What do you think?
Rate this book
The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama
"The man who many considered the peace candidate in the last election was transformed into a war president," writes bestselling author and leading academic Stephen l. Carter in The Violence of Peace , his new book decoding what President Barack Obama's views on war mean for America and its role in military conflict, now and going forward. As America winds down a war in Iraq, ratchets up another in Afghanistan, and continues a global war on terrorism, Carter delves into the implications of the military philosophy Obama has adopted through his first two years in office. Responding to the invitation that Obama himself issued in his Nobel address, Carter uses the tools of the Western tradition of just and unjust war to evaluate Obama's actions and words about military conflict, offering insight into how the president will handle existing and future wars, and into how his judgment will shape America's fate. Carter also explores war as a way to defend others from tyrannical regimes, which Obama has endorsed but not yet tested, and reveals the surprising ways in which some of the tactics Obama has used or authorized are more extreme than those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "Keeping the nation at peace," Carter writes, "often requires battle," and this book lays bare exactly how America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are shaping the way Obama views the country's role in conflict and peace, ultimately determining the fate of the nation.
255 pages, Paperback
First published December 16, 2010
7 people are currently reading
184 people want to read
About the author
Stephen L. Carter
27 books455 followersStephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale where he has taught since 1982. He has published seven critically acclaimed nonfiction books on topics ranging from affirmative action to religion and politics. His first novel, The Emperor of Ocean Park (2002), was an immediate national best seller. His latest novel is New England White (Knopf, 2007). A recipient of the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Literature-Fiction, he lives near New Haven, Connecticut."
Also writes under the pen name A.L Shields.
Also writes under the pen name A.L Shields.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
January 30, 2011
The inner jacket says it all: The man who many considered the peace candidate in the last election was transformed into a war president.
We are a nation at war... more than one war. And regardless of how we feel about each of the Presidents in office at the time of war, what is important is HOW each of those Presidents FEELS about war. Author Stephen Carter examines how Obama has reacted so far about our wars, how he felt before he won the election, and what he said in his acceptance speech after he received the Nobel Peace Prize. The actual speech is included in the book, and it is quite interesting. Obama ran his presidential race as a peace candidate, but became a war president the day he took office. Obama had his 'eyes opened' when he took office, and seems to be trying to defend our country from terror.
Author Carter also explores 'just war' and 'unjust war', Obama's beliefs on how wars can be fought, and defending strangers, imposing sanctions, etc.
I was afraid this book was going to be overly liberal, but was pleasantly surprised that it seemed to be more objective and analytical, than slanted. It seemed to do fair comparisons between Bush and Obama. It was interesting and easy to read.
Favorite Quotes:
"I have chosen the title 'The Violence of Peace' because I believe that President Obama has learned what so many of his predecessors were also brought unwillingly to accept: that America faces real enemies in the world, and keeping the nation at peace, ironically, sometimes requires battle." p xi
"This book isdivided into four parts. In Part I, I examine the President's words and actions to understand what he considers a just cause for war. In Part II, I discuss the means by which he evidently believes war can justly be fought. Part III asks what might be different if Obama means seriously his words about defending strangers. Part IV notes the weaknesses in our national dialogue about war. In presenting my argument, I am less concerned with law than with morality, less worried about what the President thinks legally permissible than what he thinks morally right. If we know what Obama thinks about the present crises, we can better predict what decisions he will make when the next one strikes." p xiii
"A more accurate summary of just war theory would include the following requirements: just cause, last resort, legitimate authority, reasonable hope of success, proportionality, and discrimination. " p 26
"Let us ask, then, why Obama's evident about-face, not only on rendition, but on so many other issues? A friend of mine in a position to know reports that the President and his senior staff were "stunned" by the threats spread before them at their first postelection briefings on national security. No doubt there are things that President Obama and his aides know about the world now that the rest of us do not. If the things that they know are frightening enough that a President who ran for office criticizing renditions and secret prisons now acknowledges their grim necessity, perhaps we should all be scared.
Very scared. " p 53
"Attacking America is morally different from being attacked by America. Let us call this the American Proviso." p 69
"Unlawful combatants should not be presumed to have the same right to wage war as lawful combatants, and that the doctrine of moral equivalence should not apply when one side is, as a matter of morality, plainly in the wrong. If we follow this logic, then every act of war by a side plainly wrong is unjust. Thus, there is a sharp moral difference between a strike by the good guys against the bad guys and a strike by the bad guys against the good guys. The first is morally permissible; the second is not." p 71
"The fact that a man is willing to die for a cause, said Oscar Wilde, does not make the cause right; and the same is true of a man's willingness to take along a few dozen or a few hundred victims as he does it. Opposition to a policy, however fierce, is not evidence that the policy is wrong." p 90
"We like our wars cheap. Cheap in money, yes, but also cheap in blood. Quick, surgical, easy, done by remote: The model for American warfare today is the MQ-1 Predator drone, launched from a ship standing off shore, controlled from a console deep in the bowels of the CIA, stealthily and accurately seeking its target, and then firing off it's two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, each with its antitank warhead, and, if the damage that results is not sufficient, throwing in a couple of Stingers for good measure. The Predator can stay aloft, hunting targets, for as long as forty hours." p 57
"Still, what matters just now for America and the world is not what the 'right' standard is. Assuming that his words about humanitarian intervention were not just words, he will sooner or later--probably sooner---have to make a decision about whether to risk American lives to save the lives of strangers. Perhaps, as one cease fire after another collapses in Darfur, that decision is already upon him." p 129
"A war can be just though all the world condemns it. A war can be unjust though all the world endorses it." p 131
"The Air Force is also developing a smart missile that can be launched from the United States and strike any spot on the face of the planet in less than an hour. The military is developing directed energy weapons, the stuff of science fiction, powerful lasers and microwaves able to destroy missiles, wreck electronic systems, or even kill the enemy from a distance with what amounts to a death ray---or, at the proper settings, to incapacitate people without killing them.
...
We are developing smarter combat robots, better systems to indicate to commanders the position in realtime of every soldier on the battlefield and the condition of his weapons, and camouflage so advanced that it will render the wearer invisible to most detection systems. Future warfare will feature an ever greater use of 'smart' weaponry: smart bullets that can be guided to the target the way we now guide missiles, for instance, or smart dust, wireless sensors, each the size of the grain of sand or smaller, to transmit signals, track the enemy, and, potentially, guide those smart bullets." p 149
" Sanctions involve violence and the threat of violence. They apply force against violators---sometimes deadly force. And their entire purpose is to keep a particular country from receiving products for which it is willing and able to pay---including, sometimes, products that represent necessities." p 147
"Sanctions, in short, are difficult to achieve, nearly impossible to enforce, and ineffective over the long run. They inflict suffering on another country's people instead of its rulers, typically targeting those who are already worst off: in other words, sanctions are cruel. No sanctions have ever stopped a genocide. " p 156
"And how will we respond, should this President or the next one ask us to make a great sacrifice on behalf of strangers? I hope that we would answer with the generosity of spirit that has helped build America into the greatest nation on earth. But I worry. Our preference for the comfortable life is understandably great; our knowledge of the suffering of others is often thin. We should be modest about what our military power can do, but we should never fall into the cynical trap of imagining that it can do nothing. Around the world, tyrants slaughter their people. We persuade ourselves that some other form of confrontation---diplomacy, jayboning, sanctions---will do all that is practical, and perhaps all that is neccesary, to relieve their suffering. We may not be right, but at least we are happy." p 168
"The office of the Presidency, once assumed, transforms the outlook of its holder. What had seemed frivolous becomes frightening. What had seemed nonsense becomes necessary. The world turns out to be a dangerous place after all. The United States turns out to have actual enemies, people who wish the nation harm, and very few of them are moved by personal loathing for any particular resident of the White House. It is invariably saddening, wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, to look with new eyes at things upon which you have expended your own powers of adjustment. We tend to imagine that the rest of the world views us through the lens of our domestic politics. This is absurd. When you step aside from partisanship, and examine the world afresh, you discover the simple truth that there are people who hate us. Not Bush. Not the Iraq War. Us. America." p 173
"All through American history, when one conflict has ended, the next tidal wave of violence has turned out to be just beyond the horizon. The time to figure out what is worth fighting for is before the flood washes over us." p 189
We are a nation at war... more than one war. And regardless of how we feel about each of the Presidents in office at the time of war, what is important is HOW each of those Presidents FEELS about war. Author Stephen Carter examines how Obama has reacted so far about our wars, how he felt before he won the election, and what he said in his acceptance speech after he received the Nobel Peace Prize. The actual speech is included in the book, and it is quite interesting. Obama ran his presidential race as a peace candidate, but became a war president the day he took office. Obama had his 'eyes opened' when he took office, and seems to be trying to defend our country from terror.
Author Carter also explores 'just war' and 'unjust war', Obama's beliefs on how wars can be fought, and defending strangers, imposing sanctions, etc.
I was afraid this book was going to be overly liberal, but was pleasantly surprised that it seemed to be more objective and analytical, than slanted. It seemed to do fair comparisons between Bush and Obama. It was interesting and easy to read.
Favorite Quotes:
"I have chosen the title 'The Violence of Peace' because I believe that President Obama has learned what so many of his predecessors were also brought unwillingly to accept: that America faces real enemies in the world, and keeping the nation at peace, ironically, sometimes requires battle." p xi
"This book isdivided into four parts. In Part I, I examine the President's words and actions to understand what he considers a just cause for war. In Part II, I discuss the means by which he evidently believes war can justly be fought. Part III asks what might be different if Obama means seriously his words about defending strangers. Part IV notes the weaknesses in our national dialogue about war. In presenting my argument, I am less concerned with law than with morality, less worried about what the President thinks legally permissible than what he thinks morally right. If we know what Obama thinks about the present crises, we can better predict what decisions he will make when the next one strikes." p xiii
"A more accurate summary of just war theory would include the following requirements: just cause, last resort, legitimate authority, reasonable hope of success, proportionality, and discrimination. " p 26
"Let us ask, then, why Obama's evident about-face, not only on rendition, but on so many other issues? A friend of mine in a position to know reports that the President and his senior staff were "stunned" by the threats spread before them at their first postelection briefings on national security. No doubt there are things that President Obama and his aides know about the world now that the rest of us do not. If the things that they know are frightening enough that a President who ran for office criticizing renditions and secret prisons now acknowledges their grim necessity, perhaps we should all be scared.
Very scared. " p 53
"Attacking America is morally different from being attacked by America. Let us call this the American Proviso." p 69
"Unlawful combatants should not be presumed to have the same right to wage war as lawful combatants, and that the doctrine of moral equivalence should not apply when one side is, as a matter of morality, plainly in the wrong. If we follow this logic, then every act of war by a side plainly wrong is unjust. Thus, there is a sharp moral difference between a strike by the good guys against the bad guys and a strike by the bad guys against the good guys. The first is morally permissible; the second is not." p 71
"The fact that a man is willing to die for a cause, said Oscar Wilde, does not make the cause right; and the same is true of a man's willingness to take along a few dozen or a few hundred victims as he does it. Opposition to a policy, however fierce, is not evidence that the policy is wrong." p 90
"We like our wars cheap. Cheap in money, yes, but also cheap in blood. Quick, surgical, easy, done by remote: The model for American warfare today is the MQ-1 Predator drone, launched from a ship standing off shore, controlled from a console deep in the bowels of the CIA, stealthily and accurately seeking its target, and then firing off it's two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, each with its antitank warhead, and, if the damage that results is not sufficient, throwing in a couple of Stingers for good measure. The Predator can stay aloft, hunting targets, for as long as forty hours." p 57
"Still, what matters just now for America and the world is not what the 'right' standard is. Assuming that his words about humanitarian intervention were not just words, he will sooner or later--probably sooner---have to make a decision about whether to risk American lives to save the lives of strangers. Perhaps, as one cease fire after another collapses in Darfur, that decision is already upon him." p 129
"A war can be just though all the world condemns it. A war can be unjust though all the world endorses it." p 131
"The Air Force is also developing a smart missile that can be launched from the United States and strike any spot on the face of the planet in less than an hour. The military is developing directed energy weapons, the stuff of science fiction, powerful lasers and microwaves able to destroy missiles, wreck electronic systems, or even kill the enemy from a distance with what amounts to a death ray---or, at the proper settings, to incapacitate people without killing them.
...
We are developing smarter combat robots, better systems to indicate to commanders the position in realtime of every soldier on the battlefield and the condition of his weapons, and camouflage so advanced that it will render the wearer invisible to most detection systems. Future warfare will feature an ever greater use of 'smart' weaponry: smart bullets that can be guided to the target the way we now guide missiles, for instance, or smart dust, wireless sensors, each the size of the grain of sand or smaller, to transmit signals, track the enemy, and, potentially, guide those smart bullets." p 149
" Sanctions involve violence and the threat of violence. They apply force against violators---sometimes deadly force. And their entire purpose is to keep a particular country from receiving products for which it is willing and able to pay---including, sometimes, products that represent necessities." p 147
"Sanctions, in short, are difficult to achieve, nearly impossible to enforce, and ineffective over the long run. They inflict suffering on another country's people instead of its rulers, typically targeting those who are already worst off: in other words, sanctions are cruel. No sanctions have ever stopped a genocide. " p 156
"And how will we respond, should this President or the next one ask us to make a great sacrifice on behalf of strangers? I hope that we would answer with the generosity of spirit that has helped build America into the greatest nation on earth. But I worry. Our preference for the comfortable life is understandably great; our knowledge of the suffering of others is often thin. We should be modest about what our military power can do, but we should never fall into the cynical trap of imagining that it can do nothing. Around the world, tyrants slaughter their people. We persuade ourselves that some other form of confrontation---diplomacy, jayboning, sanctions---will do all that is practical, and perhaps all that is neccesary, to relieve their suffering. We may not be right, but at least we are happy." p 168
"The office of the Presidency, once assumed, transforms the outlook of its holder. What had seemed frivolous becomes frightening. What had seemed nonsense becomes necessary. The world turns out to be a dangerous place after all. The United States turns out to have actual enemies, people who wish the nation harm, and very few of them are moved by personal loathing for any particular resident of the White House. It is invariably saddening, wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, to look with new eyes at things upon which you have expended your own powers of adjustment. We tend to imagine that the rest of the world views us through the lens of our domestic politics. This is absurd. When you step aside from partisanship, and examine the world afresh, you discover the simple truth that there are people who hate us. Not Bush. Not the Iraq War. Us. America." p 173
"All through American history, when one conflict has ended, the next tidal wave of violence has turned out to be just beyond the horizon. The time to figure out what is worth fighting for is before the flood washes over us." p 189
May 28, 2018
Carter's examination of President Obama's view of war, just war, and related topics, is a tour-de-force in terms of an excellent intellectual/philosophical/political look at this complicated issue. Few really analyze issues the way Carter does. Nor are as many as intellectually honest. The surprising realization, one I admit I'd not fully realized, was how many similarities there were between Obama and Bush, not on tactics, but on theory. He makes a very strong case that, contra-Obama, both Iraq and Afghanistan were "wars of choice," and while you might argue Iraq was a "bad" choice while Afghanistan a "good" one, it's awfully hard to argue, when you dig into it, that "necessity" was really what played into it.
Like many of Carter's books, it's more a super-op-ed, and as such has a shelf-life in terms of events catching up with it. Obama is no longer in office, and many developments happened even in the Obama Administration in subsequent years that invalidates some of his analysis. But nonetheless his sensitive and thoughtful approach to the material, both philosophical and political, makes it a worthwhile read in any event for people interested in the topics he discusses.
That and Carter is just so easy and enjoyable to read, there's no good reason not to read it if you're even remotely interested.
Like many of Carter's books, it's more a super-op-ed, and as such has a shelf-life in terms of events catching up with it. Obama is no longer in office, and many developments happened even in the Obama Administration in subsequent years that invalidates some of his analysis. But nonetheless his sensitive and thoughtful approach to the material, both philosophical and political, makes it a worthwhile read in any event for people interested in the topics he discusses.
That and Carter is just so easy and enjoyable to read, there's no good reason not to read it if you're even remotely interested.
October 11, 2011
I enjoyed this book quite a bit. I was expecting another rehash of our nation's wars, but instead got a philosophical examination of the role of the President and the justness and unjustness of our national war policies.
Carter does a fine job in cutting aside the politics. He notes where Bush and Obama are similar and talks about the conundrums they face. Hard partisans will be angered to see them compared so similarly, but if you are interested in the distinctions between what the country is doing and what it should be doing, you will find it interesting.
Carter talks about pacifism, what is just and what is unjust and touches on how we think about violence. His harshest criticisms are leveled at the media. He doesn't view them as biased but more incompetent. I was moved when he took the time to note the Medal of Honor recipients of the the past decade.
A note on Stephen Carter, he is a lawyer, litfic novelist and it seems a thoughtful analyst of the ethics of war. Bravo!
Carter does a fine job in cutting aside the politics. He notes where Bush and Obama are similar and talks about the conundrums they face. Hard partisans will be angered to see them compared so similarly, but if you are interested in the distinctions between what the country is doing and what it should be doing, you will find it interesting.
Carter talks about pacifism, what is just and what is unjust and touches on how we think about violence. His harshest criticisms are leveled at the media. He doesn't view them as biased but more incompetent. I was moved when he took the time to note the Medal of Honor recipients of the the past decade.
A note on Stephen Carter, he is a lawyer, litfic novelist and it seems a thoughtful analyst of the ethics of war. Bravo!
May 16, 2012
When Stephen L. Carter writes, every word matters.
The Violence of Peace dissects President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to determine his theory of the morality of war and, by extension, his views as compared to his predecessors. Carter also compares the words and actions of President Obama to the words of Senator Obama. While reading this book, I could not help but wonder how the words and actions of presidential candidate Mitt Romney would change, if he were elected.
This book will make you think—beyond bumper-sticker slogans and soundbite opinions—about why and when we should go to war and America’s role as the sole military superpower.
A well-written and important book, I would need to read it more than once to pick up every nuance.
Now, my only wish is to attend Professor Carter’s Yale Law School class for a semester.
I imagine it is a fascinating experience.
The Violence of Peace dissects President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to determine his theory of the morality of war and, by extension, his views as compared to his predecessors. Carter also compares the words and actions of President Obama to the words of Senator Obama. While reading this book, I could not help but wonder how the words and actions of presidential candidate Mitt Romney would change, if he were elected.
This book will make you think—beyond bumper-sticker slogans and soundbite opinions—about why and when we should go to war and America’s role as the sole military superpower.
A well-written and important book, I would need to read it more than once to pick up every nuance.
Now, my only wish is to attend Professor Carter’s Yale Law School class for a semester.
I imagine it is a fascinating experience.
October 3, 2013
This is a good book about as the title says: America's Wars in the Age of Obama. Stephen L. Carter is a Yale law professor known for his books about religion and the public square and his suspense novels about old money black folk (Ocean's Park is his best). In this book he uses Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech to think about America and the just war theory. He argues that there is not much difference between Bush and Obama in theory (perhaps just in prudence).
Others will do a better job of detailing the arguments, but this is a good read in light of Syria. Carter argues that traditional just war theory (among many other things) argues that intentions must be just. And helping those in need with no "reward" is the most just (all other things being equal).
Others will do a better job of detailing the arguments, but this is a good read in light of Syria. Carter argues that traditional just war theory (among many other things) argues that intentions must be just. And helping those in need with no "reward" is the most just (all other things being equal).
February 21, 2011
A thoughtful and important book about President Obama's view of war as gleaned from his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech and other documents. Mr. Carter speaks in depth about the Just War Tradition. It is a meditation about the morality of war. He compellingly tells that the country has voted for 'peace presidents' but rarely has that person actually be able to bring peace. Lincoln for one was a man who people voted for to avoid war, just for example.
He is a pro Obama person who is able to explain how in fact a peace candidate comes to being a war time president. I learned a lot of things I never knew before.
He is a pro Obama person who is able to explain how in fact a peace candidate comes to being a war time president. I learned a lot of things I never knew before.
May 17, 2011
Carter's book raised interesting questions about war and Obama's conduct of it, but I found it mostly dry and repetitive, also somewhat contradictory. He points out the uncontrollability of war in spite of treaties and Conventions and other attempts to provide rules for initiating and waging it. He finds war a negative activity but also necessary for defense of one's country, and not only that, to defend wronged populations of other countries. He finds it a good thing that the U.S. spends billions of $$ on sophisticated armaments and has a whole section describing same, which only a military buff could love.
I read it for a book group, probably wouldn't have considered it otherwise.
I read it for a book group, probably wouldn't have considered it otherwise.
Want to read
September 19, 2011Stanford 2012 Freshman book list.Theme for all three books is War Ethics. The class of 2015 will read:
'March' by Geraldine Brooks, fiction. About the father of the March women from Little Women
'The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama' by Stephen L. Carter, non-fiction.
'One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer' by Nathaniel Fick, non-fiction. memoir of a marine who served in Afghanistan right after 9/11, and also served in Iraq in 2003
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/ju...
'March' by Geraldine Brooks, fiction. About the father of the March women from Little Women
'The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama' by Stephen L. Carter, non-fiction.
'One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer' by Nathaniel Fick, non-fiction. memoir of a marine who served in Afghanistan right after 9/11, and also served in Iraq in 2003
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/ju...
August 24, 2011
Carter examines the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of the War against Terror, in light of the Catholic just war tradition. His analysis and comments are objective, insightful and most importantly, honest. This is one of the best discussions of just war theory I have seen, and it is the more forceful for considering torture, rendering, the question of who is a legitimate combatant, and other controversial and seldom analyzed but relevant issues.
March 24, 2019
Very academic, which I'm not used to. Clear, concise and constructive criticism throughout the book that wasn't very bumper-slogany. The book tested my beliefs about the morality (not legality) of taking life. I think it's solidified my desire to work as a reporter to report on different aspects of war.
May 14, 2011
This book helped me puzzle through Obama's foreign policy. Although it certainly enlightened me concerning his stance on war and conflict, I do not change my stance against violence and war. This is a thoughtful analysis and good read for anyone who is interested in U.S. foreign policy in general and Obama's foreign policy specifically.
October 6, 2012
I wasn't a fan of the conversational tone of this book. However, the subject matter was really great. The comparisons between Bush and Obama were different from what I've read and heard before reading this. I also enjoyed delving into the history of just war theory and the moral justification America uses when going to war.
Interesting book, strange writing style.
Interesting book, strange writing style.
October 2, 2012
A truly important book. Carter talks us through the ethics of war as they relate to the Obama Administration. He even impressively refrains from being completely one-sided. It's under $2 for the e-book on Amazon and less than 300 pages. There's really no reason NOT to read this.
August 18, 2016
Carter examines President Obama's transformation from a Senator of peace to a President of war. He compares Pres. Obama's perspectives on war to Sen. Obama, Pres. Bush, and the just war tradition. Carter was objective and insightful.
September 18, 2011
Very insightful. Very well written book that Mr. Carter lays out very well.
Great information for those people like myself who like to be highly informed about what is going in our government.
Great information for those people like myself who like to be highly informed about what is going in our government.
September 16, 2012
Thought provoking look at U.S. war policy through the lens of just war theory. I couldn't put it down!
March 5, 2013
A must read!
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews