I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.
The committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this
effect", Lundestad told the Associated Press, though he fell short of calling
the award a mistake.[145] "In hindsight, we could say that the argument of
giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct", Lundestad wrote.
Nothing in the criteria for the handing out the prize has anything about the reception having any sort of specific character, good or bad. This is all of the conditions for the award:
> Fraternity between nations; abolition or reduction of standing armies; and the holding and promotion of peace congresses
So every year they look at candidates and what they've done within those things, then make an judgement.
> On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
It wasn't all inherited conflicts. He also oversaw the 2011 intervention in Libya, the 2014 involvement in Syria, and the 2014 re-intervention in Iraq after having withdrawn troops in 2011.
[1]: NYT: https://archive.is/diXo5
It's okay if a non-voting member of the Nobel org 'regrets' other peoples' decision because Obama didn't immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and pardon Bin Laden. Maybe he can take some solace in the fact that he let Putin take Crimea and shoot down MH17, trading peace in 2014 for war in 2022.
Of course it’s now led to Trump having a Peace Prize obsession, which sis not a bad thing.