I think I would be remiss in not posting about the oddest piece of news I’ve heard in a long time.

My first reaction was that the Peace Prize was given to Obama for simply not being George W. Bush.

Despite my criticism below that Obama hasn’t accomplished much in office, he has made foreign policy and diplomacy a focus and I think he’s done it well. This is one area where a President’s “tone” and speeches are actually meaningful, and I think Obama’s performance has been great. But even so–has he accomplished enough to win a Nobel Peace Prize?

It just feels premature–at best.

Do I think it’s cool? Yes. I think it’s good that the President of my country is being seen as someone who is working for peace.

Do I think it’s almost Onion-worthy in how it plays into a stereotype of an all-hype President who gets accolades for barely doing anything? Unfortunately, yes.

And: is this going to be a huge liability for Obama later? Yes, most absolutely. First, we have two very large wars going on right now, and Obama is commander-in-chief of the armed forces as they execute those wars. He will need to authorize some very un-Nobel Peace Prize-like things.

In addition, a President needs to have every option on the table when dealing with someone like Ahmadinejad. Is it harder to back his into a corner with the threat of force if you’re not seen as being willing to use that force because you’re a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this in the future.

UPDATE: Perhaps I’ve lingered too much on the bad side. I think Obama has shown himself to be a foreign policy realist. He doesn’t seem to believe in “peace at any cost.” During the campaign, and in the short instances we’ve seen so far, I think he’s made it clear he’s very willing to use force. He has soundly beaten political opponents who underestimate him and his willingness to hit back (or hit first)–maybe a Peace Prize will cause other world leaders to underestimate him and his willingness to use force as well.

(Of course, that has its advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes it allows you to play your opponents, as I feel Obama’s doing–or trying to do–with Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, Khrushchev thought Kennedy was a weak President who wouldn’t react to missiles in Cuba and voila, we get the missile crisis. So clearly it goes both ways.)