Has there ever been a Nobel Peace Prize winner whose name has been so strongly associated abroad with mass murder and war crimes?
If you object to the terms "mass murder" and "war crimes," and many do, let's take a moment to identify an alternate term to describe what happens when (for instance) you use drones to target a wedding party and kill civilians -- not once, but on two separate occasions. By the way, we did the same bomb-the-wedding-party thing on George Bush's watch, which makes three times. Details on those attacks can be found here.
We have also used drones to blast a grandmother to bits as her granddaughter watched. You can read about that here.
We call other people "terrorists" when they do these kinds of things. Is "terrorism" an acceptable alternate term?
Here's an easier question: Is it really all that surprising that we are now viewed as the world's leading threat to peace?
We've even used drones to kill, without trial, an innocent US citizen whose only "crime" was being related to a terrorist. Details here. That doesn't count as a violation of our Constitutional protections, though, because ... well, you'll have to wait, because the the Obama administration is still thinking over the best way to end that sentence.
Suppose we made reparations to the civilians whose families we destroyed?
Suppose we STOPPED invading the airspace of sovereign nations?
Suppose we STOPPED blowing people up with killer robots?