The Neoconservative argues that the United States must be there for nations who are being tormented by evil people. The US needs to be a world police force so to speak. Isolationists such as Ron Paul argue that the US has no business being involved in any of these things. They do not fall upon the classic left-right paradigm that operates in America today, contrary to popular belive because of the vast Neoconservative strain in the George W. Bush White House.
What brings this issue up is what Obama said yesterday when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. An award that Obama did not deserve, yet Obama gave one of the best speeches of his Presidency. I believe Obama is spot on in terms of his position. Read what Obama said here:
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
In a speech accepting an award for peace, Obama is making and argument for war. But when is violent action necessary? Obama continues:
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 like Obama because he is an idealist yet he wants to live by reality. There are times where violent action is necessary, because there are truly evil people in the world. Obama looks at the most clear example, Hitler. He then links that to the current example al-Qaeda. Both are evil, and both must be confronted. They are not confronted just because they are evil but because in fact if not confronted massive damage can be, or will continue to be handed down.
The Neocon reaches to the use of force too often. The isolationist does not do so enough. Obama has it exactly right with his practical idealism. As my hero Mike Huckabee said, “We stand for those things, we live or die by those things.” There are things worth fighting for, there are times to fight for them, and there are times that fighting for them requires war. Let me close with one more Obama quote, where he quotes JFK.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."
Let us hope and strive for peace on earth, but know that in this fallen world we will never be able to attain it.
