That Barack Obama has changed the trajectory of American foreign policy and U.S. global standing is hard to dispute. In just one year, as the recent survey by the Pew Research Center revealed, Obama has dramatically reversed world opinion of the U.S. from the dismal lows of the Bush administration. But for President Obama to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize seems premature at best and undeserving at worst.
To be sure, President Obama's global outreach is laudable. His leadership on nuclear proliferation, efforts to broker a Middle East peace deal, willingness to engage Iran and North Korea, improving relations with Russia, renewed diplomacy with Pakistan and India, and rebuilding American alliances are not merely a welcome change from the counterproductive unilateralism of George W. Bush, but essential to U.S. national security. And to be sure, his groundbreaking speech in Cairo signaled a new tone towards the Muslim world.
But in eight short months, these initiatives remain, to quote Obama (and his friend Deval Patrick), "just words."
A look back at past Nobel-winning presidents provides a stark contrast. Teddy Roosevelt was recognized for brokering a peace that ended the Russo-Japanese war, a role which also highlighted the emergence of the U.S. on the world stage. Woodrow Wilson, who spoke of "making the world safe for democracy," was honored for his struggle at Versailles to create a League of Nations and preserve the peace after World War I. And Jimmy Carter, recognized only in 2002, changed the geopolitical landscape with the Camp David accords that brought an end to conflict between Israel and Egypt.
For its part, the Nobel committee seemed more determined to encourage Obama in his future endeavors than recognize his past accomplishments in the cause of global peace. As CNN noted from the committee's announcement:

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population"...
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,"

But hopes are often dashed. To use another cliché, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Like a student who hasn't taken his finals yet, Obama gets an incomplete. Having already ratcheted up the American footprint in Afghanistan, the President is weighing even now a further escalation in the fight against Al Qaeda. Despite some positive signs in last week's multiparty talks with Iran over its nuclear program, a successful - and peaceful - resolution is far from assured. Meanwhile, George Mitchell's diplomacy to push Israel and the Palestinians towards a peace agreement is moving forward slowly.
Conservative bellyaching over the Nobel committee's awards has become a fixture of American politics. But this time, the whining of Republican leaders and right-wing pundits alike is not entirely unfounded.
Of course, it's not Barack Obama's fault he won the Nobel Peace Prize. According to media reports, the White House is as "surprised" as pretty much everyone else. (For his part, the President responded, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but a recognition of the role of American leadership" and admitted "to be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures" who won in the past.) As Glenn Greenwald summed it up, "there are simply no meaningful 'peace' accomplishments in his record -- at least not yet," adding, "That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous."