Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Ending us-versus-them mentality
Q: Is there such a thing as a 'just war'? In his Nobel speech, was President Obama right to speak in these theological terms about war? He also stated that 'no holy war can ever be a just war.' Do you agree or disagree?
President Obama's approach to winning the Nobel Peace Prize was both realistic and canny. He acknowledged that it was too early for him to deserve such a prize (in one poll, 80% of the American public agreed), while at the same time he paid no heed to the true motivation behind the prize, which was to reward him for not being George W. Bush. That would have been enough to turn a quasi-embarrassment into a graceful acceptance. But Obama went a step farther.
As much of his audience sat on their hands looking grim, he reminded Europe that the wide-spread pacifism that is now so popular, especially among young Europeans, is a self-indulgence bought at the cost of American money, good will, and blood. We have been altruistic so that they can be in denial. Pacifism denies that some things are worth fighting for. Yet at the same time, there must be a counter trend, constantly pushing for the end of militarism.
The President can hold two ideas in his head at the same time, and he is asking us to. In effect, he outlined three principles governing his outlook: holy wars are always unjust, just wars exist, and peace is an ultimate goal. This realistically reflects how entangled we all are in the vexed issue of war and violence. Contradictions abound. America sees itself as the world's peacekeeper but is the largest dealer of arms in the world. We push for peace accords while developing the most advanced methods of mechanized death.
If ending war were a matter of altering human nature, with its built-in tendency toward aggression, peace would be a futile cause. Obama's speech was praised on the right because it justified America's just wars and military vigilance. (Of course, some praised it on the right for bad reasons: xenophobia, ingrained militarism, and a thirst for war.) But in many ways the President is moving beyond the doctrine of a just war. A viable peace movement can succeed if we have a leader who works sincerely for disarmament, decreased militarism, the end of advanced weapons research, a smaller defense budget, and global reconciliation.
The fact that Obama has ended the Bush-era rhetoric about a global war on terror is a promising sign, but there are many others. In speech and deed this President seems to be part of a new peace movement that minimizes us-versus-them thinking, soft pedals patriotism and nationalism, and has no interest into turning America into a country that dominates the world militarily. It's early going yet, but if he continues to grow, we may find ourselves in a new landscape where the ideal isn't a just war but no wars at all.
By
Deepak Chopra
|
December 21, 2009; 8:27 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Can war or violence ever be necessary? |
Next: Good or evil? A decade defined by religious struggle
Posted by: HumanSimpleton | December 24, 2009 4:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I found Obama's speech to be one of recognizing the reality of war: it may be necessary at times, and is to be avoided as much as possible rather than glorified. Still, there is danger in the approach. Everyone thinks that the war they want to wage next is just. The realization that the war is not just comes after it has been begun, or the injustice is simply ignored.
Reality is messy. Realistic pacifism must recognize that war may sometimes be the right choice, and that acting in a pacifist matter may make even greater violence inevitable. The ultimate roles of the proponents and opponents of a specific war may be to get all of the issues on the table so that a wise leader can make the right choice.
I generally choose to err on the side of non-violence, and always to do so in the case of war. Nonetheless, I pray in all sincerity that our leader has chosen the right course. I did that with Bush, too. I have more confidence that Obama has heard all views and considered them.
Posted by: jlh6789 | December 19, 2009 10:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Why is this quack allowed to express an opinion on WaPo.
I understand he has the right to be stupid and express it under the Free Speech clause, but
a. That is only in public places, and
b. HE IS ABUSING HIS PRIVILEGES