By the way, feel free to post here if you’d like. All you have to do is register (with email address, username, and create new password).

President Obama didn’t talk about “necessary war” in his speech. He talked about “just war” and redefined the concept to include American-led interventions, like Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Without citing it by name, Obama’s speech effectively justified our Iraq intervention. Compare the following criteria for military intervention from President Obama’s Nobel speech to the justifications for military action against Saddam’s Iraq in President Clinton’s Dec 1998 speech and President Bush’s Oct 2002 speech:

- Clinton 98: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
- Bush 02: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

“To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.

“Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

“And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

“I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

“America’s commitment to global security will never waver.

“First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

“One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons

“But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

“The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma — there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

“For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict.

“It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.”