4 ms·

Did he create those problems or inherit them? The situations in Iran, OPEC, etc. long pre-dated Carter. Another problem was a military that was ruined in terms

by mmooss 2y ago

Did he create those problems or inherit them? The situations in Iran, OPEC, etc. long pre-dated Carter. Another problem was a military that was ruined in terms of morale and probably in wear-and-tear by Vietnam.

bluGill 2y ago
Mostly inherit them. However it is an open qusetion on if he handled them well. Would some other policy (that you get to think of in retospect and of course handwave away any bad parts that might happen with them) have done better?
- mmooss 2y ago
  Agreed, and that's always a problem when evaluating political (and some other) performance. It's easy to say 'they could have done better'; it's easy to say 'they couldn't have done more in the circumstances'.
genman 2y ago
Some problems he inherited. But Iranian crisis was his own making. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khom...
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  There was that coup Eisenhower OK'd in 1953. I can see how Carter not supporting another coup would be taken poorly.
  - genman 2y ago
    And yet he supported a coup. He was just too "blind" to see which one. And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      If you are talking about the 1953 coup, I've never heard that description. Everything I've read says the UK, with some degree of US support, overthrew the government. > And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness. That's exactly a coup. The people who conduct coups - and other crimes and violations - always have a smooth justification. Russia is protecting Russians in Ukraine! Hitler needed some 'breathing room', etc. If the head of state is incapable, then the next civilian in line can take over. No advanced democracy has ever needed the military's help for such a situation.
      - genman 2y ago
        That next "civilian" was an Islamic extremist who took over because the other leaders of the revolution were too weak and foolish and were eliminated by the Islamic extremists. At that moment a military takeover would have resulted in a smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government. Things are not always simple and straightforward.
        mmooss 2y ago
        > That next "civilian" was an Islamic extremist who took over because the other leaders of the revolution were too weak and foolish and were eliminated by the Islamic extremists. Are you talking about 1979? I was talking about 1953. > At that moment a military takeover would have resulted in a smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government. If you mean in 1979, that's quite a prediction when nobody knew what would happen, and nobody now can confidently predict paths untaken. it's hard to imagine how the military wouldn't have just furthered a civil war, being closely associated with the Shah. What was the military doing in 1979? Also, why would the Iranian military make things any more 'smooth' than another power base? > smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government. As of 1979, there hadn't been a democratic civilian government since ~1953; it was a foreign-backed, and IIRC military-backed dictatorship. Why would they install an actual civilian, democratic government if given the chance?

by mmooss 2y ago

bluGill 2y ago

Mostly inherit them. However it is an open qusetion on if he handled them well. Would some other policy (that you get to think of in retospect and of course handwave away any bad parts that might happen with them) have done better?

mmooss 2y ago
Agreed, and that's always a problem when evaluating political (and some other) performance. It's easy to say 'they could have done better'; it's easy to say 'they couldn't have done more in the circumstances'.

genman 2y ago

Some problems he inherited. But Iranian crisis was his own making. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khom...

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
There was that coup Eisenhower OK'd in 1953. I can see how Carter not supporting another coup would be taken poorly.
- genman 2y ago
  And yet he supported a coup. He was just too "blind" to see which one. And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    If you are talking about the 1953 coup, I've never heard that description. Everything I've read says the UK, with some degree of US support, overthrew the government. > And it's a little far fetched to call an armies call to take over the unstable situation a coup when the current head of the state is incapable to take any action because of a serious illness. That's exactly a coup. The people who conduct coups - and other crimes and violations - always have a smooth justification. Russia is protecting Russians in Ukraine! Hitler needed some 'breathing room', etc. If the head of state is incapable, then the next civilian in line can take over. No advanced democracy has ever needed the military's help for such a situation.
    - genman 2y ago
      That next "civilian" was an Islamic extremist who took over because the other leaders of the revolution were too weak and foolish and were eliminated by the Islamic extremists. At that moment a military takeover would have resulted in a smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government. Things are not always simple and straightforward.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > That next "civilian" was an Islamic extremist who took over because the other leaders of the revolution were too weak and foolish and were eliminated by the Islamic extremists. Are you talking about 1979? I was talking about 1953. > At that moment a military takeover would have resulted in a smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government. If you mean in 1979, that's quite a prediction when nobody knew what would happen, and nobody now can confidently predict paths untaken. it's hard to imagine how the military wouldn't have just furthered a civil war, being closely associated with the Shah. What was the military doing in 1979? Also, why would the Iranian military make things any more 'smooth' than another power base? > smooth transition of power to the next actual civilian government. As of 1979, there hadn't been a democratic civilian government since ~1953; it was a foreign-backed, and IIRC military-backed dictatorship. Why would they install an actual civilian, democratic government if given the chance?