Friday, December 11, 2009

War and Peace

I confess that, though I started it twice, I never made it all the way through Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. I'm not at all afraid of long books, but I could never stir up much interest in the Napoleonic wars or the aristocratic Russian families affected by the French invasion of 1812.

I couldn't help but think about Tolstoy's opus, however, when Barack Obama stepped to the podium in Oslo on December 10 and marked his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by making a speech about war.

The room was awash with irony.

Sadly, that's the way it is when idealism and realism go head to head. Surely most inhabitants of the world would like for it to be a more peaceful place -- but we have differing ideas of what liberties should exist in a peaceful society, just as we can't agree on whether war should have any rules.

The president argued that the current war in Afghanistan is essential to protect American interests, and that it meets the criteria for a just war. A number of observers have hailed his rather hawkish take on the war, while others have been more critical, thinking the effort in Afghanistan has little chance of success.

I'm not an ethicist by profession, but I observe that people who make the study of ethics their life's work can still disagree over whether or not a war is just.

I'm a peace-nik at heart and I believe that honest conversation is better than bullets, but when the enemy prefers to shoot (or bomb) first and brag later, hard decisions have to be made.

I am confident that the president dislikes war as much as anyone, and wouldn't be pursuing escalating the conflict with 30,000 new troops if he didn't believe it's essential. I hope the effort proves to be successful, but it's clear that success is not guaranteed. The radicalized, jihadist version of Islam preached by the likes of Osama bin Ladin is just twisted enough to turn all the normal rules upside down: for every terrorist we kill, the responding grievance breeds two more.

The network of hate reaches far and wide, even snaking into our own country to enlist and brainwash disaffected young men for terrorist training in Somalia and Pakistan. The danger, I suspect, is even greater than we know.

I'm not in a position to advise the president: I believe he is working just as hard to promote peace as he is to conclude a war, and it's evident that he does not approach war with swagger, but realism.

There is little that I or any of us can do on a global scale, but we can work for peace on a local level. We can be kind to all we meet, even those who dress or speak differently. We can demonstrate love. We can speak up for those who need someone to defend them.

Like it or not, in both lives and lost wealth, we are paying for war. Let's not forget to pray for peace.

3 comments:

DC said...

While being a peace-nik is a human perogative, it's a dangerous trait for one occupying the Office of President of the United States. Yet as always happens when theory and reality meet in the realm of international relations, Barack Obama's political idealism has thankfully been tempered with a healthy dose of political realism.

I contend that political idealism is a natural byproduct of liberalism and necessarily emerges from an anthropology that sees man as basically good (and assumes enough talk will eventually work). Political realism, on the other hand, more accurately understands man's depravity as the cornerstone of the sort of self-preservation that manifests itself in nation states acting in their national interests (as perceived by them).

Much to the chagrin of the liberal (a descriptive term) idealists on his left, President Obama is having to act as a realist with respect to other nation states acting in their national interests. He's quickly learning that talk is cheap. As we've seen, all his talk has led to nothing of value in return from friend or foe. Instead, they've seemed to interpret his "niceness" as weakness and have acted accordingly. This comes as no surprise.

One day we'll see swords turned into plowshares. Just not in this lifetime. Regarding our national interests, I only hope President Obama understands that for the long term.

DC said...

Tony,
Looks like I misspelled "prerogative" as "perogative." Please correct it if you don't mind. Thanks.
DC

Tony W. Cartledge said...

Sorry, DC ... I could delete your comment, but can't edit it. We all know that you're a good speller! Typos happen.

Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful comments.