And the Nobel for Good Intentions goes to...

  • Follow Editorials

We understand and appreciate what the Nobel Peace Prize committee members are trying to do. They're trying to encourage peace.

We just disagree wholly with how they're trying to go about it.

In the process, they have rendered the prize meaningless.

Nothing at all against President Obama. Fact is, we support his outreach efforts to the Muslim world.

But the Nobel committee is holding an apple festival before the tree is old enough to have borne fruit. Does the plaque say, "In grateful acknowledgement of all Barack Hussein Obama hopes to accomplish"?

"The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance," correctly notes the Associated Press's Jennifer Loven.

Mr. Obama was in office a scant 12 days before the nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace Prize. He has been in office some nine months. In contrast, some worthy recipients such as Mother Teresa expended a lifetime of good works.

There is no earthly idea yet whether his policies will bear fruit. As Muslim radicals still kill and still target America and the West, there is no tangible evidence he has made a scintilla of difference with all his entreaties and criticisms of his country. His worthiness for such a prestigious-sounding award exists, as some subatomic particles, in theory alone.

Is the committee, then, rewarding Mr. Obama's good intentions? If so, are there not millions and millions of other deserving souls on the planet who qualify for this honor under the same logic?

BUT THE PROBLEMS with this ill-thought-out award -- often bestowed on dubious characters such as terrorist Yasser Arafat -- go far beyond one man. This decision reveals an institutional and fatal flaw in the Nobel network: Quite often, it really doesn't reward acts that result in real, just and lasting peace.

Perhaps our well-intentioned friends in Oslo mistake peace for the absence of open hostilities. The two are quite different -- and sometimes are the opposite.

Consider: True peace cannot exist without justice. Moreover, appeasement -- an unwillingness to use force to defend oneself or create security and peace -- can result in the opposite of peace. Appeasement in the 20th century brought about history's largest conflagration. And you can talk peace with the Iranian regime until you're blue in the face, but if that fails to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons and one is allowed to go off in the Mideast or elsewhere, how does that promote peace? Haven't you done just the opposite?

The maddening paradox of peace is that sometimes you must fight to get it.

WILL BARACK OBAMA be willing to do that -- especially after receiving a "peace" prize? Will he be able to bring himself to send more troops to Afghanistan -- to win that war and secure a lasting peace? Will he now have the gumption to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities if need be to protect and preserve the Mideast's only democracy (other than Iraq, which war helped create)?

Or is the prize timed and designed to discourage any acts of violence by the U.S. president, even those needed to bring about peace?

If the president is in any way impeded from doing what he must to protect and defend the interests of the United States, he should politely decline the award.

Likewise, if the Nobel committee is rewarding a president that it sees as promoting a chastened, weakened America -- and thinks that that is good for peace -- it had better be careful what it wishes for. If the folks at Nobel truly want peace, they should want the strong America that saved Western Europe in World War II and helped free Eastern Europe in the Cold War and still today throws its blanket of protection over most of the world's free peoples.

Obviously, the people at Nobel would find it counterintuitive to recognize any act of war as being good or promoting peace. But World War II did in a few years what a continent would have otherwise spent decades doing: overthrowing tyranny and fighting for freedom.

We therefore believe the Nobel Peace Prize committee has a misguided notion of what peace truly is and what is necessary to bring it about.

Comments (182) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
marien 10/11/09 - 07:57 pm
Same old stuff and the beat

Same old stuff and the beat goes on..........

ispy4u 10/12/09 - 06:11 am
KLS, are you serious?@ your

KLS, are you serious?@ your 7:26 PM post.

bcs2k 10/12/09 - 09:34 am
wizzardx1; nobody cares what

wizzardx1; nobody cares what "you" or others bitter haters do or don't see. Nobel committe. There rules. There choice. Deal with it.

I'm happy that our new President burst through the gate early and got a quick start fixing the mess Bush left behind. Balancing economic turmoil with restarting international relationship alone make him more than worthy. President Obama 1. decreed that interrogators must follow techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual when questioning terrorism suspects.
2. told top military officials to do whatever planning necessary to "execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq."
3. ordered the Guantanamo detention center shut within a year.
4. froze all white house staff salaries of $100.000.00 or more.
5. overturning the so-called Mexico City policy that forbids U.S. funding for family planning programs that offer abortion.
6. lifting Bush's limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

KSL 10/12/09 - 12:04 pm
Ispy, I take it you didn't

Ispy, I take it you didn't see the video. LOL.

KSL 10/12/09 - 12:05 pm
No niko, you don't know

No niko, you don't know someone just from their posts.

Back to Top
Search Augusta jobs