I remember struggling with this as a young man.  Subjected to the draft during the Vietnam War era, being a very early and precocious opponent to the war, I tried to convince myself that I was a pacifist.  I read the writings of Gandhi and A.J. Muste.   I looked into the pacifist activities of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.  Although I realized that making the claim of being a Jewish pacifist would be practically difficult, I wanted to explore possibilities.  But in the end, I gave up, because I couldn’t convince myself that I wouldn’t fight against Hitler, and I recognized then and  see now that there are many other instances where I cannot oppose military action as a matter of absolute conviction.

I was not an enthusiastic supporter of either the first war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, for example.  It was not clear to me that a military response to either crisis was the appropriate one.  But on the other hand, I couldn’t in good conscience oppose either war.   The slogan “No Blood for Oil” rang hollow.  America was attacked from bases that were protected and developed in the Taliban’s Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein was indeed a brutal dictator who worked to create a totalitarian order, as Kanan Makiya, ably demonstrated in his gripping book, The Republic of Fear.

But, on the other hand, means do have a way of defining political action whether or not the ends are justified.  The way we have fought the wars, and the way our allies have ruled, have undermined the arguments for the war in Afghanistan.  And indeed the way the Gulf War was fought and the lessons that were drawn from the war cast into doubt its initial justification, especially as this was utilized for the George W. Bush’s war of aggression in Iraq.

I am not a pacifist as a matter of principle, but I still am trying to learn.  When I was a young man, I couldn’t commit myself to pacifism, because I appreciated that there were limits to non violent resistance.  Now I see, rather, the limitations of violence, drawn to that position, not because of absolute conviction, but for practical reasons.   For in the military resistance to fanaticism in Afghanistan and in the military resistance to tyranny in Iraq, the limitations of military action have become quite apparent.

The means have determined the ends.  Indeed, they make the end appear as domination, as an end in itself.  I hope that my fellow citizens and our President keep this in mind when the review of the Afghan War is conducted later this year.

I was not able to oppose the war to begin with, but I think I should have.  In retrospect, it is absolutely imperative to remember the limits of military power, and the unintended consequences that result when those limits are not recognized.  I am convinced that now the means of leaving must be creative and responsible, but leave we must.

“The Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the End of Combat Operations in Iraq,” of August 31, 2010, was a speech by the head of state, addressed to a nation, about a momentous event.  The President had a responsibility to deliver the speech, and the Oval office was the place to deliver it.  The President had things to say that went beyond partisanship, as I tried to show yesterday.  He was applying his political philosophy to the task at hand, something he first did in his anti-war speech in 2002.  He fully presented his general position in his Nobel Laureate Acceptance Speech, most directly basing it on “just war theory.”  (see Michael Walzer’s book, Just and Unjust Wars) Sometime in the near future, I hope to post more on that, but today, after the last two posts on Obama on Iraq, we move from the consideration of the relationship between context and text, to the text of the speech itself.

The Speech beyond Cynicism

He opens by revealing the logic of the entire speech: “Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home,” and he then develops and applies the logic. We should note how clearly the speech develops the themes that were the basis of his anti war speech and how it is addressed to a broader audience, not only those who were against the war, but also those who favored it.

About Iraq, Obama is careful.  He focuses on the service and sacrifice of the American military, the defeat “of a regime that terrorized its people” and “the chance for a better future for Iraq,” and underscores that he is delivering on the promise, which he made as a candidate and which was officially agreed upon with the Iraqis, of American withdrawal from the war.  His language is subdued.  He notes accomplishments and dangers.  He addresses his audience as people of good will who are divided in their judgments about the war.

It is at this point he honors President Bush’s patriotism, as he notes that he and the former President disagreed about the war.  The clear message: we Americans were divided about initiating the War, but we are united in honoring the troops that fought the war and hoping that the outcome of the war will serve the interests of the Iraqi people, the region and the interests of the United States, and despite our past differences, we must move on to the challenges before us.

The transition sentence was important, even if it had the sound of cliché, “The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead.   And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against Al Qaeda.”  The President is trying to focus the public on the immediate national security issue.  This is significant and newsworthy, although it was not generally picked up in the media, obsessed as they were about his body language, whether or not he would thank President Bush, apologize for his opposition to the surge, and whether the speech helped or hurt the Democratic Party’s prospects in the upcoming elections, etc.

Obama is defining and delimiting the war in Afghanistan as a war against Al Qaeda.  The tasks are to break the Taliban’s momentum and to prevent Afghanistan from serving again as a base for terrorism.  He justifies increased troop deployments there in these terms and the withdrawal of troops on the same terms.  Progress in Afghanistan and Iraq serve the broader task of peace in the broad region, he maintains, and thus mentions the upcoming negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Yet, his main argument concerns the condition of the nation at home: “Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security.  But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home.  … Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity.”

This is not just a chance transition.  In his first anti-war speech, he warned that the war in Iraq would lead to “undetermined consequences” at home.  The consequences are upon us, and Obama called on his fellow citizens to address them in his speech last week.   There is a need to address problems long neglected. “Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work.  To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy.  We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil.  We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs.  This will be difficult.  But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.”

Deliberate Conclusions

Certainly, there are differences concerning the pressing political and economic challenges of our day.  Certainly, Obama was positioning himself and his Party for making their case to the public in the coming elections.  But in the speech on the end of the combat mission in Iraq, the President was calling on the nation to again focus on challenges together, even as he understood that there will be different and competing ways to address the challenges.  He gave a speech as the Head of State to the Nation, unfortunately most commentators across the political spectrum missed this central point.