Obama’s Nobel Speech: My Analysis
I didn’t get to watch it, but I have read it – a couple of times. As a conservative and a Christian, I will applaud Obama and his speechwriters for developing and delivering a speech that does, in fact, edify America and champions our cause against global terrorism. Below are some excerpts of the speech that jumped out at me.
In the introduction, Obama addressed the controversy that erupted after he was named the recipient, and that he didn’t feel like he deserved the award – he stated his “accomplishments are slight”. Yes, they are. Since Obama has only been in office for 11 months, there has been relatively little time to accomplish much. However, I do not agree with the path his administration is taken on a variety of issues, as does the majority of Americans. But that is a topic for another discussion.
Obama went on to talk about being the recipient of the award while being the commander-in-chief of a country engaged in two wars, and discussed at length the history of war and the concept of “just wars”. He mentioned that the efforts taken after World War II to construct an “architecture” to keep the peace have succeeded. Terrible wars have been fought since then, but we haven’t had a third world war. However, another threat has taken that place – terrorism. In addressing this threat, Obama said the following:
Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Further down in his speech, he made some statements that, to me at least, were strikingly similar to what former President George W. Bush said after 9/11:
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [Referring to Dr. Martin Luther King and Mohandas Ghandi] 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 is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity. (Emphasis mine.)
This is perhaps the best passage of the speech in my opinion. It’s somewhat encouraging to hear a Democrat president, who is on the liberal end of the scale, publically acknowledge the concept of terrorism and its evils. It’s also encouraging that he defends the use of necessary force and defends America’s actions in the world today. But then again, it might all be just empty rhetoric. I hope not though.
However, there is a passage in there where he does indirectly condemn our actions in Iraq - and I categorically disagree with him. Although we all know now that weapons of mass destruction - the basis for invading Iraq in 2003 - was not there, I think we still did the region and the world a service by taking Saddam Hussein out of power. We have to remember that he committed genocide against his own people, murdering thousands of innocent Kurds using mustard gas and multiple nerve agents such as sarin and VX. Obama makes the case for wars waged for humanitarian causes, such as the Balkans, and I believe Iraq was one of those as well.
The other part of the speech I disagree with is Obama’s reference to the conduct of war and specifically his mention of closing Gitmo. I emphatically disagree with this, simply because the terrorists being held there should not be brought onto American soil and placed in proximity to American citizens.
In addressing diplomacy, Obama made a case regarding his stance on attempting to engage Iran while condemning them. He made some interesting comparisons to Nixon/Mao, Pope John Paul and Poland, and Reagan/Gorbachev. However, I do tend to disagree with this stance, particularly with the current Iranian regime. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not want peace; he keeps thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. He wants to destroy Israel (and has said so many times) and wants to develop nuclear weapons. I believe that the only way we can hold talks with Iran is for the people to rise up and force a regime change. We as a country need to get behind the Iranian people.
All in all, it was a good speech. I just hope Obama can live up to his words and quit being an empty speech giver.
Comments are closed.