Katie Couric's Notebook: Nobel Prize Speech

By: Katie Couric
Topics: Katie Couric's Notebook

When President Obama accepted the Peace Prize in Oslo this morning, his 35-minute speech probably wasn't quite what the Committee had in mind.

Rather than slam the Bush Administration or extol the virtues of pacifism, he defended the concept of a "just war."

Perhaps he had to. After all, the U.S. is fighting on two fronts, and the president just ordered 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan.

Yet his speech seemed like more than a political calculation. Some pundits have already dubbed it the "Obama Doctrine," a window into his foreign policy views.

While military action should be a last resort, he said, understanding its necessity "is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

The president doesn't take the use of force lightly.

But justifying war while winning a Nobel Peace Prize is a dichotomy that captures the complicated world he and we inhabit.

That's a page from my notebook.

I'm Katie Couric, CBS News.

11 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 11 Comments


by ierv December 16, 2009 11:06 PM EST: I strongly suggest you go to **************. c o m , where i have met many single sugar beauties and rich men, who love chatting sports. online .. .; Reply to this comment


by shylove2 December 14, 2009 6:15 PM EST: It was a defense of war as a necessary resort not so much a last resort if you are always going to have evil in the world and evil can only be opposed by evil. So a necesary evil is necessary to defeat evil. We have seen however that evil seems to pop up whenever some countrys wants to go to war. Saddam was a great ally and friend to use against Iran until he became as bad as Hitler when he felt Kuwait was directionally drilling under his border. The freedom fighters were brave terrorists against a secular feminist friendly pro-soviet regime and useful in Carter/Brzezinski's Vietnam lesson for the Soviet Union until they went rogue and now we have stepped into our own trap and declared it a necessary war we designed for ourselves long ago. History is full of necessary wars and in fact every one of them has been from someone's point of view. We might mention Martin Luther King's statement, however, that we don't have a choice between violence and non-violence but between non-violence and noe-existence if we continue as a species with our warlike ways. So Obama might have said it was time for us to get out of an war that was for untrue reasons rather than linger around until we feel ready to leave. He could have said we have visited too much suffering on Afghanistan with our proxy war against the Soviet Union and they weill have to fix it because we don't have a prayer of chance but we will aid them to rebuild when they have figured it out. He could have mentioned how one war usually sets the stage for the next and that it is a false profit but he didn't so I have to wonder if he is getting ready to take on one of the other axis of evil when he gets a chance or whether that is for a future administration. It still looks too much like Might Makes Right as far as we are concerned.; Reply to this comment


by petersemkiw December 14, 2009 5:55 PM EST: All we need is love, love is all we need.; Reply to this comment


by casey_abbott December 13, 2009 12:06 PM EST: If you're gonna marry someone you might as well marry your best friend.; Reply to this comment


by govmess December 11, 2009 11:11 PM EST: Hey Katie, the world is no more complicated today than it was 10 or even 20 years ago. As long as there are people and nations; rulers and dictators it will be complicated. The heart of mankind is deparately evil, always has been, always will be. Obama has no more pressure or problems than any other previous president. The only difference is we had a kid in the office instead of a man and he is bringing on his own problems because of his lack of real life experience. What people in this country need to start doing is reading the online newspapers from countries other than the US and you will get the real news and how they really feel about the whimp we have in office. They love his bowing and love to capture photo ops and then they laugh at him behind his back.; Reply to this comment


by petersemkiw December 11, 2009 8:40 PM EST: It's Complicated.; Reply to this comment


by 2012EOD December 11, 2009 3:56 PM EST: I agree Katie, this is the first speech he did not blame Bush. Maybe he is now seeing the real world.; Reply to this comment


by davidbthelen December 11, 2009 12:46 PM EST: According to Wikipedia, the following is stated. In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron from one quantum state to another within an atom. It appears to be discontinuous; the electron "jumps" from one energy level to another very quickly, after existing briefly in a state of superposition. The time this takes relates to the pressure broadening of spectral lines. The phenomenon contradicts classical theories, which expect energy levels to be continuous.
Do certain emotions, such as hate, behave in quantum leaps in individuals or groups of people? This could explain why ptsd exists, for example. Perhaps this explains why it takes a whole generation to ?grow? before healthy relationships can be developed by old foes. In wars with countries such as Vietnam, Germany and Japan, it took enough time for the children of a country to grow up without a war. They then develop healthy relationships as adults (i.e. become full trading partners) with outside countries. Children of a country or region do grow up and take control of their governments. They are raised on a lower quantum level of hate or other negative emotions.
If this concept is true, then it will take a whole generation of Afghans, Palestinians and others to grow without war; for these people to be raised on a lower quantum level of hate for peace to happen. In other words, we need a long-term foreign policy that has precision war campaigns that will not affect the younger ?healthy? generation of a region. In addition, we need to effectively expand long-term diplomacy and economies for the ?healthy? families of these younger generations growing up today in various parts of the World.
We need to effectively go after the Cancer without touching the new ?healthy? living cells of a region. We need to make sure the healthy new cells are kept healthy in the long run.; Reply to this comment


by casey_abbott December 11, 2009 9:38 AM EST: Anyone who wants to get out of combat isn't really crazy.; Reply to this comment


by Nikos_Retsos December 10, 2009 8:54 PM EST: Thank you, Katie, for your insightful view about Obama. But using
the word "dichotomy" is actually nicer than he deserves. I use the
word "hypocrisy" which is more representative to Obama's rhetoric and actions in an earlier comment at CBS today. But I believe you would like the detailed Obama hypocrisy story in my blog in today's British newspaper The Telegraph titled: AWARDED! OBAMA'S NOBEL PIECE
PRIZE OF SHAME! I bet you would like it, as any peace-loving person would. Nikos Retsos, retired professor http://my.telegraph.co.uk/retsos_nikos/blog/2009/12/10/awarded_____obamas__nobel__piece__prize__of__shame_; Reply to this comment