me, he rattled off his list of demands.
See, at that moment, I was very interested in a peaceful solution. But him? Not so much. I was able to use my crafty deductive reasoning skills to figure as much–given his super agitated, angry and scream-y state. All of my humility, understanding, and desire to come to a peaceful resolution did not get this guy to stop being so grabby with me or leave any quicker. Nor was I able to convince him to leave my money, wallet, and expensive jewelry behind.
See, Pakistan, Iran, et al. . .They are all like That Guy. Not really interested in “working it out.” They came to take what you have worked so hard to build. Remember, that negotiation is a two way street and despite all of your efforts, there is just no reasoning with the unreasonable.
I’m perplexed why the right is wishing Obama would fail on principle. I really enjoyed Rachel Maddow’s breakdown… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJuEOaF84o
While I agree with most of this article, to suggest that the justification for war never existed and therefore, we should withdrawal all forces immediately in Iraq, thereby freeing Iraq of American influence is naive. Regardless of whether you believe there was a justification or not – I happen to side with you on that thinking that it was just the Bush machine trying to find a reason to go into Iraq even if that meant selectively listening to CIA intelligence – once you make a committment, you have to stand by that committment.
It is irresponsible for us to go into a country that is highly sectarian, overthrow their dictator, and leave without ensuring that a stable government is in place. The vacuum that would be created for terrorism and sectarian violence would be catastrophic, and we would leave that country in a worse position than when we went in the first place. I firmly believe that we have an obligation and duty to fix our own mess and not adopt the Ed Telfeyan theory of “oops, our bad. we’ll leave now. Have fun cleaning up our mess without our help.” We – that is, America, which includes the numerous Democrats who initially supported the war – all got into this mess together. Now that it is unpopular and politically convenient to abandon it, we have to think about what our role and responsibility is. I think Obama is starting to see that, and based on his lack of “change we can believe in” so far I think he is starting to figure out that all of the things he criticized Bush for are not so easy to do once it is his responsibility and that a lot of blood will be on his hands if he does the politically convenient thing rather than the right thing (i.e. if another 9/11 happens, that would be a disaster for the Dems come election time).
Thanks for this thoughtful post to the blog. I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise, but I’m not at all convinced we have a meaningful role to play in Iraq anymore. In other words, I think we have to assess whether a point has been reached where our continued presence detracts from the ability of the people of the country to determine their own destiny.
I am not espousing irresponsible action; rather, I’m trying to focus on what responsible action would be. Of course there are risks if we leave, but there are also risks if we stay, one being that we become so entrenched in the continuing unrest in the country that we essentially become a permanent peace-keeping force.
Ashley, the politically tumultuous contries in the middle east are not “That Guy”. They are not invading our space and holding weapons to our bodies. To say so invokes the same fear-mongering tactics as the conservatives. It also upholds some racist profiling.
Adam, we are not a deadbeat dad that must pay child support to his kids. We have no obligation to remain committed to being in a place we have systematically destroyed. Like any abusive relationship, the best course of action is to completely end it (and avoid eachother).
Touche, Keith. Your point is well taken. And I’m not being snide, either. I’m serious.
I honestly wasn’t thinking that my message would be viewed in that light. I quickly fired out my thoughts and initial impressions. After going back and reading my post, I now realize how I come across.
I think the spirit of my message just got lost in translation. Still, I admit, some of my own fears and insecurities vis-a-vis our relationship with said countries were exposed.
I know, you don’t know me. I’m a complete stranger, lurking somewhere in deep cyberspace so you probably assume that I’m just full of shit–But I never intended to just pick on middle eastern people. And I certainly didn’t mean to perpetuate ugly stereotypes.
I’m aware that there is a difference between these countries and my attacker. Be that as it may, I was really focusing on the rate-limiting step in your dad’s proposal.
Obama can only do so much. These other leaders need to also make an effort. As wonderful as Obama may be, even he must realize that this is a lot harder than he initially thought. World peace doesn’t fall on the shoulders of one man, or even one nation. And even though he was awarded the Nobel, peace in the middle east is still, at best, elusive. That’s not racism; it’s reality.
In any case, I should have known better. My last name sounds like it comes from one of these “politically tumultuous countries.” Hell, a side of my family that remains a mystery to me–may very well be of middle eastern descent. I should be more sensitive.
And by the way: I’m really feeling your abusive relationship analogy with respect to our involvement in Iraq. Excellent point. None of the other stuff matters now. It’s time we end the cycle of violence once and for all.
Quite frankly, I almost fainted when Obama won this prestigious award. Was this an incentive prize? Somehow the committee has lost focus on why this award is presented.
As for the comment on the memories of the media repeating ”crisis in the middle east” I’d ask you to listen to the news in other countries. A slightly different perspective on is who invading/liberating/saving/
protecting the world. The compassion others had for us after the 911 was obliterated after the invasions.
How can one send more troops to Afghanistan (in a failed war) win the Nobel Peace Prize? Sounds like the ”phew, he’s not Bush” award. The new WMD story on Iran is yet another deja vu moment. Mc Cain danced to a ”let’s bomb Iran” tune on stage, so phew, Mc Cain didn’t win! That stage act scared me enough not to want him in office.
Does this make Obama a peaceful president?
We need diplomacy, folks who are educated in foreign policy (where are they?) not more hot headed leaders dragging us into more wars. I think one should seriously research a countries culture and past behaviour before invading/liberating them.
Iran. When was the last time Iran attacked another country? Sorry, Iraq doesn’t count. That was obviously in self defense. I suggest people look at both sides. Becoming isolationists added with a touch of paranoia does not bode well for global peace, or relations with others.
Obama has to now live up to the honor of winning his award. Pull of out Iraq (albeit logically) Afhganistan, and stop dropping in on the Pakistani civilians as well. Considering the economy, and world opinion of the U.S. it’s time for us to build bridges again. Show our protective, compassionate side again. Be a leader in implementing peace talks by our actions starting with our president.
President Obama: ACT peacefully. Actions speak louder than eloquent words.
Now that Obama has decided to follow in Bush’s War President footsteps, even the Better Than Bush rationalization for supporting Obama, as pathetic as it was, is history. Can we finally admit your guy is just like all the rest?