When Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, many questioned whether he deserved the international accolade while being involved in two separate, large-scale military actions. Now that he has brought America into a third war, Obama is forced to defend his decision to accept and keep the prize.
The president has come under increased scrutiny over the past few days in light of the military campaign in Libya. Some in the media, including a few world leaders like Boliva's Evo Morales, are calling for the Nobel Committee to revoke the prize. Others are taking the opportunity to say that he should never have gotten the prize in the first place.
The president responded in an interview with CNN En Espanol where he stated that "I think the American people don't see any contradiction in somebody who cares about peace also wanting to make sure that people aren't butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power." The president also mentions that he was in charge of two wars when he received the peace prize in the first place.
No one really thinks that Obama would return the peace prize, but if the Nobel committee wanted to make a stand for peace, revoking the prize could go a long way. It's almost certainly the first time that a Nobel Peace Prize winner had been in charge of three wars (since no one should really believe the Democratic establishment line that this isn't currently a war). Should the Nobel committee revoke the prize to return some of the luster to the prize? Does Obama's bombing of Libya somehow not go against the spirit of the prize? Or does the Nobel Peace Prize even matter anymore?
Image from Wikipedia
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
Just a Thought -
Ironic.
Given the standards you just set and to some extent I agree with, what are we doing in Libya now then?
Wow.
The big IF of course would be if the Nobel Committee wants to be taken seriously, then revoking a spurious award might be a step in the right direction. Given the history of the committee of it's awards, the answer why it won't seems obvious.
Conditions change: Unless the committee could read the future, there's no contradiction.
I still think it would send a good message...
Is this a Kinetic Military Action for oil?
Are we playing to win? What is "victory"? What are our goals? Who are the "rebels"? Why has Germany bailed out? Why are they only using our boats? How many airplanes does MG have? If its just a NO FLY ZONE then why are we beating the hell out of them with airstrikes?
Quick answers; no, victory is a semantic trap, keep people's eyes on overseas events rather than the economy, Germany never wanted this war, Libyan AF was already largely grounded, and lastly because no one knows or at least will admit what the actual mission is.
We've taken sides in a civil war and worse, we are on the side which was on the ropes before jumping in.
“Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.”
Yasser Arafat
judging from the response to your post, "No one" is not an accurate number. :)
This is a more complex topic than it appears at face value, as Michael commented. Is "Peace" the absence of war, or is it also the presence of justice and compassion? Gadhafi can no longer be considered the rightful ruler of Libya, because he was never elected to that job, and because the majority of Libyans made it quite clear that that they no longer wish to be ruled by him. They tried peaceful protest first, we need to recall that fact. The peaceful protests were greeted with machine gun fire.
I don't really see a contradiction in what Obama has done and his award of the Nobel peace prize. What he did with France and Britain and the Arab League as regards Libya was motivated not by a desire to build an empire, and not even from much of a concern of Kadhafi being a threat to the USA, other than his participation in terror plots such as the Lockerbie bombing. His motivation was a sincere concern for the people of Libya. I find that refreshing after the double standards of past years- bomb to save lives in Bosnia and Albania, but do not interfere in Rwanda.
This military effort will cost around a billion dollars. but that is really very little compared to Iraq both in terms of money and in terms of american lives. If it results in Kadhafi being deposed, it will be a success. If it grinds on and on and Kadhafi holds onto power, it will be failure.
I totally disagree that Obama went into this with any such particular sense of anything for the people of Libya. I think he was trapped by his own words. I will agree he is not wanting to create any empire anymore than did Bush I, II, Clinton, Reagan or anyone else who has launched military strikes in my lifetime. As for Obama not having any double standards regarding "humanitarian" missions, why is this the first and only one with all the other problems going on involving suffering peoples?
Obama, the first "Kinetic military action" president
Damned when you do and damned when you don't.
Sigh!!