Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure I'm going to piss off some of my readers with this opinion, but that's nothing new. Awarding Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize at this point is absurd. He's done nothing to deserve it. Could he at some point deserve it? Absolutely. But he certainly doesn't deserve it yet. At best, this is the triumph of hope over substance.
Of course, rational people stopped taking the Nobel Peace Prize seriously long ago. Any peace prize that can be awarded to Henry Kissinger pretty much loses any right to be called a peace prize.
Comments
You're not going to piss anyone off. I know a bunch of die-hard Obama fans who are completely puzzled by this one.
Posted by: chadski | October 9, 2009 11:16 AM
And a "peace" prize to Al Gore for his global warming work--it's value aside--is also a farce.
But the farce of giving Obama a peace prize at this point is far beyond the foolishness of either Kissinger's or Gore's prizes.
The abysmal idiocy of the Nobel Committee may surpass that of the talk radio crowd.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Ed:
Surely you are aware that the Nobel Peace Prize is often awarded to one person, as a way of sticking a thumb in the eye of another person.
I agree that the pick was silly, in light of Mr. Obama's lack of any resume in that area. However, I suspect that their thinking was along the lines of what I posited in my first sentence.
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2009 11:18 AM
My comment when reading the headline was...
"huh?"
He has the potential to do a lot, I'd rather actually see him accomplish something for it to be recognized rather than an award for the "promising nature" of the discourse.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 9, 2009 11:20 AM
Yeah, he might deserve the prize in four or eight years, but not now. I think this, along with Al Gore, is an international effort to piss off Republicans. Not that I'm opposed to such a thing.
Posted by: Brandon | October 9, 2009 11:21 AM
I agree with Ed and previous posters. Bewildering indeed. However, the reactions of the nutjobs out there will provide great entertainment in the coming weeks.
Posted by: Hal in Howell | October 9, 2009 11:22 AM
My immediate reaction was "WTF"!?!
And then it gets even more absurd. According to MSNBC, the nominations were two weeks after the Obama inauguration, which is also the cut-off date for consideration of the nominee's record.
Like I would suspect of most Americans, I know nearly nothing about the in-workings of the Nobel Prizes; what I do know is that this is a farce and makes one wonder if the process to do the science awards, which I do celebrate, are equally flawed.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2009 11:24 AM
@ #1: I'm not all that befuddled; he won it for not being Bush Jr. It was basically Old Europe thanking us for finally starting (I repeat STARTING) to repair our reputation.
But yes, as Ed said, the prize has been hoplessly devalued, and this only adds to the subtraction of value. (And shouldn't it be spelled "Ignobel?")
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2009 11:26 AM
I supported Obama during his candidacy and still support him as President (although his performance as President on some issues that I care about has been disappointing). That said, I am in full agreement with Ed on this one; making this award at this point so early in Obama's first term is absurd. Awarding President Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize when he has not accomplished anything concrete reinforces the notion that the panel that awards the Nobel Peace Prize is not interested in honoring those who truly put their necks on the line to promote peace in troubled areas; rather the Nobel Peace Prize Panel has so devalued this award to be nothing more but a cheap tool to make political points. I would also venture to guess that, if anything, awarding President Obama at this time will likely raise false expectations regarding what he will actually able to accomplish and, in fact, will likely make his ability to champion international peace initiatives more difficult.
Posted by: Engr Tony | October 9, 2009 11:29 AM
My reaction was also "WTF?". But I think it's pretty clear what this is about. It's an international committee saying "Thank you, America, for not letting GWB and the republicans wreck everything they can get their hands on anymore."
Posted by: steve s | October 9, 2009 11:31 AM
Okay, now this really has me pissed off. I find myself agreeing, at least partially, with Michael Steele. That just can't be right...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 9, 2009 11:31 AM
President Obama inserted a comment that he didn't think he deserved the award. He framed that comment in a manner that is atypical when using such rhetoric, i.e., he actually meant it.
He refused to answer questions afterwards.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2009 11:37 AM
In other news, Kanye West announced that Beyonce's video should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: Mandrake | October 9, 2009 11:43 AM
I have a different opinion--one which comes from having a different perspective on the Prize than, it seems, most here have.
I too was surprised by the award to Obama, but when I read the MSNBC story, some of the quotes from the Nobel officials made sense to me. People assume that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded (or should be) on the basis of past accomplishment--as is the case with all the other Nobels. But with the Peace Prize, there's a strong element of hope and encouragement-of-process that goes into its award--which of course could be used as an argument for Kissinger's win. (That's an argument I know many would reject, but nevertheless, it's a supportable one.)
It's the same with the Gore win, so long as we remember that it wasn't just Gore who won, but the climate organization of which he's a part. If climate change isn't dealt with, the planet faces some species-threatening conflicts in the future over decreasingly available resources such as arable land and potable water. If a major consideration in the awarding of the Peace Prize is the promise of future avoidance of war and conflict, then it makes perfect sense.
Obama's win, I think, falls into this category. He stands to play a pivotal role in determining how the international community deals with conflicts in the future. Add to that the understandable desire to metaphorically stick it to Bush for his execrable record, then the win isn't quite so surprising.
Posted by: gary l. day | October 9, 2009 11:43 AM
From Yay-hoo News:
A beaming Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the others who had won it before him.
But, he said, "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century."
Translation: "Holy crap, now I gotta earn it!"
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2009 11:44 AM
Obama got our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, worked to stop the spread of war into Pakistan, closed Guantanamo and released all the prisoners being unjustly held. His treatment of the Uighurs is a monument to progressive thinking.
His insistence on the right to privacy at home and abroad is an inspiration to minorities everywhere, as was the repeal of DADT and DOMA. His insistence that the US give up it's nuclear weapons so as to not be hypocritical when criticising Iran and North Korea was also refreshing.
Obama's handling of the world-wide financial crisis is yet another feather in his cap. Without his quick action, millions of US households would be facing foreclosure, and the unemployment rate would surely be higher than the current 2.5%. The lion lies down with the lamb, and the swords are beaten into radioactive plough-shares.
In other news, it was announced that a special Academy Award would be given this year to honor the film, Gigli for its continued influence...
Posted by: kehrsam | October 9, 2009 11:45 AM
Wow! An award for being a windbag? Not doing anything... just TALKING about doing stuff... and almost none of what he talks about has been done to date. Don't give it to Bill Clinton who has raised Millions, probably billions, for the under priveleged all over the world AND the man who negotiated the release of two American journalists this summer...
This was just a "screw you GWB" award. It should be changed from NOBEL to LIBERAL AWARD and just take out Peace. Obama has done nothing for peace in his own country. He has divided a nation. I guess to socialist and commie countries, Obama is THE MAN!
He
Posted by: kim | October 9, 2009 11:48 AM
Kissinger negotiated the end of the Vietnam war. A man willing to be adviser to evil men? Yes, but then again, so is every ethical attorney who ever existed if an evil man happened to be his client. A man willing to advise vile acts? Yes, and in this regard despising him is on firmer ground. However, none of that changes the fact that he negotiated the end of the Vietnam war, or that, by being the primary mover in opening China to the west he defused a long-running geopolitical conflict between it and the United States, or that doing so had the added benefit of pressuring the Soviets to grow less recalcitrant in their foreign policy.
Perhaps he takes Machiavelli's exhortation that a statesmen must be willing to damn himself to hell for the state a bit too literally, but his personal philosophy should not transmute his acts from benevolent to demonic in our eyes.
Having said all that, he also deserves blame for being one of the primary advocates of the "realist" school of U.S. foreign policy, the main tenets of which are that there are neither laws nor allies in foreign relations, and which so inspired Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush's "fuck you all" approach to the world.
Posted by: Julian | October 9, 2009 11:50 AM
Poor Obama. It kind of takes the pleasure out of getting the Nobel Prize when you know full well that you're receiving it just for not being George Bush...and so does everybody else.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 9, 2009 11:51 AM
Wow, kim, even when you're right you're wrong. And your unfinished sentence at the end is the crowning
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2009 11:51 AM
Anyone have one hour and two minutes for "how long before a right-wing fucktard comes into the thread with a moronic comment?"
1:02 wins the pool...
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 9, 2009 11:56 AM
No one can ever accuse a bunch of liberals that their Messiah is a sham. The man is as evil as the day is long. Amazing that after less than ONE MONTH in office he was chosen... at that point he had done basically NOTHING in his so called politicial career. I think we can say that the Nobel "peace" prize is a PIECE of crap with no value. There were and ARE a lot of Americans who could have and should have received this award. I guess this is the award you get when you bash your own country and call your people arrogant. All these communists must LOVE him. Even though he's pissed off almost all of our ALLIES and cozied up to terrorist nations.
Posted by: pamelashill | October 9, 2009 11:57 AM
Such as Yasser Arafat.
Posted by: Mandrake | October 9, 2009 11:57 AM
I'm anxious to see who'll be the first religious wingnut to claim that this is just further proof that Obama is the anti-christ.
Posted by: peaches | October 9, 2009 11:58 AM
Even though he announced he won't - the best route for Obama would of been to politely decline. That would of sent a message to everyone that he still has work to do.
Its a farce.
Posted by: yoshi | October 9, 2009 11:59 AM
RAGING BEE... It wasn't an unfinished sentence moron. Keep worshipping your Osama... he'll have his people knocking at your door taking all of your CHANGE soon enough. What libertard you are. Keep defending the man who called YOU and your FAMILY arrogant. What an idiot! put DOWN the kool aid
Posted by: kim | October 9, 2009 12:00 PM
FWIW, I think he was only referring to Texas.
Posted by: Mandrake | October 9, 2009 12:00 PM
Kim @ 17 - your post reveals much about you and your character; it reveals zippo about others.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2009 12:02 PM
Julian @#18: Kissinger negotiated the end of the Vietnam war.
Bull. Kissinger negotiated for the US strategy for the pull out from Vietnam, which was to get out with enough breathing room that so when South Vietnam inevitably fell it wouldn't be blamed directly on the US's screw ups.
He wasn't a peace negotiator. He was a cover your ass negotiator.
Posted by: Geds | October 9, 2009 12:02 PM
Although I'm a strong Obama supporter, I must agree with the general opinion that it is terribly premature at this point. A Nobel should be given for accomplishment rather than promise. I must say also that I am disappointed but not syrprised by the reaction of the "Party of No". They have become a clique of unpatriotic fools who are reduced to cheering against their own country. I feel the appropriate reaction would be to say, "As Americans we are honored that the world looks to us as promoters of peace. The President, as he noted himself, does not deserve this award. We look forward to working with him to see that he does deserve it at some point in the future."
Regarding Michael Heath's point #7, I know someone who was on the committee for the Medicine Prize as well as a few recipients of that award. The science Nobels (perhaps economics excepted) almost without exception do honor seminal achievements. Controversies have occasionally arisen over the actual individuals chosen. Modern science involves large teams and since the rules forbid honoring more than 3 individuals there are sometimes hard choices with someone inevitably being left out.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 9, 2009 12:03 PM
Anyone who says that President Obama doesn't deserve it should then continue that sentence by adding "compared to...". To simply dismiss his win without providing someone else that deserved it more is an unfair discussion.
I agree with gary l. day, that this award is sometimes given to indicate that the recipient is on the right path (in the eyes of the Nobel committee... or whoever awards it). They feel that what he has done by opening communications to the Muslim world, taking steps in nuclear disarmament, and other diplomatic affairs are the change in our foreign policy that they wanted to see and want to encourage.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 12:04 PM
I agree. Not sure why he won the prize (other than not being GWB), since he hasn't done anything to deserve it. But based on Gary's comments, yeah, he's brought hope to millions, namely underprivileged minority kids in the US. But then again, hope is just hope, its not quite action. So in all, I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
On a side note.. wow Ed, your post here sure attracted all the conservative nut jobs.
Posted by: Ann | October 9, 2009 12:05 PM
I haven't heard anyone say that this makes any sense, which makes the right-wing fucktards showing up already swinging their fists even funnier than usual. Perhaps it's a Poe, but this first line is pure, undistilled genius:
Brilliant! Either that person doesn't have English as a first language or else they're the sort who strings together high-falutin' words they've heard before in the dim hopes of it having been correctly done.
Posted by: pough | October 9, 2009 12:05 PM
He wasn't a peace negotiator. He was a cover your ass negotiator.
Potato ... potatoe ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 9, 2009 12:05 PM
My wife spent most of last year campaigning for Obama - and even her response was WTF?
Posted by: WScott | October 9, 2009 12:06 PM
Since when is just "He" a finished sentence? Michael Heath is right; you really are saying more about yourself than anyone else. You choose to ignore your own mistakes when they are plainly obvious, then rant about other people noticing them.
Posted by: catgirl | October 9, 2009 12:12 PM
If you read the press release, you would understand more.
"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009"
So, the entire world view has changed. After 8 years of Cheney!
As Dave Weigel said via twitter:
"daveweigel @EdMorrissey The Nobel isn't a lifetime achievement. It's occasionally given to people just starting a peace process, ie Arafat."
"daveweigel @EdMorrissey And yes, it's occasionally given in error. But it's not a "you've achieved so much" award, it's a "please do more" award."
Posted by: sus | October 9, 2009 12:13 PM
Thank you, kim, for making the Nobel folks look intelligent.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2009 12:14 PM
Obama is not a messiah, nor is he evil. There is no way to have an adult conversation about the president until you ditch these ridiculous dichotomies.
Posted by: DaveL | October 9, 2009 12:18 PM
The richest aspect of all of this was the inclusion in the collection of opinions on the award reported by the New York Times of that of a Hamas terrorist.
Posted by: Bill Poser | October 9, 2009 12:20 PM
Can someone please throw out the name of someone more deserving of the award?
Thank you sus for providing the counter-argument to this thread.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 12:24 PM
What he did before allegedly starting the peace process should have made him ineligible for a peace award. Further, I'm skeptical that after years of being a terrorist, he suddenly wanted to make nice for the common good of the middle East and the world. I'm suspicious of his motives and intent.
Posted by: Mandrake | October 9, 2009 12:31 PM
I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that the Nobel prizes are limited to a pretty small set of types of achievement:
Chemistry, Economics, Literature, Medicine/Physiology, Physics, and Peace.
It could have been argued that other disciplines don't really have any recourse, other than happening to tie into one of the categories. This year, we've seen some attempts at stretching the categories:
* Chemistry: Structure and function of the ribosome
* Medicine: Chromosomal telomeres
* Physics: CCD sensor & optical communications
Two awards for what could arguably be as easily under the discipline of "biology" and one award for two discoveries that could arguably be placed under the discipline of "engineering".
I would further argue that the Nobel Peace Prize has become a political carrot (e.g., Obama, Arafat) as well as a environmental (e.g., Gore, Muta Maathai) and social justice (e.g., Yunis) prize, as opposed to a referendum of how many lasting peace treaties a person or organization has brokered. In this sense, the Peace Prize - like the other prizes - is wearing too many hats. What to do? Well, the Nobel committee could increase the types of prizes they offer to better mirror the types of disciplines important in the world today. (For example, why not expand the prize for the "arts" to include one for dance or one for film; provide a prize for psychology or one for sustainability?)
Posted by: Umlud | October 9, 2009 12:32 PM
Mandrake... Shouldn't that have been, "I was suspicious of his motives and intent," or "I'm still suspicious of what his motives and intent were/could have been." I mean, you do know that Arafat's dead, right?
Posted by: mercurianferret | October 9, 2009 12:36 PM
I've seen people complaining that Hu Jia didn't get it.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 9, 2009 12:37 PM
Quote: "Can someone please throw out the name of someone more deserving of the award?"
While too late for consideration:
The people of Iran who demonstrated against I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket?
Not too late:
George Mitchell for his work in Ireland and elsewhere?
Bill Gates for his Malaria work?
Posted by: KeithB | October 9, 2009 12:40 PM
Wow, even the Washington Post, a reliably left-leaning paper, thinks this was a bad move.
I campaigned for Obama and voted for Obama and would do so again. But yipes, this is embarrassing. It really cheapens the value of the Nobel Peace Prize. Even the late Pope John Paul II was more deserving than Obama at this point (of course, that could change later as Obama continues to be a public and influential figure).
Posted by: Adrienne | October 9, 2009 12:41 PM
So.
Yeah, President Obama being awarded the Nobel Prize for peace seems premature. But the Nobel Prize is NEVER awarded posthumously, either...
Posted by: kittenchasesyarn | October 9, 2009 12:46 PM
Kim @ 26:
All this time I thought he was going to come and take my guns and children. Now you tell me he is just going to come and take my penny jar? I spent way more on deadbolts and ammunition than is in that damn jar. Harrumph.
Posted by: carlsonjok | October 9, 2009 12:47 PM
Can someone please throw out the name of someone more deserving of the award?
The Cluster Munition Coalition, which was one of 33 organizations nominated. Denis Mukwege, one of 172 individuals. CMC is trying to stop the use of air-dropped cluster munitions. Mukwege does a lot of work to help women who have been sexually abused in the war in the Congo.
Although there are many among those 205 who didn't deserve the award any more than Obama (Sarkozy, for one, Ingrid Betancourt for a second), there were probably a bunch who deserved it a hell of a lot more. And there were probably a few names that didn't even make the list.
But that doesn't matter, since the, "Who deserves it more?" question is just a conversation stopper. Most people don't really know who is out doing things to make the world a better place. It's unsexy and usually doesn't come with a lot of press conferences.
Posted by: Geds | October 9, 2009 12:47 PM
Obama, to his credit, does seem to be as shocked about this as anyone else. I guess it would be insulting to give the award back, so he did the next best thing and announced that it would be basically a mandate for his peace efforts going forward. Still, giving him the award now strikes me as being like giving a kid an "A" on his report card in the hopes that he'll do well in school.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 9, 2009 12:50 PM
Thank you Gretchen and KeithB.
I've also heard Morgan Tsvangirai as a possible alternative that would have been a fair choice as well.
With each of those names though, their efforts have been to improve the conditions in specific areas (well, Bill Gates is helping most of Africa). And I would not have had a problem had any of them been chosen. But to say they deserved the award more than President Obama, that is up to reasonable discussion. I don't think it is blatantly obvious that those alternatives would have been a better choice.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 12:51 PM
"But that doesn't matter, since the, "Who deserves it more?" question is just a conversation stopper. Most people don't really know who is out doing things to make the world a better place. It's unsexy and usually doesn't come with a lot of press conferences."
What conversation does it stop? The one where everyone simply negatively criticizes without providing constructive criticism? Oh no! How dare we stop that discussion and move to something more productive/informative.
And you think that we all truly realize everything President Obama has done so far? There are many things on the international stage which we are probably unaware of (I don't know, since if I did, we wouldn't be unaware). But don't you think the people who awarded the prize were aware of the other possibilities? And wouldn't that make them the most qualified to make the decision?
To say that their choice was wrong is to say that you know more than them. And your post is saying that you don't know more than them, so how can you say their choice was wrong?
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 12:58 PM
It's all good. The world breathed a collective sigh of relief on January 20, 2009 when Dumbya left office and Obama stepped in.
I've never been an Obama fan, he's all talk and no action as far as I can tell and nothing in the past 10 months has changed that for me, but the day Dumbya was out of office ranks as one of the best I've experienced.
I'm sure the Nobel committe felt the same way.
Posted by: Owen | October 9, 2009 12:59 PM
Owen: I agree with you about the Nobel folks. While there are many countries and interest groups who stand to gain from continued GOP misrule of the US (one Jihadi web site endorsed McCain for that very reason), Europe seems to be the area where people have the most to LOSE from that misrule, and have already been hurt most by it (except for the US, Iraq and Afghanistan, of course). So yeah, I can see why they'd go overboard in thanking Obama just for showing up.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2009 1:05 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 9, 2009 1:07 PM
Are there any commentators/readers out there from Europe (or Norway specifically) to give us a viewpoint from outside our own American echo chamber? I ask because I suspect that Owen's comment, "I'm sure the Nobel committee felt the same way," might well be spot-on in the sense that a European (or Norwegian) point-of-view might be closer to that of the Nobel Committee (or at least inform us in the US of that POV).
Posted by: Umlud | October 9, 2009 1:07 PM
Maybe the problem isn't that he wasn't the best choice, but maybe that he was.
If people are upset that he is the best choice for the award, when he has yet to succeed in his efforts, then I understand the complaints.
An optimist believes that this is the best of all worlds. A pessimist is afraid that is true.
I guess that makes me an optimist in this discussion.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 1:11 PM
That is simply not true. Two parties can have the exact same information and still disagree about a decision. For example, if the committee's decisions were swayed by certain political considerations, and someone else has other political considerations. Same information, different weight for various priorities.
Posted by: nicole | October 9, 2009 1:15 PM
Alfred Nobel had a lot of foresight when he tried to separate the peace prize from the other ones.
Posted by: CW | October 9, 2009 1:18 PM
It's the same with the Gore win, so long as we remember that it wasn't just Gore who won, but the climate organization of which he's a part.
Jeebus H. Christ on a pogo stick, is that ever wrong.
Gore got part of the award, true (and at least you remembered to include the organization which got the other part, which so many people forget)... but Gore isn't part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC consists of climate scientists, ecologists, economists, and similar researchers, involved in directly assessing the state of modern understanding on climate change (the physical science, the likely impacts, and possible mitigation techniques). Gore is none of this - he's a popularizer, akin to Carl Sagan's non-research work.
This was the reason why I didn't like the Gore award either - it belittles the role the IPCC played to the point where no one remembers them or their important work.
..
Still, Ed's post reminded me of Brad's post on Sadly, No!:
Other than Hank Kissinger and (maybe) Mother Teresa, have conservatives ever liked any Nobel Peace Prize Laureate?
Posted by: Brian D | October 9, 2009 1:25 PM
I guess they would not award it to no one - stating that peace is neither on the horizon nor an important goal for any of the world leaders. Gee why not give it to Putin for not using nukes when he invaded Georgia?
While Obama is certainly better than Kissinger or Arafat, both are very low bars to hurdle. Nevertheless, the reality is, the politicians in power care not a whit about anything other than maintaining that power. Awarding the Nobel to any of the scum (and apologies to that life form) currently ruling the planet just proves what a farce the award has become.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | October 9, 2009 1:26 PM
Mother Teresa anyone? Using the award she didn't deserve to platform against abortion really sunk the prize for me, assuming it was treading water just enough to keep it's head above the surface before that.
Posted by: Dennis N | October 9, 2009 1:27 PM
Jordan @ 53: What conversation does it stop? The one where everyone simply negatively criticizes without providing constructive criticism?
Yes, that one exactly, but without all the extra straw thrown in. People say, "Obama didn't deserve it," which is the case. Someone else says, "So then who did?" And since the Nobel Peace Prize voting process is far more opaque than the one for the Grammys, that means that in a lot of cases this does stop the conversation because it asks the person explaining why Obama didn't deserve it to pick someone else when we generally don't know who the other nominees were or why the committee decided for Obama instead of somebody else.
Moreover, since the Nobel Committee doesn't even make the full list known for fifty years after the award is given out, there won't be an opportunity for overhaul or actual constructive conversation. So people are left flailing around and saying, "I don't know, Clinton did that cool thing in North Korea," or whatever.
And I don't know, it sure seems to me that, "Obama doesn't deserve it because he seems to be working way harder to get us in to another war than he is to get us out of the ones we're in already," is a worthwhile point of discussion. And I haven't seen anything from the side that supports this beyond, "Gee, whiz, he's pretty cool and he's gonna make the world a better place, I just know it!" So which side isn't bringing in pertinent points, exactly?
nicole @59: Two parties can have the exact same information and still disagree about a decision.
Exactly.
Posted by: Geds | October 9, 2009 1:30 PM
@#59 Valid point nicole (how do you quote text properly? I don't know HTML that well)
I would argue that the statement "X is more deserving than Y" is to say that you know more (hence the "more deserving") than someone who disagrees with that statement. But it is an argument that wouldn't hold up against scrutiny, so I will concede it now and admit you are right.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 1:37 PM
I think being the first non-white President had to have played role in the decision, as a sign of the changed racial climate in the US. While not being George Bush was likely a factor, I doubt very much that that alone was sufficient.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 9, 2009 1:37 PM
I know this may come as a surprise but the Nobel Peace Prize committee doesn't give a rat's ass what Americans think nor did they consult Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann for their opinions.
The winner of the Peace Prize is determined by the committee, not a CNN poll.
As for accomplishments, take a look at the list of Peace Prize winners on Wikipedia and make a list of accomplishments. Lots of "efforts" and "advocating" but not much "accomplished."
Why no Peace Prize for the World Organization of the Scout Movement which has been promoting international friendship and cooperation for over 80 years?
Posted by: Doc Bill | October 9, 2009 1:44 PM
Adrienne @ 47:
What section of the WaPo had the article you cite but don't link? The reason I ask is that the WaPo's Editorial Section is in no way 'a reliable left-leaning paper', at least since Fred Hiatt took charge and started promoting primarily neoconservatism while also providing cover for George Will to dishonestly promote anti-scientific positions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2009 1:44 PM
@#64 Geds
"And I don't know, it sure seems to me that, "Obama doesn't deserve it because he seems to be working way harder to get us in to another war than he is to get us out of the ones we're in already," is a worthwhile point of discussion. And I haven't seen anything from the side that supports this beyond, "Gee, whiz, he's pretty cool and he's gonna make the world a better place, I just know it!" So which side isn't bringing in pertinent points, exactly?"
Has anyone actually said anything similar to that Gee Whiz quote?
It is worthwhile to discuss reasons why he MAY not have been the best choice, but the conclusion that he wasn't is not something you can state without providing an alternative.
If you aren't able to understand my point already, I don't believe I'll be able to convince you (although I'm still open to be convinced that you're correct, I'm just not there yet).
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 1:51 PM
As a liberal who voted for Obama (and has since come to be greatly disappointed in his administration), I fully agree with Ed on this. Sure, he's made some steps towards improving diplomatic relations with other countries, that's great. That doesn't change the fact that he's still got us involved in two pointless foreign wars and is trying to justify massive violations of civil rights at home. Sorry, but you should actually have to do peaceful things to earn one of those medals, and he's just not there yet.
Posted by: Jerry Vinokurov | October 9, 2009 2:03 PM
Michael Heath @68. Yes, this was an editorial, sorry, not the main paper. But the editorial writer said he was generally an Obama supporter and had voted for Obama (and would do so again), despite opposing the choice of OBama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 9, 2009 2:16 PM
Jordan @69: Has anyone actually said anything similar to that Gee Whiz quote?
Yes, actually. That's my paraphrase of the Nobel Prize Committee's press release:
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
Captured the world's attention? Hooray! Given hope for a better future? Yeah, that's swell. And how's that going to help if he decides to invade Iran tomorrow?
Posted by: Geds | October 9, 2009 2:17 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 9, 2009 2:30 PM
@69:
Taking kids camping* =/= promoting world peace. Your alternative makes Obama seem like a brilliant choice by comparison.
*For the record, I know they do more than that; indeed, I was in the scouts as a lad. But what they do, while possibly important, is not even close to what the Peace Prize is (supposed to be) for.
Posted by: Sean Michael | October 9, 2009 2:44 PM
mecurianferret
Yes, I know that he died/is dead. I am/was suspicious of what his motives and intent were/could have been.
Posted by: Mandrake | October 9, 2009 2:56 PM
I'm not all that befuddled; he won it for not being Bush Jr.
Exactly.
Posted by: Shay | October 9, 2009 3:01 PM
People who pay attention to the science-oriented Nobels will note that those Nobel Prizes are not awarded the year a discovery is made. On the contrary, they are awarded many years later, often over a decade; in 1921, Einstein won a nobel primarily on the merit of work he did in about 1905. This is a deliberate policy; it is not possible to know if a given piece of scientific work is greatly important during the year it is first accomplished. It takes a record of many years to determine this.
The same standard should be applied to the nobel peace prize. If the peace prize committee had waited until 2004 to consider the effect of the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat would never have received a nobel peace prize. Nor would have Kissinger.
Posted by: llewelly | October 9, 2009 3:02 PM
Posted by: Doug Little | October 9, 2009 3:05 PM
News flash: Yasser Arafat is still dead.
On a more serious note, what other reformist leaders won a Nobel prize soon after winning power and defeating a corrupt and/or tyrannical regime (i.e., Cory Aquino, Nelson Mandela, Gorbachev, etc.)? It's possible the Nobel folks decided Obama deserved a Nobel just for defeating the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Palin partisan war machine, despite all of the obvious disadvantages he started with. Even if he hasn't ended any wars yet, one could still argue that he's won a major victory for world peace simply by putting a dent in the bigoted, ignorant, superstitious, bellicose mindset that has blighted our foreign policy for the last eight years.
Posted by: Raging bee | October 9, 2009 3:09 PM
I try not to mention, or quote, Zbigniew Brzezinski anytime, he did have an unusual comment on this: I don't have the exact words, but this is very close:
"The difficult seems to be that the people who decide who wil receive the science Nobels are familiar with the science and how it works. That is not the case with those who award the Peace Prize."
Posted by: dean | October 9, 2009 3:10 PM
Posted by: llewelly | October 9, 2009 3:18 PM
Here's another suggestion: if Obama can't graciously turn down the prize, he can invite all of the Nobel runners-up to the White House to have a dinner party and solicit ideas. That would, at the very least, make a good show of recognizing others' achievements and inviting them to join him to "confront the challenges of the 21st century." And who knows -- they might actually come up with some solutions.
(Cue mroberts: "Why should the President be partying with a buncha furrin innelekshuls instead of working to solve our problems at home?")
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 9, 2009 3:19 PM
Oh come on! Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is worth it, if only to watch Glenn Beck et al. heads collectively explode.
I don't remember an equivalent chorus of horror when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is the guy who illegally privately negotiated with the South Vietnamese (advising them to hold on for a better deal under Nixon's Republicans), but I'm sure offering the pretty much exactly the same deal five years later at the additional cost of 20,000 US servicemen, an unknown number of Vietcong and Vietnamese civilians, all those mutilated, poisoned, psychologically scarred, deformed, orphaned, and miscarried; spreading the war into both Laos and Cambodia (with all the idiocy that caused), certainly deserved a Peace Prize.
On the other hand we all remember the salutary effect on human society that Mr Noble's invention had, right? So perhaps giving a Peace Prize to Kissinger wasn't too far off track. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 9, 2009 3:23 PM
I assume at least SOME of the readers of "SCIENCEblogs" follow some of the happenings current in science. In which case: this Nobel Prize as well as the Peace Prize to Al Gore point up the current movement to reframe the catagories. I.E. is there a Nobel prize for doing the most to save the human race from Global Warming...
To say that the awarding of the Peace Prize to ANY sitting head of state is inapropriate is an understatement.
Posted by: Steve | October 9, 2009 3:31 PM
Yep. I just don't get it.
The normal media headlines indicate the WH doesn't get it either. Obama should respectfully decline. Doesn't look like he will though, which is retarded. I think he'd garner way more respect abroad if he did. Trolling through the foreign blogs and news feeds on this shows near unversial reaction: WTF?
Posted by: Ian | October 9, 2009 3:41 PM
Has anyone ever turned down a Nobel Peace Prize? If not, wouldn't that be incredibly disrespectful for President Obama to do it?
He has admitted that he doesn't feel he deserves it. And if you watch his quick speech regarding it, I think he said exactly what should be said from his position.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 9, 2009 3:45 PM
It is now being reported that Obama plans to donate the prize money ($1.4M) to charity. I can live with that.
Posted by: Raging bee | October 9, 2009 4:10 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/09/beck-obama-nobel/
"Beck: Obama should turn down the Nobel and give it ‘to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project.’ "
I'd say that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but this is really more of a case of "even a fucking moron is occasionally somewhat on target, but is then even stupider than usual."
Posted by: Sean Michael | October 9, 2009 4:15 PM
Obama's donation of the prize money to charity was a foregone conclusion.
Posted by: gary l. day | October 9, 2009 4:30 PM
@ 41
Personally, I was rooting for Sima Samar, eh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sima_Samar
Posted by: Sara | October 9, 2009 4:43 PM
When I started reading this post I assumed Obama had been nominated for the Peace Prize, it would never occur to me that some who had no international profile 18 months ago would be awarded what is allegedly the highest of the Nobel Prizes.
Obama is neither devil nor saint, he is a run of the mill politician largely indistinguishable from other politicians of his ideological stripe. Sure he's better than Bush, but that's just regression to the mean.
I guess it doesn't matter much, the Peace Prize has simply stopped mattering, its coinage is too far debased. Its just a pity that every time the Nobel Committee does this it somewhat undermines the award of people like Muhammad Yunus and Normal Borlaug who actually did tangible things to make the world a better place.
Posted by: James K | October 9, 2009 4:47 PM
I agree with Ed that the Nobel committee that awards the Peace prize completely lost it a long time ago. This award is given on the basis of absolutely no achievement other than picking some really low-hanging diplomatic fruit made available by the Bush administration. Still, I think Obama has reacted exactly the way he should: give a speech admitting that he doesn't deserve the prize, but will work towards a more peaceful world. And turning the award down might be an easy way to score a few political points at home, but it would be an unprecedented breach of protocol for him to do so, and would not be viewed as a noble or principled decision, but as (yet another) political decision.
Obama should politely accept the award and use the prestige it confers to advance good causes (like actually closing Gitmo rather than merely planning to, or by completely breaking with Bush legal strategies that prevent the course of justice in the name of the specter of national security).
Posted by: Chuck | October 9, 2009 4:51 PM
The main thing he did to deserve it is prevent palin from getting more power.
Posted by: zurzal | October 9, 2009 5:43 PM
You all keep arguing the wrong thing. Comparing the science nobels to the peace prize is incorrect; kvetching about Obama having no accomplishments is also incorrect. The peace prize is explicitly political and hopeful, back to old Alfred himself. IT is explicitly given to make things happen--hence Arafat. It is sometimes given to ensure someone's continued power to work for change, such as Suu Kyi, who would likely be dead by now if she had not been given the prize. It is occasionally given to people with past accomplishments, to be sure, but the statements that go with the prize are usually forward looking.
Gore got the prize to solidify and energize his work to persuade people of the danger of climate change. The prize is a vote of confidence, and endorsement, an atta-boy, a boost, a nod. The money's nice, too.
Though I like the idea of a conference of runners-up. That's smart.
All prizes are given only to the living. Science candidates are kept on the list for as long as possible in order to evaluate the extent of their contribution; peace prizes are given quickly for the opposite reason: to lend support and recognition for what they are going to do. Obama is the perfect candidate here. I don't deny that others qualify too, but the committee also has a history of making surprising choices.
The wingnut reaction is predictable for its viciousness, ugliness, and stupidity--who's surprised. A European perspective on peace and politics isn't likely to impress those voles. The committee is expressing its opinion about the treatment of the president by citizens of his own nation, in my opinion, and that's a good, strong reason for the award.
I chuckled to see Orrin Hatch wonder dully about why Ronald Reagan didn't win--shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to see why Reagan didn't win: he does not fit the profile. Reagan's tenure began unpromisingly with saber-scabarding (my most recent fave mondegreen from a student, sorry) and peaked with a determined push for a new multiple thermonuclear warhead ballistic missile mounted on railroad cars.
No, says sad-faced Orrin Hatch, standing proudly in the concourse of Ronald Reagan Not National Airport. Reagan stopped Communism and won the cold war.
Winning a war isn't peace prize material, I might hear the most patient of the committee folk say.
The Soviet Union was an untenable idea; the Nobel folks know that, even if Orrin Hatch thinks the Russkies got smote by Reagan and the Angel Moroni (the most aptly named angel, IMHO). In that respect, Richard Nixon was a better accomplisher of things--he opened up Red China. But again, his tenure does not begin with a promise to make big changes, repair old wrongs, restore human rights at home and abroad, and do things the European way, that is, without stupidity and visible handguns.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 9, 2009 6:27 PM
The very same conservatives who cheered last week when the U.S. lost its bid for the 2016 Olympics are enraged that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize.
Why do they hate America? [/sarcasm]
Posted by: Dr X | October 9, 2009 6:35 PM
Michael Heath | October 9, 2009 1:44 PM:
It's left of the Washington Times. Isn't that enough?
Posted by: llewelly | October 9, 2009 7:08 PM
Anyone who says that President Obama doesn't deserve it should then continue that sentence by adding "compared to...". To simply dismiss his win without providing someone else that deserved it more is an unfair discussion.
Fair enough, pick a name from the phone book at random and the chances are about 999 in a 1000 that you'll get someone who deserved it more. Obama is running multiple bloody and pointless wars against an ill-defined enemy that all too often seems to be civilian noncombatants, indiscriminate targets of aerial drones, or small farmers trying to protect their homes and crops from maniacs trying to burn them. He (along with most politicians) belongs on the list of people who least deserve something like this.
Posted by: Miko | October 9, 2009 7:27 PM
Adrienne:
AHAHAHAHAHAHH!! Adrienne, you are a clueless wanker. I just don't know how else to put it. I hope to dog you aren't my one of my neighbors.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | October 9, 2009 7:32 PM
Greg Laden has written something many of you need to read.
And here is what the Nobel committee said:
Posted by: Spooky | October 9, 2009 7:54 PM
Hitler was only nominated, Obama won it!
Posted by: omigod | October 9, 2009 8:24 PM
The gist of a lot of comments here seems to be that Obama is undeserving of the Peace Prize. Maybe "yes", maybe "no".
But the folks to be upset with are not Mr. Obama and the other folks who got prizes but the folks who determined that they deserved them. My guess is that the nice folks at Nobel Prizes R Us will tell you, very politely, to fuck off.
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2009 8:44 PM
May I suggest that Obama's "charity" to which he will donate the $1.4 million prize should be the other candidates for the award? They doubtless need the money much more than he does.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 9, 2009 8:58 PM
Although generally a supporter of Obama, I think him an odd choice for the Nobel, for pretty much the same reasons most people here have stated. However, I must take issue with Kim, who declares that Obama has "divided a nation." It wasn't Obama who divided this nation. We were divided well before his election. To the extent that we have become more divided since the election, the cause isn't so much Obama as it is the wacked out, irrational obsessions of the modern American conservative.
Posted by: Observer | October 9, 2009 9:46 PM
The one problem with the suggestions to have a conference of the other nominees, or to donate the prize money to the other nominees, is that the nominees are not made public. (How else would Obama himself be surprised by the award?)
Posted by: Squiddhartha | October 9, 2009 10:50 PM
Bguh? I mean, I really like Obama. But he's a freshman. He's been in office for like, nine months. He hasn't accomplished much of anything yet. What gives, Norway? Was there really nobody else with actual accomplishments to give the next couple prizes to while you wait for Obama's potential to ripen a bit?
Posted by: Nentuaby | October 9, 2009 11:33 PM
Llewelly @77, nice insight. And on your other comments, too.
But I must disagree with democommie @101. I don't think the folks here are upset with Obama, but are in fact upset with the Nobel committee. And if they, politely or not, tell us to fuck off, that doesn't change the fact that we, or at least I, will continue to think they've made a very stupid decision. The tenuous bit of legitimacy the Peace prize retained is, I think, completely gone. Not because Obama's evil, or that he's done anything to un-deserve the prize, or because we don't think he could potentially accomplish something worthwhile, but simply because through no fault of his own he hasn't done diddly yet that's worth rewarding with the prize. Hell, say what you will about Kissinger and Arafat, at least they actually mattered. We don't even know yet whether Obama actually matters--we never really know that in a president's first year. Assume Reagan had died when he was shot. He wouldn't matter today. Assume Bush 41 had not liberated Kuwait. He would not matter today (and it's still questionable whether he does or not). Will Obama matter? At this point we simply can't answer the question. It's still possible he goes down in history as a mere trivia question, next to Taft and Cleveland.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 9, 2009 11:56 PM
Squiddartha @104,
He could invade Norway and force them to release the list of Peace prize runners-up. Seems appropriate somehow.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 9, 2009 11:59 PM
I'm with Spooky. I find Greg Ladin's clear, coherent argument much more compelling than your rather knee-jerk emoting in this post. And keep in mind that I have voiced/agreed with many of the same criticisms of Obama's decisions and policies that you have. I think your perspective on Obama's international impact is parochial and blinkered - as is your understanding of the Nobel Prize committee: Understandably, given Alfred Nobel's own reasons for founding the awards, the number one concern of the committee has frequently been nuclear non-proliferation. Obama has already done a great deal to turn the international diplomatic trend on that front in a much, much more positive direction - more than any president since... than any president, period.
In upcoming days, I'll be interested to read what Jimmy Carter has to say about Obama's Peace Prize.
Posted by: G Felis | October 10, 2009 12:38 AM
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.
Posted by: rx1 | October 10, 2009 3:49 AM
I would also venture to guess that, if anything, awarding President Obama at this time will likely raise false expectations regarding what he will actually able to accomplish and, in fact, will likely make his ability to champion international peace initiatives more difficult.
Posted by: acı çehre | October 10, 2009 3:51 AM
James Hanley:
I think you're incorrect. Many people's comments indicate that they think President Obama is undeserving of the award.
It may be a poor comparison but this one is fresh in my mind. Last night in the 11th inning, an MLB umpire ruled a fair ball as a foul instead of the ground rule double it should have been. This ocurred in the 11th inning of the Yankees-Twins game 2 of the ALDS. Most of the stories I've seen so far, apportion blame for the Twins' eventual loss far more heavily on the their failure to close out the game in the ninth and their stranding of 17 base runners. While the Twins played poorly, it was a blown call, egregiously blown at that, that changed the outcome of the game. The umpire's fuck up was monumental and he should be castigated for it. He was an extra official who was put out in left field, specifically, to make such calls.
If there was a mistake made in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize it had exactly nothing to do with President Obama's suitability as a recipient. He had no input. Whether the Nobel Committee blew the call I can't really say--I don't know the rules--but it seems to me that Obama's done the minimum to acknowledge the award, indicate that he himself feels he is undeserving (although not because of a character defect) and offer to donate the prize money to charity.
Gretchen:
Since Obama does not know who the other candidates were and, since "Charity begins at home", I feel like he should donate his money to a worthy cause, of his choosing.
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2009 5:59 AM
Geds: Read your history. He sat down with them. He talked. He negotiated the end of the Vietnam War. You can reinterpret it all you like to protect your biases against a man you dislike politically but it won't change the fact that he, personally, put an end to the decades-long senseless slaughter of young Vietnamese and U.S. soldiers that. Why must everything be so zero-sum for so many people? Why can a man not be both the person who negotiated the end of a terrible war, and the man who advised torture and genocide to a Peruvian dictator? The world and its people are not black and white.
Posted by: Julian | October 10, 2009 7:04 AM
While this (initially) surprised me too, it may help to remember that the committee aren't dumb and that it might be useful to read what the Peace Prize is actually awarded for to understand their thinking. The aims for the Peace Prize include encouraging efforts already started, unlike the science prizes which are for efforts "finished", e.g. "The prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments, not only to recognise efforts for peace, human rights and democracy after they have proven successful."
Posted by: BioinfoTools | October 10, 2009 7:48 AM
Looking through the comments after I wrote (!), I realised that @14, @37, @94 and others see my point. So, sorry for the repeat, but then I think it bears repeating!
Personally I think it's a real pity that the media didn't work by explaining the intention, rather than just echoing a populist (and ignorant) view.
@73 (Herod the Freemason): The American movement moved away from the international movement (as based on BP's original movement). The international some time ago made distinct efforts to be secular and mixed-sex. I've seen it suggested that the problem in the USA is that the movement has effectively been hijacked by a small number of senior members with a religious right background.
@74: The Boy Scouts, proper, actively promotes friendly international relations and brotherhood to all nations. You should know that, it's in the codes, handbooks, the international jamborees, etc., etc. Maybe Scouts where you are [the USA?] doesn't have any emphasis on that?
Posted by: BioinfoTools | October 10, 2009 8:16 AM
James Hanley-I think that Obama is already a consequential President, though that doesn't necessarily qualify him for the Prize at this point:
1. He has faced a historic global financial crisis. Given the size and world-wide nature of the bubble that popped, Great Depression II was certainly a plausible scenario. Instead we have a very severe recession, perhaps moderately worse that the one in 1982 (Note to Republicans-your hero Ronald Reagan was around for that one) that seems to be ending. While the economy may remain weak for quite some time, the situation is simply not comparable to the 1930s. Given that the Depression was a major cause of World War II, avoiding one is a significant contribution to peace. Is Obama solely responsible for avoiding a Deptession? By no means, but he is not insignificant either.
2. The decision to forego the missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. This has brought Russia to the table in dealing with Iran. The fact is that without Russia on board, effective pressure on Iran is impossible. The only deal with a chance of flying is having Iran's nuclear fuel sent to Russia for re-processing, so that it can be used for power generation but not weapons. The final word is not yet written, but the neo-cons who grumble about Obama's weakness towards Iran, should reflect on what all other Presidents since 1979 have accomplished as far as dealing with the threat posed by Iran (ZERO!). In fact, Bush's policies strengthened Iran, by installing a friendly government in Iraq.
3. He will matter if he gets Health Care reform, which seems likely, though in a more watered-down form than I would like. Not relevant to the Peace Prize, but the most consequential domestic achievement since the 1960s.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 10, 2009 8:21 AM
Julian:
Kissinger negotiated the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were patient and simply waited him out, then systematically toppled the Saigon regime. Meantime, the genocide, begun by the U.S. in the bombing of Cambodia and continued by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in their murderous campaign very nearly destroyed that nation. A very large piece of Herr Dr. Kissinger's "peace" initiative was the deliberate isolation of the reunited country of Vietnam from the world community in any area where the U.S. could wield diplomatic force, for what, 25 or so years? Fuck. We helped to rebuild Japan and Germany who caused far more death and destruction during WWII than the Vietnamese caused in the period from 1949 to 1975. Maybe we SHOULD have firebombed Hanoi, or even nuked it, then perhaps when we had demonstrated who was really their daddy the stupid sortabrowncommies would have signed an unconditional surrender.
Kissinger is a dick and lying, murderous dick at that.
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2009 8:38 AM
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Obama receiving the prize I would just mention:
1) The prize is meant to be awarded for actions upto the close of nominations. What did Obama do in terms of Iran, Russia etc in the first 2 or 3 weeks of his presidency.
I suspect the committee included things after the close of nomination date.
2) Of course he said he didn't deserve it.
Imagine the response if he had said he did deserve it.
3) Be interesting to see the charity he gives the money to.
Medicine sans frontier would be a good choice.
4) I'm just so glad it didn't go to T Bliar, former UK PM and now special envoy to the ME for the UN.
5) I would have preferred to see it go to Morgan Tsvangirai, tortured in his fight for peace and justice. Working for peaceful change; even after seeing his friends and countrymen beaten, tortured and starved. After the ZANU thieves have stolen the best farmland and left it to lie fallow.
Still, after all that and continuing threats, he seeks a peaceful resolution. Far worthier, in my opinion, than Obama will ever be or can even dream of being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Tsvangirai
Posted by: Chris' Wills | October 10, 2009 10:01 AM
Julian:
henry kissinger is hardly a man of honor. his 'negotiations' that led to the end of the war led (with the help of nixon, no question) to u.s. servicemen who had been held hostage not being returned.
So kissinger and nixon knew there was a high probability that their actions would leave american servicemen behind, and didn't give enough of a shit to do anything about it. Think that's a stretch on my part?
In case that's too much to read: the worthless SOB admitted in his memoir that he knew servicemen were left behind.
In case you think this bothered him in the least, in 1992 he swore, under oath, that he never had any information that any soldiers were captured alive and had not been returned by Vietnam.
(Source: All POW-MIA Senate Select Committee: Efforts to gain an Accounting in Laos)
This has nothing to do with political stance or views on the war: kissinger (and nixon) were supposed to be concerned with american citizens, soldiers sent to fight for the country. the fact that those two worthless collections of skin, blood, and bone, couldn't even tell the truth about what they did is more than enough to justify any disgust hurled their way.
Posted by: dean | October 10, 2009 10:13 AM
If they can't find anyone to deserve it, just give it to some huge charity organisation and call it a day, or just don't hand it out at all. Yes, a couple of times this award weren't handed out to anyone.
They could have waited until after he actually does something. Like if he's passionate about nuclear disarmament, he could have worked toward that goal, reducing US and Russian stockpiles while convincing North Korea and Iran they don't need the bomb, or something. Maybe get the UK and France to reduce theirs. Then that would be a reason to be awarded that prize.
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | October 10, 2009 10:38 AM
Here's an analogy. Zambia holds a beauty pageant. They crown the winner 'Miss Zambia'. You see a photo of her, yet you don't find her to be that beautiful. Would you say that she didn't deserve to win?
Without knowing the other contestants and comparing her to them, any statement about whether or not she deserved to win has no value. Knowledge is required in order for an opinion to be meaningful.
If you can't say "XX deserved to win more than President Obama, because...", then your opinion doesn't matter.
Now I fully agree with what President Obama said, about not deserving to be in the same company as past winners. But there again, you have to know something about the past winners for that statement to work. And that statement is not the same as saying he didn't deserve to win it this year.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 10, 2009 11:07 AM
Along with much of the "international community", I hugely admire the man for his apparent integrity, statesmanship and his positive approach to US and global problems. I would have admired him a lot more if he had declined the honour with something along the lines of: "I cannot accept this award at this time but I hope to earn it during my time as President of the United States...".
Posted by: Joe | October 10, 2009 11:17 AM
Democommie,
I don't think saying Obama is undeserving is the same as blaming him--I think it's blaming the committee for choosing someone undeserving.
JusticeLeague,
Sorry, but I can't accept a "it coulda been, maybe!" as strong evidence. Anyway, despite what Obama says in his speeches, and what the media muffinheads report, there's precious little real evidence that fiscal stimulus works so damn good. Keep in mind that the Fed has simultaneously engaged in massive monetary policy, which has a much better track record in economic recovery than fiscal policy does--but that doesn't allow a president to take credit, so it doesn't get reported much. And his real significance in fiscal policy may be the overwhelming debt he's saddled us with--Reagan and Georgie are no longer the supreme deficit creators.
It's not an attack on Obama to say he's not very consequential yet. It's just a reality of being a first year president. We Americans invest way too much in the significance of our presidents anyway, and the fact is that if he died now, he'd be a mere historical footnote. Even if the Congress passes a health care bill--the center of I don't think that will change much, because he's pushing for the most moderate of policies, rather than the biggie, a real national health care plan. It will probably go down in history as moderate change, rather than transformative. Frankly, I'm beginning to think Obama's too timid to do anything really big, but I'll admit it's too early to tell that, either.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 10, 2009 11:36 AM
I have to think that even those in the administration were not happy with this. The fact that this was awarded even though Obama really hasn't accomplished anything plays into criticism from the right that Obama is all talk and no game.
Posted by: mroberts | October 10, 2009 11:38 AM
Gretchen wrote:
I had that thought too.
I also thought how incredible it would be if he gave the money to an Afghanistan based charity. There are some great groups doing very good, much needed work there. Undercutting the efforts of the Taliban, either through social means like education and human rights promotion, or perhaps through the eradication of the opium trade, would definitely qualify as efforts worthy of a peace prize.
....
As to the prize, I think it's entirely plausible that just having changed the atmosphere of international relations enough to repair some of the damage caused by the last administration is enough of a reason for Obama to get the prize. I don't find it galling at all. I don't think it makes the prize meaningless, especially considering this:
And the "fuck you" to Bush Admin was pretty funny, you have to admit. Had Bush been in the room when I heard the news, I would have pointed at him and said "Ha ha! You suck!"
Posted by: Leni | October 10, 2009 11:45 AM
Bill Maher told a great joke about this award on his show last night. I paraphrase: Americans lack appreciation regarding the degree of accomplishment it took for the President to get a black guy and a white cop to sit down and have a beer together.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 10, 2009 11:49 AM
I personally think the proper thing for Obama to do is to refuse the Award. There is precedent for that. As for Kissinger negotiating the ending of the Vietnam war?! Get serious what he negotiated was Americas final exit and a "decent interval". Le Duc had it right when he refused the award on the grounds there was no peace in Vietnam. Kissinger being the shameless self promoter he always has been accepted the award and came across as a dipshit. Although Kissinger giving the green light for Indonesia's genocidal invasion of East Timor is also dipshit behavior also.
Posted by: Pacal | October 10, 2009 12:02 PM
I'm not sure if I would like to see Obama's "nuclear-free world" vision realized. MAD doctine gave Europe over 60 years without a major war. It has *never* happened before, as far as I know history.
Posted by: Roman | October 10, 2009 12:20 PM
I'm not sure if I would like to see Obama's "nuclear-free world" vision realized. MAD doctine gave Europe over 60 years without a major war. It has *never* happened before, as far as I know history.
I agree. I think the idea that the world can be completely free of nukes is dangerously naive. American nukes are not a threat to the world, but Iranian or North Korean nukes are. I believe it is naive to think that we can simply sit down with regimes like that and convince them to get rid of their nukes. They haven't done it so far, right? All the talk to date hasn't done much of anything.
Posted by: mroberts | October 10, 2009 12:42 PM
James Hanley:
We will agree to disagree on the "blame" aspect? I can live with that.
As for Obama's "timidity". It's fairly obvious that he is not only dealing with a batshit crazy GOP "opposition"; he can't count on more than about half of the dems to back him. I think he learned the lesson that Hillary got in the early 90's. Do I think he should have been a lot less conciliatory? fuckinA! Do I think I would have done the job better? Hell, no.
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2009 12:46 PM
Demo,
Well, to be fair, it's not just Obama who's too timid. It's his whole damn party. But he seems to have bought into it.
For example, on health care. By immediately declaring that single-payer was off the table, he took away a threat to use against the Republicans, to force them to come farther left. Obama ended up making the rather moderate public option the left side of the debate, which allowed Republicans to push the debate farther to the right. It's as though he walked into a car dealership and began negotiating by saying, "OK, I won't pay a penny less than $25,000." The car dealer responds by upping his starting price from the $30,000 he had in mind to $35,000.
Anyway, speaking only for myself, I don't blame Obama for being awarded the prize. It has the perverse effect, however, of making me like him a little less.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 10, 2009 12:55 PM
As a native of Kenya, is Obama even eligible for a Nobel Prize?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 10, 2009 1:16 PM
Ed, your decision that Obama should not have gotten the NPP does not piss me off, but it does show that you're pretty mainstream in your ignorance of what the NPP is. (For some reason I'm not getting along with all of the Brayton's this week. I'm sure that will pass.)
Edumacate yourself: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/an_open_letter_to_americans_wh.php
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 10, 2009 1:26 PM
Greg, thank you for posting a link to your blog. I think you took the more logical approach to this topic.
So many people have placed the burden on those who say he was a fine choice to prove why, when the burden should be on them to show why not (and that means giving us the name of someone more deserving).
The committee members who chose President Obama are more informed on this subject than we are, and are much more aware of the other nominees and their accomplishments. If the committee then feels that President Obama is the right choice, how can we dispute that without providing an alternative?
Posted by: Jordan G | October 10, 2009 1:46 PM
Greg: Obama has certainly changed the tone of the US's relations with much of the world, and all of the minor steps pointed out on your blog are good, but...
Where has he done anything to promote peace? Nothing in Iraq; nothing in Afghanistan. He's created a new war zone in Pakistan and is threatening one in Iran (where US covert operations nearly succeeded in fomenting a civil war this summer).
Yes, he's a wonderful speaker, optimistic, always says what you want to hear. But when it comes to doing anything. Bupkis. He's not W, however, and he'll have that going for him for a long time yet.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 10, 2009 2:40 PM
James Hanley:
I think your comment about Obama's "timidity" is exactly on point. He knows he does not have a united front to present what he'd really like to have done. I'm not happy with what he's doing, but I'm confident that if he had asked for less, it would not have been any easier. The GOP is playing "scorched earth" politics and actually are perfectly happy if the whole economy implodes and everybody but them (with their nice government or private sector healthcare packages) fucking dies.
mroberts:
You idiot. THE reason that countries like Iran and North Korea are going for nukes is because the U.S., the russians, the french, the chinese, the indians, the pakistanis, the japanese (probably) and the israelis (almost certainly) already have them. Since we have demonstrated that we will actually BLOW PEOPLE THE FUCK UP with the damned things, they know we're not as likely to bluff about doing it.
That Iran, North Korea or any other country that builds some nukes, in defiance of the U.N., would be a heap of radioactive slag within hours of launching their missiles against anyone is something that they are quite well aware of. They're not ALL stupid, and they're not ALL crazy. They're looking for an angle, and they feel like nukes are the only thing that give them the ability to say, "Fuck off!" and get away with it.
Did I forget to mention that you're an idiot. I really hope not.
Posted by: emocommie | October 10, 2009 2:57 PM
We have a new player, GeeorgeRic, on the "Beck Rants Against Atheists" thread.
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2009 3:54 PM
Greg Laden wrote:
This is utterly silly. The NPP is whatever the people on the committee that awards it decides it is every year that they give it. There is no single set of consistently applied criteria for it and there never has been. You cannot look at the list of people who have won it and their achievements and say, "Ah, here's the common thread, the real reason that explains why they won it and others didn't." They can provide any justification they want for each person they choose, and they do. Your post even seems to admit that, yet you claim I am "ignorant of what the NPP is." It is whatever the committee decides it is at any given time, whatever criteria they choose to apply at that moment. I don't see how that negates or even begins to engage my argument a bit.
I agree that Obama has begun to change America's approach to diplomacy (or rediscovered it, if you prefer). I think this is a very good thing. I agree that he has begun to change the world's perceptions of us by presenting a realistic view of ourselves and our actions rather than pretending that America is Jesus Incarnate who can do no wrong. I think this is a very good thing. But this is all the same as saying what I said the first time: That he won this because he's not George W. Bush. And I just don't think that's a very good reason for giving the award. It has nothing to do with my alleged ignorance of what the NPP is really about; it has only to do with my disagreement for the justification they happened to offer this particular time (just as I and many others have disagreed with their justifications at times in the past and agreed with others).
I sincerely hope that Obama will have earned this honor at some point in the future. I just don't believe he has yet.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 10, 2009 3:58 PM
Roman, #127: MAD doctine gave Europe over 60 years without a major war.
Instead the the wars were fought by proxy in the third world, resulting in more horrific atrocities and greater numbers of casualties than I can imagine would have been considered acceptable if the carnage had involved white people.
By the way, the same Eurocentrism didn't find poison gas or machine guns particularly shocking until they were used against white people in WWI.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 10, 2009 4:08 PM
Democommie,
Look out, someone named "emocommie" is stealing your lines. It's bad enough being any kind of commie, of course, but an emo one? God save us!
Posted by: James Hanley | October 10, 2009 4:27 PM
I like Greg Laden's blog, but in this case his argument amounts to little more than, "I like Obama, so it was a good choice." Greg is investing far too much of his hopes and dreams in someone who is, after all, just a man in an office that has overmatched most of its recent occupants.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 10, 2009 4:29 PM
James Hanley: Since economics is not amenable to controlled experiments, separating causation from correlation is not easy. Of course monetary policy is critically important. But the Fed put in extraordinary measures in Sept/Oct 2008 and the economy and markets kept sinking like a rock. Interestingly, the turnaround began in early March, very shortly after the stimulus was passed. I can tell, you that I have never seen so much road work as I'm seeing in the last couple of months so it's got to be doing something. It also avoided really draconian layoffs of state and local workers in many states.
The one thing I can be sure of is that had there been the mother of all financial crises under a Democratic administration and at least the glimmers of recovery under an incoming Republican one, Limbaugh and his cronies would be ready to enshrine the new president on Mount Rushmore by now. So I'm cutting Obama some slack here.
On health care-what passes will almost certainly be much less than I would like. Still, it will cover millions of uninsured, which is not chopped liver if you're one of them. It will be the biggest expansion in coverage since Medicare and will be something that Clinton tried and failed at. That to me is not insignificant.
And backing off from poking Russia in the eye over the missile defense system is important as well. Again, maybe not worthy of the NPP, but enough to make Obama already a significant president. His enemies, at least, seem to be very afraid of him, so that suggests he's not a minor figure.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 10, 2009 4:30 PM
The Nobel Peace prize is a paradox. Democommie's right that it's their* prize and they can award it to whomever they want. However it's also true that since there are no competing methods of recognizing success in this area that get the recognition of the Nobel Prize, we tend to view them, falsely, as an award that expresses a collective public opinion beyond Norway's Parliament.
The recognition the award and their winners receive is vastly disproportionate to the representative population granting the award - I'd argue to a warped degree.
*Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 10, 2009 4:30 PM
@emocommie
"You idiot. THE reason that countries like Iran and North Korea are going for nukes is because the U.S., the russians, the french, the chinese, the indians, the pakistanis, the japanese (probably) and the israelis (almost certainly) already have them. Since we have demonstrated that we will actually BLOW PEOPLE THE FUCK UP with the damned things, they know we're not as likely to bluff about doing it."
First, insulting other people doesn't really help your argument.
While I agree that the fact that the USA and other major players have nukes gives some justification to other countries' quest for possessing them, I do not believe that they would not try to obtain them if the USA didn't have them. The temptation would be too big. Note that if the USA and allies DID NOT have nukes, their ability to pressure Iran or North Korea into dropping their nuclear ambitions would be even smaller than it is. Moral high ground only gets you this far.
@Chiroptera
"Instead the the wars were fought by proxy in the third world,"
Let's be honest, the Third World had not been an oasis of peace before 1945. And a global "hot" conflict between the NATO and Warsaw Pact would probably also include wars in Africa, Asia or South America.
"resulting in more horrific atrocities and greater numbers of casualties than I can imagine would have been considered acceptable if the carnage had involved white people."
The Europeans accepted fighting two major wars during the XXth century, in which millions of them died. You don't really have a point here.
"By the way, the same Eurocentrism didn't find poison gas or machine guns particularly shocking until they were used against white people in WWI."
Neither did the Africans find Auschwitz-Birkenau particularly shocking, I imagine. You're always more sensitive to what's happening in your immediate neighbourhood.
BTW:
1. exactly where was poison gas used before WWI in modern times?
2. use of poison gas by white people against white people was repeatedly proposed during the XIXth century
Posted by: Roman | October 10, 2009 4:49 PM
Actually from 1815 to 1914 Europe enjoyed a period of relative peace similar to that from the end of WWII to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They did pretty much what we did during the Cold War, they shifted their conflicts over to the colonial countries of the world. Also the massive expenditures of the Cold War played a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and a major part of (or at least the foundation of) our current debt.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 10, 2009 5:06 PM
Roman:
You obviously do not know mroberts. That was not an insult. It was recognition of an observable fact.
If the U.S. had no nuclear weapons (assuming parity with other powers that have them) it would be interesting to see how our multi-national corporations, particularly the resource extraction folks, would make out in third world countries. We do not and have not held, "the moral high ground" since at least 1964. For at least the last 45 years U.S. foreign policy has been to support dictators or oligarchs that we deem "friendly"--regardless what they do to their citizens--, demonize those we oppose and when possible overthrow their regimes directly or via surrogates. This has caused the U.S. to be reviled and mistrusted by much of the world.
Among the other reasons that Iran and North Korea are able to build facilities for uranium enrichment and weapons production is that the technology of nuclear weaponry has proliferated and is available to anyone with enough money to buy it. As long as there is a profit motive in the production of nuclear weapons' technology, it will be so.
Nuclear weapons are an horrific option, one this nation has elected to use, not once but twice. That people like Kim Il Sung are megalomaniacs is doubtless, but they are not complete idiots, nor are the people who run their nuclear programs. Unless we are willing to incinerate the planet that is a war we don't really want to start.
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2009 5:25 PM
Jordan G -
So many people have placed the burden on those who say he was a fine choice to prove why, when the burden should be on them to show why not (and that means giving us the name of someone more deserving).
Several people did early in this thread and also made very reasonable arguments for why this is a silly argument.
Greg Laden -
For some reason I'm not getting along with all of the Brayton's this week. I'm sure that will pass.
Are there some of us you are getting along with? I only ask because if there are, I would like to have a talk with them:)
Posted by: DuWayne | October 10, 2009 5:28 PM
Roman, #143: You don't really have a point here.
Maybe you didn't understand my point? Little in your post addresses it.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 10, 2009 5:34 PM
@dogmeatIB
"Actually from 1815 to 1914 Europe enjoyed a period of relative peace similar to that from the end of WWII to the collapse of the Soviet Union."
Actually there were lots of wars.
"Also the massive expenditures of the Cold War played a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and a major part of (or at least the foundation of) our current debt."
Not anymore...
@democommie
"If the U.S. had no nuclear weapons (assuming parity with other powers that have them) it would be interesting to see how our multi-national corporations, particularly the resource extraction folks, would make out in third world countries."
Do you *really* think that the USA threatened African countries with nukes, so that they let American oil companies in? This is ridicolous.
"We do not and have not held, "the moral high ground" since at least 1964. For at least the last 45 years U.S. foreign policy has been to support dictators or oligarchs that we deem "friendly"--regardless what they do to their citizens--, demonize those we oppose and when possible overthrow their regimes directly or via surrogates. This has caused the U.S. to be reviled and mistrusted by much of the world."
Russia did the same, it's nothing new.
"Unless we are willing to incinerate the planet that is a war we don't really want to start."
And that's why MAD works.
Posted by: Roman | October 10, 2009 5:36 PM
@Chiroptera
It will help if you read my post.
Posted by: Roman | October 10, 2009 5:38 PM
Ahhh, I get it, you're going to talk about "major conflicts" for the Cold War period, and bring up minor conflicts in the 19th century. Sorry, didn't realize we were going to have two completely different goalposts.
Of course you might want to recall:
Greek Civil War
Turkish Civil War
Korean War
French War in SE Asia
French War in Angola
Hungarian Uprising
Suez Crisis
Prague Spring
Russian Invasion of Afghanistan
On top of that you had Russian and Eastern European "advisors" all over the world.
Not anymore? Roughly 3 trillion of our debt came through the Reagan era buildup in the military. Last I checked, 3 trillion wasn't exactly chump change.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 10, 2009 5:49 PM
democommie said:
That Iran, North Korea or any other country that builds some nukes, in defiance of the U.N., would be a heap of radioactive slag within hours of launching their missiles against anyone is something that they are quite well aware of. They're not ALL stupid, and they're not ALL crazy. They're looking for an angle, and they feel like nukes are the only thing that give them the ability to say, "Fuck off!" and get away with it.
Sounds like you agree that MAD works. Suppose we work out some treaty with Iran and North Korea where we all disarm. Do you actually think that rogue countries like Iran and North Korea would honestly abide by it? I certainly don't, which is why I believe that a nuke free world will never happen. Neither should we push for one, because it will mean we are the only ones disarming. I believe Obama to be very naive when it comes to this issue.
Oh, and by the way, see if you can get through at least one response to me without filthy language or name-calling. Let's turn over a new leaf, shall we?
Posted by: mroberts | October 10, 2009 5:50 PM
Will this "new leaf" involve you sticking around and responding even after you've been proven wrong? We're used to the old "mrroberts" who disappears whenever his sad old, worn out arguments are refuted.
Really? How do you find him naive on this issue? Negotiating first, naive? Attempting diplomacy before bombing people and getting involved in another war while still embroiled in the two wars left over by the previous administration? Naive?
Please, explain to me, given our current geopolitical situation, with nearly 200,000 troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama should take a hard line towards Iran? Where will we get the troops if we take another "cowboy" unilateral approach to Iran?
I think you're the one who is naive.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 10, 2009 6:00 PM
For the record, I agree with others who claim that Obama getting this prize is way too premature.
However, although I adore anything that drives the right-wing crazy (watching Limbaugh foam at the mouth over the story was priceless), I truly hope Obama ends up donating his prize money to charity. I can't see anyone criticizing him for doing so except perhaps Michelle Malkin who would likely claim that making such contributions weakens America.
Because, y'know, only un-American losers need services like food banks.
Posted by: CHV | October 10, 2009 7:15 PM
CHV - is there video of the eruption of Mt. Rush? That would make the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama well worth while, for that alone. :)
Mrroberts - (how's the leftorium going?) No we don't trust them, nor do they trust us. That's why the UN sends in weapons inspectors, to make sure neither side cheats. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 10, 2009 10:18 PM
DuWayne: Are there some of us you are getting along with? I only ask because if there are, I would like to have a talk with them:)
I can only hope that next week will be better than last week.
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 10, 2009 11:24 PM
I certainly think it a bad choice for him to accept it, but I've never been offered a Nobel Peace Prize so I suppose I can't really say what I'd do in his shoes. I agree with the general consensus here that this is far too premature.
However, I disagree that him accepting the award is more foolish than Kissinger accepting the award. Kissinger may have negotiated the end of the Vietnam War, but his negotiations were only necessary because he, along with the rest of the Nixon camp, intentionally sabotaged the original peace talks in 1968. Quite a few lives were lost so that Kissinger could take credit for the very negotiations that he destroyed in the first place.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: pat | October 11, 2009 2:07 AM
mroberts:
Yeah, asshole, let's turn over a new leaf. I'll stop insulting you when you stop lying through your teeth and parroting the shit that you hear from the talking heads of the reichwing.
The only real difference between "civil" commenters and me, moron, is that they are kind hearted folks who like to give idiots like you an education--I know it would be wasted.
You think that Mr. Obama is naive? He's forgotten more about dealing with tough opponents than you will ever learn.
My contentions about North Korea and Iran do not support the MAD stupidity. IF either of those countries were to mount a nuclear attack on the U.S., one of it's allies or pretty much anybody else, the retaliation would, in all probability ensure that they never launched a second one. They would be wiped out, without having the ability to do the same to anyone else--that's not MAD, it's just plain nuts.
Posted by: democommie | October 11, 2009 2:36 AM
@dogmeatIB
"Ahhh, I get it,"
No, you don't. The list I gave you involves several wars involving five major European powers: Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, Prussia and Great Britain. There has not been a war like this in Europe since 1945. And during the period 1815-1914 you had smaller wars as well, including the Polish uprisings of 1831 and 1863 and the Hungarian uprising of 1848. There were of course wars in Greece as well.
Your list, on the other hand, includes wars outside Europe, while I said that I would not like MAD to go away because it gave *Europe* 60 years of peace.
@democommie
"They would be wiped out, without having the ability to do the same to anyone else--that's not MAD, it's just plain nuts."
That's the global law enforcement in the current, obviously imperfect, form -- but it's better than nothing.
Please note that WWII lasted so long because the Allies wanted to ensure the same thing - that Japan and Germany would not start the whole thing again after 20-30 years. And it worked, at a cost of millions of civilian and military lives. If the USA had nukes in 1943, the war in Europe and Asia would end in 1943, and for example hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews would be spared the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
Posted by: Roman | October 11, 2009 5:02 AM
@democommie
"Not anymore? Roughly 3 trillion of our debt came through the Reagan era buildup in the military."
Wikipedia says otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
"I'll stop insulting you [...]"
But you know, other people have to read this drivel as well. It's not your private chat line. Could you guys meet somewhere in private, fuck your brains out, and spare us this?
Posted by: Roman | October 11, 2009 5:08 AM
Roman:
First of all, wrong attribution in your last comment. That was not mine.
This:
"No, you don't. The list I gave you involves several wars involving five major European powers: Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, Prussia and Great Britain. There has not been a war like this in Europe since 1945."
There was of course a period from 1945 to 1990 or so when about 40% of the former soviet union's population (and large swaths of it's territory) were robbed and enslaved by the russians. No problemo, for you.
And this:
"Your list, on the other hand, includes wars outside Europe, while I said that I would not like MAD to go away because it gave *Europe* 60 years of peace."
means exactly what? Does it mean that you're technically correct? Because there were sure an awful lot of wars in other parts of the world (Spanish American to name one) that were fought on other than european soil, to settle differences between various powerful nations--all but three of them--China, Japan and the U.S. being european or european proxies.
"But you know, other people have to read this drivel as well. It's not your private chat line. Could you guys meet somewhere in private, fuck your brains out, and spare us this?"
Ummm, it's not YOUR private chat line either. You really DON'T have to read it. If you think what I'm saying to mroberts is uncalled for, well, tough shit. I don't care what you OR he thinks about the "level of discourse".
If you would go back over the course of the last year or so, read his comments, read the endless, detailed, FACTUAL rebuttals to his endless, detailed, farcical and fantastic rants.
You most certainly are entitled to YOUR opinions, and can use any sort of language that Ed Brayton is willing to allow. Thus far, anything short of threats to other commenters and spampapering of comments threads has been allowed. You obviously have not met DuWayne. He sometimes employs rather, shall we say "colorful", language to drive home a point.
mroberts is an asshat, he's earned his stripes.
Posted by: democommie | October 11, 2009 9:45 AM
Roman - You might be new here (I'm not familiar with the handle, not that's saying anything much) but Mrroberts is a notorious commenter here, and sometimes (alas) 'familiarity breeds contempt'.
As for the debt, see the portion of the graph between 1980 and 1988, see how sharply it increases (not just as a actual amount, but also as a percentage of GDP), up from about 3 billion dollars to around 5 billion dollars (an increase of 2 billion dollars or 66% over the 1980 base), this was due to spending decisions by the Reagan Administration.* Hope that helps - DJ
------------------
*Contrast this with the nearly flat, or slightly downward trend 1945 - 1980 in actual debt, which, due to the growth in the US economy lead to a downward trend in percentage debt to GDP.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 11, 2009 9:48 AM
But you know, other people have to read this drivel as well. It's not your private chat line. Could you guys meet somewhere in private, fuck your brains out, and spare us this?
Hey Roman - you know, you don't need to read this "drivel" either. You're more than welcome to go fuck yourself somewhere you're actually wanted. There are plenty of places for fucktarded little morons to spread their irritating bullshit - you would fit better there.
Don't like being insulted? Don't be a arrogant fucking moron. Here's a tip - while wikipedia is a reasonable starting point for evidence, it is not reasonable to cite it as evidence. For all anyone knows, you could have gone in and changed an article before you linked to it.
And another tip - it is more than a little arrogant to wander over to a blog and tell regular commenters - people who are respected by other regulars - and tell them they should go away and spare the rest of the readers. I don't think I have ever come across you here before, but I can tell I am not going to like you. OTOH, while democommie and I have gotten into it before - as have dogmeatib and I, I have a lot of respect for both of them - there are a lot of others around these parts who do.
You have yet to earn anyone's respect and the way things are going, it isn't looking good. Here's another hint - mroberts is not good company. But I guess fucking morons of a feather...
Posted by: DuWayne | October 11, 2009 10:26 AM
My contentions about North Korea and Iran do not support the MAD stupidity. IF either of those countries were to mount a nuclear attack on the U.S., one of it's allies or pretty much anybody else, the retaliation would, in all probability ensure that they never launched a second one. They would be wiped out, without having the ability to do the same to anyone else--that's not MAD, it's just plain nuts.
Uh demo, that's MAD, as in "Mutually Assured Destruction". That's the whole point about the MAD doctrine. We maintain a powerful nuclear arsenal, make known that we will use it if attacked with nukes, and it provides a deterrent against future attacks. Yeah, I know, I lie through my teeth in everything I say, but this really is what MAD is.
Rogue nations will always try to get nukes, regardless of whether we try to give them up or not. That's why I think it is extremely naive to push for a nuke free world. It's a fantasy that will just leave us defenseless against rogue regimes.
Roman, I hope you're enjoying all the "tolerance" from the lefties on this blog. Nice crowd, I know. Demo thinks he disproves everything I say, but most of his posts are just insult-spewing. Don't know how those disprove anything.
Posted by: mroberts | October 11, 2009 11:02 AM
@democommie
"First of all, wrong attribution in your last comment. That was not mine."
Oops, sorry.
"There was of course a period from 1945 to 1990 or so when about 40% of the former soviet union's population (and large swaths of it's territory) were robbed and enslaved by the russians. No problemo, for you."
It is a problem, but a smaller one that being at war. My country was enslaved by the Russians in this period as well, but it sure was better than German occupation in 1939-45.
"means exactly what? Does it mean that you're technically correct? Because there were sure an awful lot of wars in other parts of the world (Spanish American to name one) that were fought on other than european soil, to settle differences between various powerful nations--all but three of them--China, Japan and the U.S. being european or european proxies."
Yes, this argument was raised in this discussion already. I don't but it as an argument against MAD, because nobody proved a connection between MAD doctrine and proxy wars. In particular, Spanish American countries have been fighting numerous wars against each other before 1945. And there is a difference between being a country directly invaded by a superpower and willingly joining one side against another. There were countries which did not take sides in the Cold War and were not involved in proxy wars.
"Ummm, it's not YOUR private chat line either. You really DON'T have to read it."
It's hard to skip over this bits...
"You obviously have not met DuWayne. He sometimes employs rather, shall we say "colorful", language to drive home a point."
I have a (limited) tolerance for this, but only assuming someone DOES have a point.
@DingoJack
You have a point about debt as % of GDP, but I have quoted the graph only to refute the claim that the debt rose by 3 trillion USD -- the graph shows that it was 2 trillion max. Anyway, this is a side thread, I am not a fan of Reaganomics at all (though I respect Paul Volcker).
"You might be new here"
I a not, actually. I rarely comment, but I did read and comment on Ed Brayton's posts when Scienceblogs was much smaller.
@DuWayne
"For all anyone knows, you could have gone in and changed an article before you linked to it."
Pro tip -- they have this feature called "history".
"but I can tell I am not going to like you"
Cry me a river.
Posted by: Roman | October 11, 2009 11:31 AM
Roman - If you cry me a river, would it be the Tiber? [Drum fill] :) (Yes, yes, the Vistula or some-such, but it doesn't work as well as a joke).
Sorry if I didn't recognise the handle, I still don't know everyone here, I'm kinda 'feeling my way' here.
OK just so we're on the same page on Reagan's reckless spending (although to his credit, he did stop once he realized it was going to work). - DJ
------------------
PS Look up 'Mrroberts' for other threads he has appeared in, perhaps you'll understand why some have lost patients with him. (I find yelling at people I don't even know unhelpful, but that' just me)
Posted by: DingoJack | October 11, 2009 12:00 PM
oops, that should read "...once he [Reagan] realised is wasn't going to work."
Sloppy proof-reading. :( - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 11, 2009 12:03 PM
@DingoJack
"perhaps you'll understand why some have lost patients with him"
Hmm, losing *patients* is a serious business, he should be sued for malpractice...
Posted by: Roman | October 11, 2009 2:26 PM
mroberts:
MAD, the word "Mutual" is one you don't understand? Geez, "rogue" nations? Uh-oh! Are those the sorts of nations that attack other nations that are posing no credible threat, just because their leaders want to appear to be strong and fearless. Take your time answering--or not. Y'know, I don't call you an idiot just to get you to work harder on telling bigger, more ludicrous lies. I call you an idiot because I keep hoping against hope that someday you'll come to understand that you are not making any headway with anyone on this blog, sfaia. Now, at your favorite reichwingnut blogs you're probably considered something of an idiot-savant; over here? just the first part.
Roman:
I missed this earlier:
"That's the global law enforcement in the current, obviously imperfect, form -- but it's better than nothing."
It is? I'm blissfully unaware of any such U.N. provisos or treaties between nuclear armed nations that say anything of that sort.
More recently:
"It is a problem, but a smaller one that being at war. My country was enslaved by the Russians in this period as well, but it sure was better than German occupation in 1939-45."
I don't know what eastern european country you live in, but I never really talked to anyone from ANY eastern european country who was less than extremely pissed at having their country occupied by the russians--except for the folks that were the janissaries of that time.
As for this:
"Yes, this argument was raised in this discussion already. I don't but it as an argument against MAD, because nobody proved a connection between MAD doctrine and proxy wars."
Please point me to that part of the discussion. I'm not sure that anyone was asked to prove a connection of that sort. Your comment about the proxy wars not being in europe is certainly indisputable; that, of course, is why they are called proxy wars.
Your tolerance for things you don't like here? It really doesn't matter. You can always A.) Not read posts from persons that you don't "tolerate". B.) Continue complaining with, I think, an unreasonable expectation that it will result in me not insulting mroberts and using foul language when commenting to or about him.
You say you've been coming here for a while, so you must know by now that offensive language (what are you are saying is offensive to you on this thread in any event) is protected speech under the constitution. There's lots and lots of stuff that people write here, and elsewhere in blogtopia, which I find exceedingly offensive. I do one of two things when I am offended by someone's "speech". I, A.) Quit reading their trash (mroberts drivel is generally in that category, and/or B.) I tell them what I think of them, with no expectation that will change them in any way.
You might notice that I don't trash everyone on this blog, or use foul language in every disagreement I might have with someone here. mroberts is a special case, that's for certain. He still, apparently, believes that he wins "arguments" by being tiresome and constantly re-hashing reichwing talking pints and discredited Neocon doctrine. It's okay with me if you want to read his crap. Perhaps the two of YOU can get together and entertain and enlighten one another. I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on mroberts if he was on fire. You're welcome to do so.
Posted by: democommie | October 11, 2009 2:50 PM
It's a fantasy to think that we would be "defenseless" against Iran without nukes. We could crush them with or without nukes.
In order for MAD to work, both sides have to *actually* be able to destroy each other. That's what the "mutual" part means. That clearly is not the case here. At this point, what we have is the assured destruction of one side and the nukes aren't even necessary for that.
And Iran clearly wants it to be mutual. So really, for your MAD scenario to work, shouldn't you be arguing for Iran to have nukes? Israel could bomb Iran, after all. Why should Iran leave themselves defenseless?
Anyway, I'm not convinced that MAD would be any guarantee with Iran or North Korea anyway. It assumes a level of sanity that I'm not sure exists in either case.
Posted by: Leni | October 11, 2009 3:10 PM
D'oh! Demo beat me to it.
Posted by: Leni | October 11, 2009 3:11 PM
I forgot to add something for Roman.
You are on the internet. Complaining about people getting insulted on the internet is like complaining about the rain. You are better off just learning to live with it. It's not going to go away. It is most assuredly going to happen again. You'll be better off just learning to live with it. Maybe even try to find something positive about. That is at least better than getting all bent out of shape about something you have no control over, isn't it? Get an umbrella or stay inside :)
Posted by: Leni | October 11, 2009 3:20 PM
Yes, actually I do. The problem is you have created an artificial construct of "peace" that ignores the massive death toll caused by the Cold War and the proxy conflicts fought therein. You arbitrarily ignore the millions of casualties that were directly the result of the competition between the forces of "Capitalist Europe" and the fores of "Communist Europe."
Again, the arbitrary decision to include some wars and conflicts while dismissing others even when those other conflicts had far greater death tolls. All of those 19th century conflicts combined had a lower death toll than Korea or the combined Franco-American war in SE Asia. Both of those conflicts involved "major European powers," France, England, Russia, etc., but they don't count. That is utterly arbitrary and ridiculous.
Even if you want to pretend that MAD gave Europe peace, which is precisely what you are doing, pretending, the most you could claim is 44 years, perhaps 46 years if you go to 1991. Unfortunately it provided 45 years of false, phony peace that we are still paying for today. I have to ask, were you an adult during the Cold War? It certainly doesn't sound like it if you think MAD was a good thing and feel fine ignoring the millions of deaths directly related to the EUROPEAN struggle that was the Cold War.
In the end, I put up the dates, 1815 to 1914 because, like your claim regarding MAD, it is an arbitrary, phony claim of peace. There wasn't a year during the Cold War where some European sponsored faction wasn't killing some other European sponsored faction. There wasn't a minute where there weren't thousands of warheads aimed at every major population center in Europe with little more than blind, simple LUCK that kept us from eradicating the human race.
Finally your claim is utterly false because MAD wasn't even possible until the late 50s. In other words another 15 year chunk of your made up peace had nothing to do with the two major powers and their ability to vaporize one another. Until the late 40s the Soviet Union completely lacked nuclear capability. Even if you pretend they suddenly, magically had a massive stockpile of weapons the moment the detonated their first bomb, neither side had the capability to utterly destroy the other or to avoid a knockout first strike until the development of ICBMs and, far more importantly, SSBNs. To be truly honest, neither side truly had a viable second strike capability until the mid 60s. So now we're down to MAD "preserving the peace" for 20-25 years in your made-up era of fluffy ducks and fuzzy bunnies.
You're joking right? You're going to nitpick math rather than respond to the argument that the economic impact of the Cold War has been devastating to both major countries? You're going to nitpick rather than respond to the argument that Cold War spending definitely helped cause the collapse of the Soviet Union and might just contribute to the collapse of the US? Fine, I slipped when I was reading the table and included Bush(41)'s contribution to the national debt by accident. You're still talking about taking a debt that was less than $1 trillion, the combined debt of all previous presidents from WWII onward, and TRIPLING IT. You're still talking about 16.7% of the current debt being caused by the spending policies of Reagan. You are ignoring the estimated $17.8 TRILLION dollars in Cold War defense spending (2008 figures) as well as the estimated greater defense spending of the Soviet Union in that same time period.
I'm sorry, but your claim is false. MAD did not foster peace for 60 years. First, you have to ignore the global conflicts to pretend the latter half of the 20th Century was peaceful. Second, as a policy it only existed in reality for 25 years of the Cold War, not the 60 you have manufactured. Third, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, MAD has played virtually no role in modern diplomacy. The US and its European friends, allies, and trade partners have no need for MAD. Much of the rest of the world doesn't qualify. You're down to a handful of nations that are in conflict with the United States (or Europe). Let's examine those nations ... Iraq, Iran, North Korea; generally considered the "axis of evil." MAD plays precisely ZERO role in their negotiations. The fact that the United States could utterly eradicate them doesn't force them to negotiate or lead them to adopt more friendly (less hostile) positions. If anything those three countries strive for nuclear capabilities in order to adopt their own version of MAD. Really, if you wanted to claim that MAD was a viable road to peace, then your logical argument would be that all three of these countries should have nuclear weapons, in fact the logical extension of MAD would be that ALL countries should have a nuclear strike capability necessary to destroy all other countries.
The reality of the modern era is that the likelihood of a country attacking the United States (or Europe) with a nuclear (or bio/chemical) strike is virtually nonexistent. On the other hand a terrorist organization doing so is increasingly likely. The threat of the US nuking Tehran, or Baghdad, or Pyongyang isn't going to stop such an attack, or stop these countries from attempting to develop these weapons. In fact, the threat is WHY they try to develop these programs in the first place. They are trying to develop their own version of MAD, IE "you might take us down, but we'll destroy LA (N. Korea), or our friends (Al Quaeda?) will sneak a bomb in to hit one of your cities ... which one?"
MAD isn't the solution to this problem, it IS the problem. Unless we are willing to eradicate any country or group who we don't like that has the technological capability to develop their own weapon program, the only solution is to come up with some sort of diplomatic incentive for them not to.
They aren't going to replace their leaders with people we like. Threatening them just pushes them towards where we don't want them to go. Actually talking to them ... solving our differences? It is the only viable solution, unless you prefer hundreds of thousands ... perhaps millions of deaths.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 11, 2009 4:19 PM
roman -
Even if you didn't change it, wiki is not always correct and many articles contain at least some mistakes. Wiki is often good for finding source material and cites, it is absolutely not a reasonable source in and of itself.
Yes, this argument was raised in this discussion already. I don't but it as an argument against MAD, because nobody proved a connection between MAD doctrine and proxy wars.
Who gives a flying fuck? MAD didn't prevent much in the way of bloodshed, as there were still proxy wars being fought. It really makes little difference that without MAD, we would have probably still fought proxy wars. The point is that MAD didn't stop them.
I have a (limited) tolerance for this, but only assuming someone DOES have a point.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!11!!1!1!!!! No one - and I mean absolutely no one here, could care any less about what you have tolerance for. Maybe this could help you out...
Posted by: DuWayne | October 11, 2009 4:30 PM
Realized that this could be misconstrued to mean "same period" as Reagan administration rather than "same period" as The Cold War. Let me be clear,
1945-1991 US Spending in 2008 US dollars: $17.8 Trillion (est).
Soviet spending in that time period is unknown but estimated to be in excess of US spending.
Add in the spending of the other European countries (NATO, Warsaw Pact), and you have somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 trillion wasted on the Cold War.
That longterm financial impact has yet to be truly determined or even measured.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | October 11, 2009 4:45 PM
dogmeatIB:
I think that comment @ 172 gets a "Huzzah!". Well done.
@174
"Add in the spending of the other European countries (NATO, Warsaw Pact), and you have somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 trillion wasted on the Cold War.
That longterm financial impact has yet to be truly determined or even measured."
But, geez, look at all the benefits of that weapons build-up; just talk to folks in Hanford, WA or Rocky Flats, CO.
DuWayne:
I don't know Roman well enough to be insulting to him (at least in the way that I am nasty to mroberts), yet. It is difficult to believe that someone could have been reading along here for a while and suddenly discovered that people were being rude to mroberts.
Posted by: democommie | October 11, 2009 8:36 PM
Roman, #164: ...nobody proved a connection between MAD doctrine and proxy wars.
Come to think of it, no one proved a connection between MAD and the absence of overt conflict on European soil either.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 11, 2009 8:55 PM
Chiroptera:
Not that I was privy to the discussions, but it seemed to me that, at least when I was in the AF in Germany back in the Nixon years that it went something like this.
1.) We had bombers, silo based missiles and nuclear subs out the wazoo.
2.) We put something like 10 divisions of the U.S. Army in Europe, just in case the Ivans decided to come through the Fulda Gap to annihilate our NATO partners.
3.) The nukes were there to prevent the russkies from getting frisky.
4.) The troops were there so we wouldn't have to use the nukes. Or not.
After thinking that over for several moments I would usually settle the issue by ordering another Henninger.
Posted by: democommie | October 11, 2009 9:20 PM
JusticeLeague @141
Well, I can't disagree with that! But of course I'd be mocking them quite badly as they were doing so.Posted by: James Hanley | October 11, 2009 10:25 PM
JusticeLeague:
I would like to see Rush Limbaugh enshrined, UNDER Mt. Rushmore. Oh, that's such a happy thought that I think I will go make myself a nice, pink unicorn sundae!
Posted by: democommie | October 11, 2009 10:57 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I am totally surprised and shocked that mrroberts vanished yet again from a thread in which his arguments were shredded.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 13, 2009 10:05 AM
I have to agree with Dogmeat on this one. At least in part.
That was a well-written précis on the history of the very term MAD, sir.
The notion of MAD turned out to be little more than an astonishingly expensive dictator management (containment--though that term implied something very active in foreign policy) program that threatened hellfire for the most serious missteps. It contained the other guy, if we can use that word, but the horrific demographic fallout from this and the micro-wars that sprung up are testimony to its expense and of course the fact that Communist revolutions found other avenues via proxy war to reduce US influence and make the world more their image. In the fallout of world images, Islam has taken up that mantle instead.
Dogmeat is also likely correct that it is unlikely that major states would attack one another, and that the more likely scenario is a terrorist group.
I say "NOTION" of MAD, because MAD was never really official US policy. It might have been the REALITY of this balance of power, but as Colin S. Grey pointed out, it was never an official statement or doctrine at planning levels. It was commentary on the sour situation that was developing, and then later at hand. Nevertheless, as it probably reflected the sober reality of a true nuke exchange, we can roll with the handy term. Not to be confused with deterrence, which can imply other ways of batting down and discouraging the enemy.
Yes, we need to talk to some of these people, and not depend on what "balance-of-power" theoreticians say all the time. However, as Ray Cline and Yonah Alexander pointed out in Terrorism as State-Sponsored Warfare, the lines get blurred on states vs. groups causing trouble. We can say to ourselves in an age of increasingly sour demographics for Europe and rapid Islamification of many parts of the Third World that we'll just "hold them at bay" or that "no one in their right minds" would attack us, etc. But we don't know that to be the absolute case. We can't use the model of a secularist Stalinist regimes backdown and gamesmanship, or the desires of the Red Chinese to play "both other tigers" against off one another and watch from a hill----and then extrapolate what the Mullahs might want out of nuclear weapons. Prestige, yes. Have they the same ratio-centric calculators that the Kremlin had? Not too sure.
It can be argued that MAD was not all that "peacemaking", of course. And to a point, I'd agree. Wars of consequence flared up anyhow, sometimes we went overboard as well as the Soviets by proxy, and after a certain point, some have said, "all" you're really doing in the meantime, while you're still at war on the "lighter" more conventional level, is just packing more nuke heat that is superfluous (since you "only" need to hit a few cities here and there to wreck the other guy's stuff and kill a few tens of millions) and is just increasing costs. True enough--on paper. But the notion of "overkill" contained some curious contradictions. If everything beyond, say, a few hundred nukes was just "overkill", then what did it matter about arms reductions at all? You're saving money, yes, but you're not really making the ideological agitations behind all this any better. Unless perhaps you think the act of merely engaging the Soviets in talks helped matters. Perhaps. Personally, I never liked the term for what it tried to imply; that there is no "out" from all this. And even though it was rarely admitted, some argued this stinky situation made for a type of "moral equivalence" between the superpowers, even if by unintentional default, in that this issue was so serious it overrode all other ideological considerations, etc., etc.
But why all the salesmanship from the peaceniks about even minor nuke reductions? Why the hysteria of the peace movement to crowed with any victory over MIRVS and extra subs? As Richard Pipes wrote in Survival is Not Enough, the majority of these demonstrations and untold books and movies about the day after this or that were actually quasi-religious festivals where talismans of posters showing mushroom crowds were used to exorcise the demons of those evil protons and neutrons. Emotion, yes. But while I disagree with the peace movement's ultimate motives, connections, and moral equivalency claims about the old USSR and the US, the more sophisticated among them like Wolfgang Panofsky, (see Harris and Markusen's Nuclear Weapons and the Threat of Nuclear War) pointed out that the policy of MAD had to make SURE you had target redundancy. So you'll never know if the other guy could REALLY get you in a first strike or not. So, the desire for arms reductions was little more than symbolism, but in that little something, WAS a little more recognition of how MAD came to be constructed.
And so forth.
I also agree that the application of MAD is largely gone (though I notice it WAS praised as the fallback position since Star Wars was deemed to be impossible, and thus we had peaceniks saying that only MAD could keep us safe and that any SDI type system would in any case upset this wonderful "balance" of terror that kept the peace, etc).
I think. Though a resurgent Russia and some shenanigans in South America of late might alter that opinion.
However, it worked to a certain degree--regarding the issue of nuclear attack in and of ITSELF. It never promised to end conflict, make daisies come up, or the world a better place. And its salesmen (who were from both the right and left) made sure people understood that they were not assigned to make the world a better place, but rather to make the world less likely, ironically and morbidly, of giving even the whiff of encouragement to Kremlin planners who thought they could pull a fast one. All other arguments had to be placed aside.
Having said that, and finding that the peace movement did have one point to ponder--the issue of proliferation--I find myself in partial agreement on one thing they said sometimes, and why the non-proliferation movement got such strong support: Even IF we can try and negotiate our way through to the Mullahs and other apocalyptic busybodies and guys who just want some prestige, we still need a backup methodology to make SURE that nukes don't go into everybody hands. A planet bristling with arms is not a safe place, even IF it is claimed that "no nation would DARE attack us", and other prayers of hope over the human condition.
Maybe. Maybe not. If we just got through talking about how MAD did not really inculcate "peace" throughout the land at lower levels, I personally think that some theoretical "balance of power" among the lower states, in a world where there is no superpower, but multi-powers and players, we know that we can't depend on the bristling to keep us safe in the long run. One slip up, a Jerusalem or Riyadh hit by terrorists with a merely a big conventional *bang*, and in a world of such arms, someone is apt to make a really nasty point after they've had enough of someone else's shit.
We can't know that to be the case or not in the coming decades. We only know that NOW things are in our favor, when the abilities of most of our adversaries are very limited at best. And with plausible deniability from state sponsors of terror being more plausible every day---a scenario for states that can effortlessly drop material and strong hints to their terror chums doing the wet work for them, we have further erosion of confidence that the "no-one-would-dare-attack-the-mighty-US--they'll-get-creamed-in-a-blink" thinking holds much water in the years to come. The Red Chinese and the Kremlin feared nukes, and we made the most of it. For the secularist societies, death is the end, and there is no more glory. This is the angst for the modern mind. But for those for whom death is the doorway to richer pastures, and their minions thusly believe, we have no confidence that scaring the hell out of them by brandishing doorways of high temperature is the proximate answer.
Talk? Yes. And talk again. But failing that, we need a backup from certain airstrips in Missouri, failing what the talks are supposed to do. We may not have much longer.
Posted by: Sauron the Great | October 22, 2009 12:47 AM
--I find myself in partial agreement on one thing they said sometimes, and why the non-proliferation movement got such strong support: Even IF we can try and negotiate our way through to the Mullahs and other apocalyptic busybodies and guys who just want some prestige, we still need a backup methodology to make SURE that nukes don't go into everybody hands.
Actually, they never really said that. I was just trying to be diplomatic. They merely wanted nukes to go away. Period. There was no other plan from this crowd. But still, having an Iran or some other tinhorn state get them is not the best idea around...
Posted by: Sauron the Great | October 22, 2009 1:11 AM