And, more importantly, what is President Obama going to do to justify the award he so surprisingly received over the weekend?

Most presidents who have scored a Nobel Peace Prize have done so at – or at least close to – the end of their tenure; not at the beginning.

And the award usually marks some significant achievements; milestones along the road to peace and the advancement of civilisation – not just being a nicer guy (at least in the eyes of the Nobel Committee) than your

predecessor.

One can’t help thinking that the real – and only – reason President Obama received this award was because he wasn’t George Bush.

Yes, America is withdrawing from Iraq as promised – but there are no guarantees this will improve the lives of the people of that troubled country or contribute to the political stability of the Middle East.

Nobody could argue that peace has broken out in Afghanistan on Obama’s watch.

Civilians continue to die in distressingly high numbers; the Taliban has made some serious inroads and more US troops died there last week than during any single week before.

The irony is that if Obama does as the hawks – or realists if you prefer – are urging and initiate a 40,000-strong troop surge in Afghanistan, then the Nobel Committee could end up with a lot of egg on their faces.

Even if the effort does bring about stability and peace in the longer term, the fact is many self-interested groups, both within the US and abroad, will denigrate the anointed peacemaker as a

warmonger.

While it is possible to criticise President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq, nobody can fault his logic in taking action on Afghanistan.

That country’s fanatical extremist government had given very direct assistance to people who had launched a deadly assault on the US that claimed more than 3000 lives.

That war has yet to be fought to a successful conclusion – and that is the only way lasting peace can be achieved.