OSLO He came to Oslo to get a prize for peace, but with trademark audacity, Barack Obama made a moral, pragmatic case for war.

In the reasoned tones of a former professor, the US president sketched an intellectual argument for his use of American power, after accepting the surprise Nobel prize meant to boost his pro-engagement foreign policy.

On paper, the “Obama Doctrine” appears grounded in realism. Stripped of the neo-conservative bombast of the Bush years, it does not however shirk from unilateral force if morally justified.

It was a bold gambit, but Geir Lundestand, head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told AFP Obamas argument was “completely acceptable”.

“He shows us how difficult it is to maintain peace without resorting to war, but he is also mapping out solutions to avoid war.”

But this, like other major Obama speeches, raised new questions about how fine rhetoric translates to action, and if it fits a chaotic world beset by terror groups, regimes going nuclear and shifting geopolitics.Still, history will likely see Obamas Oslo speech as a watershed in his presidency, for posing the question is war, for all its horror, ever justified?

“Part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly,” Obama said at Oslo City Hall.

Obamas answer reflected the painful experience of seeing remains of fallen US soldiers flown home from the battlefield, and of ordering 30,000 more troops to the Afghan war, some of whom he said would kill or be killed.

“You have to give Obama real credit he spoke honestly, as a president with two wars on the go - which inescapably framed his thinking,” said Kristian Berg Harpviken, head of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo.

Obama in Oslo was a different man than in his election campaign, when he was a hero for the anti-war left for opposing the invasion of Iraq.

Yet, by arguing war was sometimes necessary, Obama kept faith with the 2002 speech which catapulted the then state lawmaker from political obscurity “I am not opposed to all wars, I am opposed to dumb wars.”

He paid due respect to the non-violent creed of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, quoting the US civil rights icons phrase “violence never brings permanent peace.”

But in a daring twist, Obama suggested that their conceit was incomplete.

“As a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.

“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.”

“There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

Some of the presidents critics complain that he often tries to stand on both sides of an issue - for instance sending more troops to Afghanistan, but setting a date in 2011 when they must start coming home.

So the apparently unequivocal tone of his arguments on Thursday drew praise.

“There is this perception in very many quarters that peace is equivalent to pacifism and it isnt,” said Reginald Dale, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“You cant just go around being nice to everyone and hope there will be peace, because there wont be.”

Despite its eloquence, Obamas speech raised many questions.

Among them, if going to war is couched in moral terms, does Washington have a monopoly on morality, given that different nations see conflicts in a different light?

Obama might have transformed the US image abroad - for which the Nobel prize was part recognition, but his policies have so far seemed better on paper than in practice, hitting roadblocks in the Middle East and with Iran.

Critics might also argue that while laudable, Obamas approach may have sat more easily in an era when US power was unchallenged.

Now, with armies in Iraq and Afghanistan, US power is compromised, and Washington is more vulnerable to challenges from nations like Iran, China, North Korea or even Russia.

Obama also warned, with an eye on efforts to thwart Irans nuclear drive, that the world must develop alternatives “to violence that are tough enough to actually change behaviour.”

But big questions remain over whether major powers have the will on Iran that Obama seeks.—AFP