Obama is in Oslo today, and accepted his Nobel Peace Prize. In what must certainly just burn the committee that awarded it to him, he spent much of his speech defending war.

President Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners with humble words Thursday, acknowledging his own few accomplishments while delivering a robust defense of war and promising to use the prestigious prize to “reach for the world that ought to be.”

A wartime president honored for peace, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president in 90 years and the third ever to win the prize – some say prematurely. In this damp, chilly Nordic capital to pick it up, he and his wife, Michelle, whirled through a day filled with Nobel pomp and ceremony.

And yet Obama was staying here only about 24 hours and skipping the traditional second day of festivities. This miffed some in Norway but reflects a White House that sees little value in extra pictures of the president, his poll numbers dropping at home, taking an overseas victory lap while thousands of U.S. troops prepare to go off to war and millions of Americans remain jobless.

Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war’s use and prevention. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks – at about 4,000 words – were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address.

In them, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that “I face the world as it is” and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States.

“A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms,” Obama said. “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.”

The president laid out the circumstances where war is justified – in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation and on humanitarian grounds, such as when civilians are slaughtered by their own government or a civil war threatens to engulf an entire region.

“The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it,” he said.

He also spoke bluntly of the cost of war, saying of the Afghanistan buildup he just ordered that “some will kill, some will be killed.”

“No matter how justified, war promises human tragedy,” he said.

He also emphasized alternatives to violence, stressing the importance of both diplomatic outreach and sanctions with teeth to confront nations such as Iran or North Korea that defy international demands to halt their nuclear programs or those such as Sudan, Congo or Burma that brutalize their citizens.

Obama deserves two thumbs up for his remarks defending war. But the irony in defending war while you accept a prize for peace is just too delicious to not point out.

Unfortunately, much though I agree with Obama’s remarks on the necessity of war, they ring shallow for me. If he ends up following through on his promise of withdrawal in 2011, then no amount of pretty words will cover up the fact that he’s failed his military and his country. He can’t have the best of both worlds. He’s not Hannah Montana. It’s nice to hear him talk like a hawk, but if his actions don’t back it up, then he might as well appease the Nobel committee.

Ed Morrissey notes that, for perhaps the first time in his presidency, Obama showed a humble streak. He actually praised America, and tried to play down his award. Norway may feel snubbed over his reaction to the traditional peace prize festivities, but it seems rather obvious. Obama must have been embarassed by receiving this award. He was honored, yes, and I don’t doubt that he initially felt that he deserved it. But the backlash has been greater than the honor of the award, and he’s got to feel like this did him more harm than good. And so, he’s trying to distance himself from the award subtly (and not doing a very good job of it). If he was really felt he was all that undeserving, then he could’ve always just graciously declined. But he didn’t. He accepted the award and had to face the backlash. Public perception of his Nobel has been mostly negative, and so he tries to appease the Nobel committee while simultaneously appearing like he didn’t really want it.

In a way, it’s just like his strategy for Afghanistan, isn’t it?