12/10/09: TWD's Agenda For The Day, Part 1: Reviewing The Nobel Peace Speech

The point of the speech that really focused on the whole theme on whether his acceptance was totally awkward is the focus on escalation in Afghanistan (while drawing down in Iraq, so it won't be forgotten there).

make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago –- “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their 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.

As always, the President covers all corners in his speeches. Most notable here is the fact of his cognizance to the sentiment of a large crowd around the world (and here in this country) that America wants to further its imperial power or broaden their horizon further. That perspective wouldn't have been located inthe last Administration, that's for sure.

However, debating the "safety of America" is what he is fighting for by this escalation is a dubious one, and that is putting it in the nicest of terms. The "safety of America" is arguably more at stake with our continuing presence in Afghanistan than us not fighting in this war that has completely gotten out of hand.

Moreover, though peace is not guaranteed with constant obstinate pacifism, this is an instance in my mind where this war does not guarantee an improvement in world peace, at all.

No matter if Obama mentions Gandhi, MLK, or the Lord Jesus (my Christianity specifically speaking there) in any speech about it.