Congratulations to President Obama. While fully 10% of all individual award winners have been citizens of the United States, making us a fairly common recipient country for this award, a seated President has only been given the award three times (Wilson as the key broker at Versailles in 1919 and Teddy Roosevelt for his work in concluding the Russo-Japanes war in 1904/05).

A list of winners.


In large part, I agree with Don Corleone's analysis. As Horetore rightly notes, the award can be and has been awarded based on future expectations. The Nobel Committee undoubtedly views the Obama administration atttitude as being so fundamentally different from that of his immediate predecessor -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's draw-down in Iraq, shift away from missile defense in favor of easing tensions with the Russians, the gradual return of the "War on Terror" towards a "law enforcement" approach, his willingness to utilize the UN as a forum for peace efforts and the implication that unilateral action will be less likely, and the fact that he made no overtures/threats/hints that the US would use force in Honduras -- that they wish to reward and encourage such behavior.

Upcoming decisions facing the Obama administration include:

1. deciding whether to significantly ramp up troop involvement in Afghanistan or begin a drawn-down/withdrawal there as well (I deem it likely that most of the committee are of the view that Afghanistan will not stabilize and that the presence of NATO troops only begets a higher level of violence for no difference in end-result and that the presence of U.S. forces in Pakistan is engendering a civil war with the Pashtun opposing the current regime and the U.S., and that a withdrawal will allow Pakistan to return to normal, thus minimizing the chance of a nuclear exchange.)

2. deciding whether to increase pressure on the Conservative government in Israel to stop its constant resort to violence in coping with the Palestinians and other neighbors (I deem it likely that the committee views Israel's current efforts as too aggressive by half and that Israel's refusal to deal with Hamas on a political level is the biggest stumbling block preventing an agreement).

3. deciding what to do with the detainees at Guantanemo Bay and whether they should be released, put under the aegis of civilian rather than military justice, or placed in the U.S. Federal prison population [this is part of the shift in forcus away from "warring" against terrorism -- which is what the terrorists want for recruiting purposes -- toward "policing" the crimes that individual terrorists commit while strengthening passive barriers to terrorist success and working politically to minimize the causes of such extremism].

All three such decisions involve Obama facing significant domestic opposition should he choose the approach which I view is the preferred choice of those on the committee. In addition to rewarding Obama for what he has already done differently, the Prize also serves to reinforce and to provide evidence of political support for his continuing the efforts in this vein. Given the cachet of the Nobel Prize, it DOES exert some political influence and this is a fairly clear means of forwarding the coimmittee's preferred agenda.


In addition, Obama is very much not George W. Bush. Given the oft-expressed opinions most of Europe West of the Elbe held for "Dubya," that fact alone may have been enough to prompt the committee's actions.

Good read, although I'd disagree with the merits one must possess to receive the award.

Why?

If the prize isn't going to push an agenda, if it shouldn't try changing the world, then what's the point of having it?

I mean, we already have His Majesty the King's lifetime achievement medal, what would we need a peace prize for?

Why?
Ok, achievement is not necessary to get the price: See Kissinger and Le Duc To for peace in Vietnam just before North finished the job in taking Saigon, or the late Ahtisaari for his “negotiation” in the Kosovo affairs. There is no need for success.

“if not for that imbecile, naive fool of Gorbachev, USSR would have largely remained.” Well, Eltsin and his coup gave the coup de grace.

Probably the only thing Eltsin succeeded, and to sell Russia to the apparatchiks of course…

Hasn't it been the Republican presidents of late that have actually accomplished all the nuclear disarming treaties?

CR

I'd rather have it awarded based on results.

Totally awesome.

All the pros and cons beside, I think everyone agrees that this NPP started an interessting discussion about Obama and the peace/war process. And in that specific sense the prize is already an success. People are talking/discussing peace and that is only a good thing.

Just wait until we start bashing eachother's heads in.

I agree with Ice though, the reward should be given for achieving a certain result, and as I have shown, even Obama shares that view...