President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people,” despite currently leading two wars in the Middle East.This is not an award — just a reactionary endorsement that feels like a throwback to the adolescent euphoria generated by the rhetoric of his presidential campaign. That’s the only possible explanation, because Obama hasn’t actually done anything yet to merit the award.Granted, he’s been in office for less than 10 months, and nobody can expect foreign policy miracles in such a short amount of time. He’s hardly close to crossing the finish line.But if it’s strange to give someone a prize before they have crossed the finish line, it’s stranger still to even consider awarding them before the race has begun. At the latest, Obama was nominated for the award only 12 days after he took office; this year’s nominations closed that day.Must’ve been a stellar first week, I suppose.The truth is, he only won because he talks pretty and, more importantly, because he’s not George Bush. Then again, America elected him on this basis, so his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for these same reasons shouldn’t surprise anyone.In addition to congratulating Obama for not being George Bush, the Nobel committee also wanted to commend him for his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”I suppose this means the committee members haven’t heard of the recently discovered nuclear facilities in Iran, but whatever, it’s the “vision” that counts, anyway.I can’t help but wonder what sort of effect this cited reason for endorsement will have on the war in Afghanistan. It’s rather ironic this prize has been bestowed upon Obama right as he prepares to decide how to continue the operation in Afghanistan; currently the Obama administration has its hands tied with General McChrystal’s request for a minimum of 40,000 more troops.Now that the peace prize is involved, waffling over McChrystal’s request has become a lose-lose situation. There’s a chance the prize may play a part in furthering Obama’s tendency to dismiss McChrystal’s plea for additional troops, which might smooth the feathers of the world and simultaneously displease a large portion Obama’s constituency.But if Obama decides to heed McChrystal’s request, worldwide finger-pointing will ensue at what an failed “pacifist” the newest laureate is, therefore highlighting the obvious, vicious irony.The committee should’ve foreseen a quandary like this. To award an essentially untried politician for rhetoric rather than action is a maneuver that risks the reputation of both the committee and the recipient, especially considering Obama still has war to contend with.I would have much more respect for them had they waited until the viability of his peace initiatives were tested, rather than basing their decision solely on a candidate’s tendency to wax eloquent about world peace.Despite all these reasonable objections, some still argue the prize is good for America’s reputation, deserved or not.There is no pride in receiving an undeserved award. What good is to be found in reinforcing the fact that our leader is only admired for his oratory rather than his action?Simply because the world is now hearing “America” and “peace” in the same sentence doesn’t mean antipathy will suddenly evaporate – unless one assumes the world is populated with children incapable of seeing past simple word association. Rather, the world should see “America” and “peace” manifested in together tangible action and practical results. To suggest the global community can be placated by less is patronizing and naïve at best – and terribly ignorant at worst.Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication sophomore from Central City. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_lleavines.– – – -Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]