I was under the impression it was given to Obama for being the first non-white male president of the US, something many consider Nobel-worthy in and of itself.
That said, he could have done a better job living up to it.
That said, he could have done a better job living up to it.
That being said - a few drone strikes is a lot more peaceful than starting two big wars like his predecessor did.
Personally, i think we should never underestimate how petty people in power can be: I think the committee handing out the prize were like star-struck teenage girls and wanted to meet Obama.
Surely it is possible to imagine more of them.
> An optional war in Libya.
With a UN mandate, almost completely fought by the Europeans.
> Continuing a failed war in Afghanistan. However what he is doing is quite different from starting a war in Afghanistan.
Here you might have a point.
> Continuing to operate Gitmo.
Congress did that.
> Continuing and expanding the spying on US citizens and others.
This is terrible.
> If anything, Obama has expanded warfare to anyplace in the world that can't stop drones. Peaceful isn't an adjective that should be used in conjunction with this President.
Relatively peaceful compared to W. That is what I said, and I think it is accurate.
He's not a political incompetent. He could take the teeth out of it, unless congress is the commander in chief now.
That may have been the stated reason, but I doubt it was the real reason. Would a white male president have received the Nobel for that? Doubt it.
I think many people interpreted it as being awarded to Obama for having busted the glass ceiling, even if the Nobel committee went with a more pedestrian official explanation.