Tim Stanley, Telegraph (London), October 10, 2013
Tomorrow we hear who has won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, most of the previous recipients have been deserving. Some less so. When Henry Kissinger was awarded it in 1973, Tom Lehrer quipped that the prize, “made political satire obsolete.”
The same could be said about the award that went to Barack Obama in 2009. It summed up his whole political career–celebrated before he’d actually done anything, the jar into which millions of liberals poured their dreams, and, most importantly, an utter disappointment when in office. Barack Obama deserves a peace prize in the way that Pat Robertson deserves the trophy for Mr Gay USA 2013. Consider the evidence:
– Far from ending the adventurism of his predecessor, Barack Obama surged troop numbers in Afghanistan, bombed Libya and was only prevented from going into Syria by public opposition to the sheer insanity of the idea.
– Under his watchful gaze the Middle East is arguably less stable today than when his presidency started. There is civil war in Syria, a kidnapped prime minister in Libya, revolution in Egypt. It’s been a particularly hard few years for the remaining Christians.
– He’s engaged in a drone strike campaign that would make Bush blush.
George W Bush conducted 45 drone strikes as President, killing 477. Barack Obama conducted 316 drone strikes, killing 2,363. These figures are from the New America Foundation – and the total dead is probably an underestimate. The Foundation says that the number killed could be as high as 3,404 including 307 civilian men women and children. One leaked document suggested that drones had killed 94 kids in 3 years. Interestingly, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham – a big supporter of drone strikes – recently said that the total dead could be 4,700. To put that into perspective, 3,527 Americans died fighting in Iraq.
Given that record, it’s time to ask–could the Nobel committee have their Peace Prize back?