"I intend to leave after my death a large fund for the promotion of the peace idea, but I am skeptical as to its results." -Alfred Nobel

We've had nearly a week to consider the announcement that Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. In doing so, he became only the third sitting U.S. President to receive the award, following in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Yet many throughout the world have considered the award premature and undeserved. Few people argue against the effort that Obama puts forth in the name of peace, but should effort alone be rewarded? Well, if you look back at the history of the Nobel Peace Prize, I say, why not? It is the most subjective of all of the Nobel Prizes, and it has been the center of controversy and hypocrisy before. Here are just a few examples. Notable Exclusions

• Bill Clinton was instrumental in the Middle East peace process. The Oslo Accords would not have happened without his intervention. Also, let's not forget his role in the Dayton Agreement, which ended the Bosnian War. I'm not advocating for him to receive the award, but if Al Gore and Barack Obama can win, then why not Clinton?
• Mohandas Gandhi is the face of 20th century non-violent civil disobedience and the inspiration of many of the prize's winners. Yet Gandhi never won the award despite the fact that he was nominated five times.

Controversial Recipients

• Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his part in negotiating an end to the Vietnam War. However, Kissinger oversaw the illegal bombing of Cambodia from 1969-1975 and may have also been involved in Operation Condor, which was the political suppression of leftist elements in South America.
• Yasser Arafat, the deceased leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, was regarded by many Western governments as a terrorist. However, when Israel and the PLO agreed to the Oslo Peace Accords, Arafat and his Israeli counterparts Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, received the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize. Fifteen years later, Israel is still effectively at war with the PLO, so I guess it can be argued that every recipient in 1994 was controversial.
• Nelson Mandela, recipient of the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, was the leader of the African National Congress' armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe, which literally means "Spear of the Nation." His incarceration was due to the fact that he committed acts of sabotage against government targets.

Rewarding Failure

• Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres. See Above.
• Woodrow Wilson became the second President of the United States to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending World War I, as well as his idea for the League of Nations. However, the U.S. never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, opting for a separate peace agreement with Germany, and never joined the League of Nations. Twenty years later, the world would be plunged into the biggest war in human history.
• Frank B. Kellogg won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929 because he was co-author of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, an agreement which effectively outlawed war. The pact was ratified in 1928 and one of the signatories was Japan, who would invade Manchuria only three years later.

I did not initially believe that Barack Obama deserved to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I felt as though the award should recognize results, not just effort, but I was clearly wrong. The Nobel Peace Prize has always rewarded effort, often in spite of the results. What do you think? Do you think Barack Obama deserved to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? Defend your answer in the comments.

[polldaddy poll=2113801]