	Generational Dynamics
	Forecasting America's Destiny ... and the World's

\| HOME \| WEB LOG \| COUNTRY WIKI \| COMMENT \| FORUM \| DOWNLOADS \| ABOUT \|

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 12-Dec-2009
Obama's Nobel Prize speech defends a "just war" in Afghanistan

Web Log - December, 2009

Obama's Nobel Prize speech defends a "just war" in Afghanistan

This is President Obama's most significant speech since the election.

People on the left and right are applauding Thursday's speech, both for its rhetorical eloquence and for its thoughtful content.

Much of the 40 minute speech was pure politics. But there were portions of the speech that are relevant to Generational Dynamics theory. Here are some excerpts:

"Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences."

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, war has always been a necessity because population keeps growing faster than the availability of resources such as land, food and water. If there isn't enough food for everyone to survive, if a man can't feed his family, then there will be war. That's still true today.

The easiest way to look at a war is to compare it to a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or earthquake. Looked at that way, a war is not "good" or "bad" or "good" or "evil." Mankind as a species could not have survived without sex, and equally could not have survived without genocidal war. Both are part of our DNA.

"And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence."

As a kid this concept puzzled me. If you're trying to kill the enemy, how can one way of killing them be any more "just" than another?

What's interesting about Obama's definition of a "just war" is roughly the same as a non-crisis war in generational theory. However, every nation goes through a generational Crisis era every 70-90 years or so, and that almost always means a crisis war. And a crisis war is fought with what I like to call increasing "genocidal fury." At these times, the people fighting the war believe that the very existence of their nation and their way of life is at stake, and that's when the value of any life, civilian or otherwise, becomes less important than the need to preserve the nation.

"Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished."

Actually, most wars are "just wars," because there are more non-crisis wars than crisis wars.

"In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale."

This is a concept that I've discussed many times. After World War II ended, the survivors were determined that nothing so horrible should ever happen again. So they set up institutions and programs -- the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, the Green Revolution -- whose purpose was to protect the world from repeating the horrors of WW II.

But the generations that grew up after the war ended -- the Boomers, the Gen-Xers, the Millennials -- did not experience WW II and could not grasp its horrors. They took society's survival for granted, and individual rights became more important that society's survival. As a result, all of these institutions and programs have been unraveling for decades.

"Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred."

This is out of touch with reality. Every crisis civil war is in this category. That includes America's Civil War. There have been many such civil wars since WW II, such as the Communist Revolution in China, the war between the Muslims and Hindus on the Indian subcontinent, the Vietnam War, the Cambodian killing fields, the Rwanda genocide, and many others. There's nothing new about such wars.

"I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. ..."

It's good to think in new ways, I suppose, but it's a mistake to think that anything will change. Obama doesn't have a solution because no solution exists. A belief that war can be ended is dangerous because it means you'll become less vigilant and more easily defeated by an enemy.

"I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. 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.""

Of course violence never brings permanent peace. Nothing can bring permanent peace. This statement makes as much sense as saying, "Peanut butter never brings permanent peace."

"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 may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. ..."

This is a powerful statement. It's defused the anger on the right from people who said that Obama was a ditherer in foreign policy, and it's defused the anger on the left directed at Obama for escalating the war in Afghanistan.

But the statement is fundamentally flawed. Whether someone is "evil" depends on your political point of view. That is, any war can become a just war simply by declaring the enemy "evil." That's what al-Qaeda does when they say that Americans are evil because they're infidels. Another example: Few people would disagree that Saddam Hussein was evil, and therefore, by Obama's own logic, the war in Iraq was justified.

Basically, the concept of "evil" as a justification for war is meaningless. That's why I like to say that wars are like natural disasters. Nobody would say that an earthquake was "evil." It just is what it is.

"But 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 others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity. ..."

This is basically the justification for America as "policemen of the world." (See my 2006 article, President George Bush talks about a "Third Awakening," but he has his history wrong.)

Obama's statement could just as easily have come from President Bush in justifying his "neo-conservative" philosophy, which also is historically wrong.

"To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't."

This sounds nice, but there's no evidence to support it.

There's no doubt that President Obama's speech was brilliant and eloquent, a tour de force. What bothers me about it is the same as what bothered me about his campaign speeches: I'm afraid that he believes what he's saying.

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the President Barack Obama thread of the Generational Dynamics forum.) (12-Dec-2009) Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

Web Log Pages

Current Web Log

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 12-Dec-2009 Obama's Nobel Prize speech defends a "just war" in Afghanistan

Web Log Pages

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 12-Dec-2009
Obama's Nobel Prize speech defends a "just war" in Afghanistan