Jimmy Carter pledged to reform US foreign policy... and look what happened

[GaryC 7]

Jimmy Carter pledged to reform US foreign policy... and look what happened

By Con Coughlin

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 06/06/2008

Over the course of the primary season, Barack Obama has demonstrated an unerring ability to reach out to all Americans, irrespective of ethnic background or social status. He is a black man who was born on the wrong side of the tracks, but his campaign has been refreshingly devoid of the divisive race agenda that characterised the bids of black politicians such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in the 1980s and 1990s.

His simple promise to undertake a radical change in the way the country is run has struck a chord with a nation that has become disillusioned with the Bush Administration's reputation for deceit and arrogance, particularly with regard to the war on terror.

Americans have, of course, been here before: in 1976, sickened by Watergate, they elected a naïve and inexperienced peanut farmer from Georgia to clear away the cynicism that came to define the Nixon era. From the moment he took office in January 1977, President Jimmy Carter made it clear that he wanted to make a new start in America's relations with the rest of the world. Gone was the hard-nosed Realpolitik of Henry Kissinger. Mr Carter transformed US policy by insisting that human rights be placed at the top of the agenda - with disastrous results.

The main reason the Shah of Iran, a key ally in Washington's attempts to keep the Soviet Union at bay in the Gulf, had managed to survive was the ruthless efficiency of his CIA-trained Savak security service. But after Mr Carter hosted a state visit in Washington for the Shah and Empress of Iran in November 1977, the Pahlavi dynasty was encouraged to release hundreds of political prisoners, with the result that, two years later, the Shah was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution. We are still trying to come to terms with the consequences.

One of the less appealing aspects of Mr Obama's campaign has been the support he has attracted from Mr Carter who, seemingly oblivious to his handling of the Iran debacle (which culminated in 66 Americans being held hostage in Tehran for 444 days), has not been shy about offering his advice. Mr Carter was at it again this week, counselling Mr Obama against making Hillary Clinton his running mate.

Like Mr Carter, Mr Obama is an outsider who was relatively unknown before he decided to make his run for the White House. And like Mr Carter, Mr Obama appears determined to undertake a radical change in the way Washington does business with the outside world; changes that could have the same disastrous consequences for America and the rest of the world as Mr Carter's policy.

Take Mr Obama's attitude towards Iran. Until this week, Mr Obama consistently argued that Iran poses no more of a threat than countries such as Venezuela or Cuba, and that the controversy over Tehran's uranium enrichment programme could easily be resolved by the simple expedient of sitting down and talking to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Obama might not know it, but this is precisely what Europe has been trying to do these past four years. The so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - has done nothing else but talk to Mr Ahmadinejad's regime in an attempt to negotiate a solution to the nuclear crisis.

Alas, these painstaking negotiations have been to no avail. Having exploited the West's good intentions for nearly four years, the Iranians simply tore up all the agreements and resumed uranium enrichment which, at the current rate of progress, could give them enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead next year.

Mr Obama's approach to Iraq is equally ill-considered. Having opposed the campaign to remove Saddam's regime from the start, Mr Obama wants to withdraw the 200,000 or so American troops currently deployed at the earliest opportunity - 18 months is the most likely time-frame.

But undertaking a unilateral withdrawal at precisely the moment the country is starting to recover from the trauma of the past five years would hardly be in America's interest. Just as the military surge orchestrated by General David Petraeus has succeeded in destroying the power base of the insurgent groups that have tried so hard to provoke all-out civil war, Mr Obama would be abandoning Iraq to the very groups that want to destroy it.

US presidential election 2008

Mr Obama's policies are not just naïve; they are unworkable, a fact he now seems belatedly to have taken on board. Addressing the annual conference of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby group, in Washington on Wednesday night, Mr Obama declared that he would do "everything in my power" to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Even if he was vague about precisely how he intends to do this, it is a welcome improvement on his previous policy statements on Iran. But if he really wants to reassure the American public, and the wider world, that he has the credentials to be an effective world leader, he needs to give a lot more thought to how he will tackle the great security challenges of our age, whether it be protecting us from the designs of Islamist terrorists or the nuclear ambitions of crazed dictators.

Otherwise, I fear that Osama bin Laden and his chums will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of Mr Obama becoming the 44th President of the United States of America.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...6/06/do0602.xml

[HAL 9000 96]

OK

[GaryC 7]

OK

Laugh all you want. Obama is proposing the very same things Carter did. You want issues, well here is one and this one has an example in history.

[HAL 9000 96]

Awesome!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah I'm not overly keen on some of Obama's foreign policy ideas on the Iraq pull out. Personally I think its a mistake to make pre-election promises on Iraq - without some sort of grace period and a critical, in-depth review of the policy before making sweeping decisions.

I think he's right to suggest that we should sit down with Iran (at the least - in regard to Iraq), as I've said elsewhere, I think that's really unavoidable IMO - given Iran's undeniable influence on Iraqi politics. He is also right to put Iran in its proper context - militarily and technologically that country poses no significant threat to the US, certainly not when compared with the likes of China. They aren't a major world power - in any regard.

I also think its rather unfair to blame Carter for the Iranian revolution - if anything his administration's policy toward Iran simply accelerated what was inevitable anyway. We already shot down their attempt at movement towards representative government in the 50's - I guess we can make an exception in the case of "let freedom ring" for this particular oppressed, trotting it out only when its convenient and PC (i.e. Iraq).

[HAL 9000 96]

Knee-jerkoism, 6.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It also misrepresents the gains in Iraq - Petraeus hasn't

succeeded in destroying the power base of the insurgent groups that have tried so hard to provoke all-out civil war

He has said that the US occupation has brought about improvements to the security situation, but that these gains are fragile and reversible.

They are also dependent (as some other military high-ups have noted) on Iran's "good will".

[Saddle Bronc 124]

One can say that Carted DID reform US foreign (and also domestic) policies--right into the dustbin!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

One can say that Carted DID reform US foreign (and also domestic) policies--right into the dustbin!

One can say the same of George W. Bush.

[GaryC 7]

One can say that Carted DID reform US foreign (and also domestic) policies--right into the dustbin!

One can say the same of George W. Bush.

So does that mean we should go back to something that we also know didn't work for the sake of "change"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

One can say that Carted DID reform US foreign (and also domestic) policies--right into the dustbin!

One can say the same of George W. Bush.

So does that mean we should go back to something that we also know didn't work for the sake of "change"?

It means we should take a nuanced view of these situations, rather than kneejerk. I'll say again - the current Iraq policy has essentially manoeuvered us into a rather unenviable situation. Iran's influence there is such that there is probably no choice but to negotiate with them in some way or other.

I'll also add that there's only so much you can predict in regard to foreign policy - in which respect the Iranian revolution was probably less predictable than the Iraqi Insurgency (and the Iranian support for it).

[HAL 9000 96]

This is going to be so hilarious... come November.

[GaryC 7]

This is going to be so hilarious... come November.

When McCain wins.

[HAL 9000 96]

This is going to be so hilarious... come November.

When McCain wins.

"OK"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whoever gets in - they aren't going to "save the world".