You could at least make the case that Obama promoted -- indeed, in a sense, embodied -- "fraternity between nations," for he was incredibly popular with most of America's allies. (See, e.g., his "rock star" reception in Germany.) Even its enemies were at worst ambivalent towards him personally, and at best they were hopeful that he'd bring about positive change. In this sense, he, at minimum, shored up the self-image of the Western world.
So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.
But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.
If I recall correctly though, Obama won the peace prize shortly after winning the election and ran from a much more doveish platform than he governed from.
He won the prize before actually doing anything more than campaign promises. If we're awarding prizes based on campaign promises...well, there will be some interesting awards, indeed.
The mishandling of the entire middle-east is hard to ignore. If anything, Trump's only consensus wins came from cleaning up the mess in the middle east.
> shored up the self-image of the Western world
Which tells you everything you need to about the Nobel Peace Prize.
So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.
But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.