President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech prompted many  journalists and academics to examine what perspective(s) the President holds on the ethics of war.

Put simply: people wonder whether or not President Obama is a “Christian realist,” “Just Warrior,” or a hybrid of the two.  Journalist Andrew Sullivan is bold enough to say, “He is, in so many ways, a Niebuhrian realist.”[1] George Packer said, “The spirit of Niebuhr presided over the Nobel address,”[2] and David Brooks notes how “In the past few weeks, he [Obama] has revived the Christian realism that undergirded cold war liberal thinking and tried to apply it to a different world.”[3] Other journalists, most notably Stephen M. Walt, question whether or not Obama’s speech in Oslo was truly that of “Christian realist.”  “There’s no question that realists can find much to agree with in the speech,” Walt says, but “other aspects of the speech were less consistent with realist thinking as well as less convincing in themselves.”[4] My position is that Obama’s Oslo speech represents a unique hybrid of Christian realism, one that has yet to emancipate itself from traditional just war thinking.

It is obvious, in my opinion, that Obama’s speeches are primarily influenced by Christian realism.  Christian realism, as seen in the works of its central figure, Reinhold Niebuhr, acknowledges the sinfulness and depravity of human beings, the “tragic necessity” of war, and the moral responsibility to bring about “proximate justice” on this earth through military intervention.  Obama’s speech captures both the reality of evil and the tragic nature of war to the point that John D. Carlson could say, “the ambivalence Obama captured was Niebuhrian in its understanding that war is an “expression of human folly”—a deeply flawed instrument that promises, at best, only relative justice.”[5] “The hope of attaining an ethical goal for society by purely ethical means, that is, without coercion,” Niebuhr says, “is an illusion.” Niebuhr said he finds it impossible “to envisage a society of pure love as long as man remains man.  His natural limitations of reason and imagination will prevent him.”[6] In Obama’s Oslo speech we see this same kind of mentality.  Along this line of thinking it makes sense to hear Obama say things like, “The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible,” and “make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.”

The interesting feature of this speech is that it also retains remnants of “just war” thinking.  For instance, Obama mentions that nations “must adhere to standards that govern the use of force,” and that he believes “that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.”

The focus on standards, rules, and codes of warfare jus in bello may remind one of the five criteria for jus in bello elaborated by proponents of just war theory, namely: Discrimination, Legitimate or Illegitimate Targets, No Means Mala in se and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Surrender and Prisoners of War, and Micro-proportionality.[7] In this speech Obama honestly describes the just war position as those who hold “that war is justified only when certain conditions were [are] 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.”  Obama also points out that “no Holy War can ever be a just war.”

Although not comprehensive, one could hardly imagine a better and more succinct way of describing the just war position.  If we were to ask if Obama accurately reflects the just war tradition I would say that although Obama may be influenced by just war theory, his primary justifications for war are that of a Christian realist.

President Obama’s speech on Libya throws another wrench in this ongoing debate.  Some have critiqued this speech for its lack of clarity.  Jim Geraghty, for instance, has said, “On paper, I agree with a lot of what Obama is saying. But he’s stringing together a lot of pretty-sounding phrases without really getting at the questions most skeptical Americans have: why intervene here and not in other places?”[8]

The reasons Obama provides are to promote democracy, freedom, and to provide humanitarian aid, but all of these actions could be undertaken in numerous other countries as well.  Aspects of Christian realism are found throughout this speech.  Obama’s direct acknowledgement of the evils committed by Qaddafi (“Innocent people were targeted for killing.  Hospitals and ambulances were attacked.  Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed”) form a prophetic critique against abuses of power.  Similarly, Obama’s continual emphasis on the responsibility of America to protect civilians against repressive regimes is something Niebuhr would have applauded.  Niebuhr would have loved to hear Obama say, “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and—more profoundly—our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.”

---

[1] Found at: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/12/the-tragedy-of-hope/193096/

[2] Found at: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/12/21/091221taco_talk_packer

[3] Found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/opinion/15brooks.html

[4] Found at: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/18/was_obamas_nobel_peace_prize_speech_really_realist

[5] John D. Carlson, Right Makes Might: The President as Political Realist, found at: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2104/

[6] Reinhold Niebuhr, Must We Do Nothing?, Christian Century, March 1932

[7] Mark J. Allman, Who Would Jesus Kill? (MN: Saint Mary Press, 2008), 200-204

[8] Found at: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/263267/obama-libya-look-just-trust-me