You could be excused for not understanding that the Nobel Peace Prize is not an award for peace, but an award for 'decreasing tension', at least in Obama's case. The jury basically admitted as much. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for creating "a world with less tension".
That is almost as funny as Saturday Night Live's (SNL), Reason TV's and Perfunction's actual jokes. Of course, the jury is not joking. Publicity is more likely the true reason; that or as a 'shot'. As I have said before, potential manipulation is not the likely reason, and if it was it will be an epic fail. There are Constitutional provisions in place to make sure that manipulation does not happen.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125544514418482493.html (bold mine)
"Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president.
Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.
Three of them rejected the notion that Mr. Obama hadn't accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn't answer calls seeking comment.
"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done."
Mr. Jagland singled out Mr. Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
"All these things have contributed to -- I wouldn't say a safer world -- but a world with less tension," Mr. Jagland said by phone from Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe."