By: Todd Wheatley
(c) IQ-2k   12-12-09

President Obama officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize this week and personally acknowledged having few accomplishments toward deserving the prize. Not surprisingly a great many critics echoed the sentiment since Nobel recipients invariably win for a body of work or some specific action. This year, quite out of the ordinary, President Obama won without mention of work or reason.

Go figure.

Still the presidents impromptu acceptance earlier this year was gracious and worthy of note. Unfortunately his official acceptance added doubt to an existing sea of doubt. In his acceptance speech the particulars for peace were lost in a wave of war. And while silence by the prize committee may have invited comment, most likely the presence of a world stage proved too enticing. Too available for correcting ambiguities of his recently adopted Afghanistan strategy. And too bad the strategy did not "sell" itself.

Does anyone else (not) recall lengthy acceptance speeches by other Nobel recipients??

Indeed it was a rare opportunity for a sitting president, but unlike former Vice President Al Gore's simple statement a year earlier President Obama went on ad nosium. Well, no wonder, given the "Windy City" roots, but withstanding that, the speech fell flat. Worse yet, a strong case could be made for "open mouth insert foot". There was no vision, no plans, and no talk of peace. Instead the president chose to remind the world of stark realities and 9/11.

It was a case for WAR better suited for a podium at the U.N. and not while accepting an award for PEACE. So regardless of the presidents intent, this time eloquence could not mask a lack of substance. In other words, it seems that ideas and imagination are still on short supply with regards to "combatting" terrorism. Or at least President Obama failed to offer any. Though more than misadventure surrounded this presidential misstep.

When news broke that the president was travelling to accept the Nobel Peace Prize it seemed a case of killing two birds with one stone: first the president would accept the award and then hurry off to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. BUT NO! The president made a special trip!! And to what cost to the taxpayers? Why not wait a week, catch the summit, and cut down on energy use and carbon emissions?? Surprisingly little was said about the colossal waste of gas and money not to mention the odd timing.

Think about it. A week earlier the president used a prime-time media event to announce that an additional 30,000 troops would be sent to Afghanistan in the hopes of creating an Iraqi style peace. And while the overall strategy found limited bipartisan support the announcement failed to provide a popularity boost. So when it became time to accept the Nobel Prize it's conceivable that the president pulled a page from the conservative play book to discuss war, terrorism, 9/11, and national security. Subjects guaranteed to get popular support at home, but not so popular with the Europeans at the peace prize acceptance ceremony. As gaged by the lack of applause or cordial affirmation.

Popular support aside, WAR and PEACE rarely come together in a constructive way. Arguably only the War of 1812 stands out - because we have found lasting peace with the British. Granted "post-surge" Iraq has been relatively quiet, but a recent string of bombings punctuate the ongoing problems. Most notably the weak central government. In fact the Iraqi parliamentary elections have been postponed from January until March due to sectarian political wrangling. Still the bombings and election problems are only a hiccup. But given the longevity of Iraqi instability - it's a big hiccup.

Nevertheless Iraq remains a working hotbed and the violence has been quelled. But for how long?? Will Iraq remain peaceful? Will the central government take control and lead the country towards peace or will Iran, the Bathists or Al Qaeda attempt a power grab? The questions are many and President Obama has announced neither an exit strategy nor a continuing commitment to Iraq. So where does this leave Iraq, the world, and the United States military? Therefore adopting the Iraq strategy to Afghanistan seems a recipe for disaster.

The recent Afghan election controversy, for example, proves that turmoil will continue unabated. Afghanistan will not be stable next year, or in the next five years. Regardless, each new election in Iraq and Afghanistan could be the spark for violence, if not civil war. More importantly President Obama has no plan for peace and his war strategy leaves much to be desired. Suffice it to say that bold leadership will be required to enable a peaceful solution and as long as WAR is used as an instrument of PEACE --- there will be no PEACE.
(c) 2009    DR-KNOW
IQ-2k Information Services


TOP     HOME
articles     podcasts     videos

Information eQuation (BOOK)
Information eQuation (examples)

EMAIL COMMENTS to DR-KNOW

Please support this web site: give any amount via PAYPAL ("money TRANSFER") to todd@dr-know.biz