Soon after his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, I read the full-text of President Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the ceremony and then watched its videos on You Tube.
My impression was that he was honest (probably too honest) about the relationship between war and peace as the head of state, arguing: "There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."
As he acknowledged, his winning generated controversies both at home and abroad, but I guess it was the President himself that the decision of the Nobel Prize Committee embarrassed most and he (and/or his speech writers) had to agonize over what he can and should deliver at the ceremony as "the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars."
I believe, however, that such a speech as he made can be done only by the statesman bearing the extremely heavy responsibility, who may make a tough decision about national security the very next moment.
He couldn't have only preached love or virtue as clerics.
I think he was so brave there because, at the place where the term "peace" is praised, he emphasized the role of war.
