Peace, what is it good for?

Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.

That statement was a buzz on the Web today and was the Atlantic’s Tweet of the day. I did a rough search for the source of that info but couldn’t find it supported by any fact from a government agency or credible newsroom. Whether it’s an accurate statement or not isn’t really the point -and it probably is true if it’s getting that much play on the Internet, right? – but the fact remains that our Nobel Peace prize winning president is juggling two wars while undertaking another fight in the Middle East.

I’m not saying Obama wasn’t deserving of the honor. I’m not on the committee, so my opinion doesn’t really matter. But, if nothing else, the prize was an indication of just how much the international community is looking for an American leader who can dial back the military force often seen as a plague by the international community.

Two things primarily swayed me towards Obama during his campaign. First, I thought he could give America a much needed dose of levelheadedness with an understanding that the world is more than just the red, white and blue. I thought he had a vision for the future that understood the importance of investing in long-term planning while not isolating America from the rest of the world. Second, I also leaned towards Obama because I felt he was the best candidate to help America tap into a more soft power approach to international affairs and would be the most likely to end the two wars. I didn’t honestly think he would end the wars in his first term, but I thought he was the most likely to do so if it was at all possible.

Two years into his presidency and we have even more troops in the Middle East. That doesn’t surprise me, but unfortunately the economy took center stage just before the 2008 election and bringing our troops back home was knocked down several spots on the agenda.

I’m against war. Not only do I oppose violence as a means for change but I also believe it flies in direct opposition to the kind of society we say we are trying to create. We teach our kids to abstain from hitting (at least some do), we teach respect for all humans, we love simple saying such as “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar,” and continue to play the Christian card, while at the same time we use guns and missiles as our primary tools in pretty much all that we do.

Obviously me arguing against war is nothing new. Debates have been raged on the ethics of just war and I don’t expect a simple blog post to shed any new light on the matter. But we live in a world of oxymorons, with none bigger than the use of violence to achieve peace.

What’s happening in Libya is horrible and I can’t blame anyone for thinking the U.S., and its allies, should intervene in an effort to stop violence against innocent victims seeking a better way of life. But the American way is often to go in the opposite direction of what we want to achieve. We give more money to the rich because we believe it will help the poor. We increase our debt in an effort to achieve firmer financial footing. And we shoot people in order to make the word safer from violence.

But that’s the way the world works I suppose, a world in which we praise people as agents of peace who at the same time drop bombs.