The Nobel Peace Prize committee gave its highest honor to President Barack Obama on Friday for his efforts to bring nations together and repair the damage wrought by the Bush administration. In part, the award is an attempt to smooth the way for Obama’s agenda internationally. But the committee may have made his task more difficult by raising expectations and giving ammunition to his critics.

The award unfortunately emphasizes one of the biggest criticisms of Obama: that he gives lovely speeches but has no record of accomplishment. The condemnation he faced Friday was swift and largely ungracious, much like a week earlier, when Republicans reacted with glee after the United States lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympics.

But even liberals were surprised, which should tell the Nobel committee something. While Obama has changed the tone of foreign affairs, he has yet to change the substance — and he continues to fight two wars.

Obama is sensitive to these perceptions. “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments,” he said Friday of the award, “but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations.”

There’s no denying, however, that his work has transformed international relations. Said 1994 peace prize winner Shimon Peres: “Very few leaders “… were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact.” And a recent survey in Europe showed skyrocketing approval for U.S. foreign policy.

Of course there is much more to be done. But those who complain that the committee’s award was too political fail to understand that that’s precisely the point. For good or ill, the committee is taking an aggressively activist stance, hoping it can lend clout to Obama’s agenda.

Awarding an “aspirational” peace prize is not unprecedented. The Nobel chairman cited Willy Brandt, then the chancellor of West Germany, who won in 1971 for beginning the policy of reconciliation that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Mikhail Gorbachev, who won in 1990 for launching perestroika.

It will take years to assess whether Obama’s name belongs in that pantheon. In the meantime, the pressure will be on to prove the prize was warranted. And the committee — perhaps lacking an understanding of the nuances of American politics — has added fuel to the vitriolic atmosphere of debate.

Rush Limbaugh was predictably outraged, calling the award “a greater embarrassment” than losing the Olympics. Said Republican Chairman Michael Steele in a fundraising letter: “The Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control.” (Some Republicans, including John McCain, did congratulate Obama.)

In his comments Friday, the president shrewdly pivoted toward a discussion of the award as “a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.” Unfortunately, Obama’s critics prefer to focus on his “Marxist” agenda, not on ways to meet those challenges.

The Nobel committee just made it a lot easier for the critics.