President Obama’s Nobel speech is winning praise from all quarters, and rightfully so. The speech was magnificent, beautiful in places and driven by a message challenging international diplomats and intellectuals to unite their ideals with a recognition of the world as it is.

The president also, in the midst of controversy over why he received the Nobel Prize and concern that he would again offer apologies for US leadership in world affairs, delivered a robust – yet not arrogant – endorsement of American power as a catalyst of peace and human advancement.

Capturing what was essentially the theme of the speech, President Obama said, “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.”

He issued a call to embrace reality: “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth:  We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

And he likely shocked a few of the assembled guests with this bracing shot of authority: “I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.” He also provided a chaser to smooth the rough edges: “Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.”

In one of the most memorable sections of the speech, the president made a full-throated defense of military power – even American military power – as a sometimes-necessary counterweight to greater evils in the world:

I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
 
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
 
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

The president balanced this martial rhetoric with an equally eloquent acknowledgment of the horror of war:

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.  And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

On the topic closest to his heart – nuclear proliferation – President Obama cautioned world leaders not to be wooed by the false security of endless, toothless negotiation:

[I]t 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.

And I got a real Tony Blair vibe from his recitation of the need for action to confront human tragedy:

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.

Lest his remarks be considered a total capitulation to reality, President Obama also heralded the noble task of striving toward ideals amidst the disappointment that confronts us every day. He urged “the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.”

In a few places, the president’s rhetoric fell flat. His trademark self-referential language made its way into the speech: “As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.”

And a couple metaphors were clunky: “Furthermore, America – in fact, no nation – can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.” [Emphasis mine.]

Here he starts off brilliantly, but ends with a ham-handed, new age-y metaphor: “I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.”

But these instances were so jarring in part because the rest of the speech was so good. It’s weaselly to nitpick a speech that includes passages like this:

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school — because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.

If you don’t get a bit of a tingle from that first line, we can’t be friends.

What’s perhaps most interesting about this speech is that it could have been delivered by a president of either party – though few could have delivered it so well. Strip away references to the setting and years from now scholars might wonder which president offered this bold defense of action shot through with an uplifting call to idealism.

Americans should be proud of what President Obama accomplished in Oslo, and hopeful that the imaginative realist we saw this week continues to make himself heard in the future.