On October 9, 2009, the Nobel Committee announced President Obama as the recipient of its most prestigious award-- the Nobel Peace Prize.  Upon receiving the award, many critics questioned why the President, having been in office for less than a year and done arguably very little to actually promote peace, was even considered.  In light of the events that the US military has taken in Libya via the authorization and orders of the America's Commander-in-Chief, permutations of the same question arise:  what did Obama do to win the Peace Prize in 2009?  And, moreover, since then, how in line are his actions with regards to the use of the US military and the values of the award?

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."  President Obama has continued to maintain a US military presence in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, and, just recently, initiated a third war with a Muslim country by means of missile attacks and airstrikes on Libya.

Far from promoting peace, President Obama seems to be rather complicit in prolonging and promoting war.  Looking purely at his actions as president, he has at the very least continued President Bush's foreign policy agenda-- for which, it should be said, Obama roundly criticized and campaigned against during the 2008 election.

With respect to Libya, US intervention will only lengthen what is essentially a civil war.  Prior to the US launching some 130 Tomahawk missiles at Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya, the government was all but going to consolidate control over the entire country.  Now, the rebels are preparing to execute their own offensive.  And how many more lives will be lost as a result?  Are those the actions of a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?