11 December 2009
Peace Prize Is Not Weakness Prize
Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, would surely have agreed that forcefully demanding adherence to humanitarian principles was consistent with the goal of maintaining peace between the nations of the world. Weakness only invites aggression. Violence, however, is not the only method of using force to convince an adversary to adhere to standards of just behavior. Non-violent compulsion is fully consistent with the aspirations of the Nobel Peace Prize committee when it is used to enforce the principles articulated by President Obama in his acceptance “lecture” on December 10, 2009.
Violence is a loaded term, implying a lack of control over the application of physical force to an intractable adversary or blockage. Strong opposition may be exerted in an orderly way to uncivil elements in society that seek violently to impose patterns of behavior unrelated to the practical needs of life (e.g. religious beliefs). It may involve physical force and still be non-violent. It may even require killing and risk the loss of life. It would, nevertheless, be peaceful.
Although Nobel Laureate Obama eloquently expressed these principles in Oslo, his decision to increase the size and length of the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan definitely contradicts the objectives of the Peace Prize. True, he is not doing it out of an intention to impose an arbitrary or self-interested new order on a foreign land. Owing to its naiveté, however, the Obama administration has been seduced by the U.S. military, which because it knows how to fight conventional wars, and even conventional insurgencies against established governments, sees every conflict as a conventional one. Even though Afghanistan has not yet established a government that is able to maintain civil order in the country, the U.S. has no business being there.
The U.S. and the rest of the world's liberal democracies only have an interest in preventing the use of Afghanistan as a base for international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda that threaten their own security. This can be done through controlled forceful intervention, short-term as necessary. Now that Al Qaeda appears to have abandoned Afghanistan, the U.S. and its allies should withdraw all forces beyond those necessary for surveillance and pre-emptive action.
Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, would surely have agreed that forcefully demanding adherence to humanitarian principles was consistent with the goal of maintaining peace between the nations of the world. Weakness only invites aggression. Violence, however, is not the only method of using force to convince an adversary to adhere to standards of just behavior. Non-violent compulsion is fully consistent with the aspirations of the Nobel Peace Prize committee when it is used to enforce the principles articulated by President Obama in his acceptance “lecture” on December 10, 2009.
Violence is a loaded term, implying a lack of control over the application of physical force to an intractable adversary or blockage. Strong opposition may be exerted in an orderly way to uncivil elements in society that seek violently to impose patterns of behavior unrelated to the practical needs of life (e.g. religious beliefs). It may involve physical force and still be non-violent. It may even require killing and risk the loss of life. It would, nevertheless, be peaceful.
Although Nobel Laureate Obama eloquently expressed these principles in Oslo, his decision to increase the size and length of the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan definitely contradicts the objectives of the Peace Prize. True, he is not doing it out of an intention to impose an arbitrary or self-interested new order on a foreign land. Owing to its naiveté, however, the Obama administration has been seduced by the U.S. military, which because it knows how to fight conventional wars, and even conventional insurgencies against established governments, sees every conflict as a conventional one. Even though Afghanistan has not yet established a government that is able to maintain civil order in the country, the U.S. has no business being there.
The U.S. and the rest of the world's liberal democracies only have an interest in preventing the use of Afghanistan as a base for international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda that threaten their own security. This can be done through controlled forceful intervention, short-term as necessary. Now that Al Qaeda appears to have abandoned Afghanistan, the U.S. and its allies should withdraw all forces beyond those necessary for surveillance and pre-emptive action.
Comments:
Post a Comment
