4 ms·

Interesting Jimmy Carter international diplomacy fact: During the lead-up to the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, Carter wrote to many foreign leaders and members o

by mpyne 13y ago

Interesting Jimmy Carter international diplomacy fact: During the lead-up to the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, Carter wrote to many foreign leaders and members of the UN Security Council opposing U.S. action and urging those who received his letters to oppose White House policy in favor of his diplomatic strategy. He later did the same thing to Clinton, though not nearly so bad. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2002/05/jimmy_carter.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2...

alex_young 13y ago
Why is this bad? Isn't diplomacy an inherently good thing? BTW, that article is almost hopelessly hyperbolic. I really want to understand why diplomacy and Carter's advocacy are potentially wrong, but the author choose to level a personal attack rather than making reasoned arguments which may or may not have lead me to understand his position.
- mpyne 13y ago
  It is hyperbolic, but I was honestly surprised when Googling that anyone had written an article about it at all (I had learned of the meddling from Scowcroft/Bush's book). To answer your question though, diplomacy is certainly good and should be the first choice. But it's not "inherently good"; just ask Czechoslovakia how they felt about Chamberlin's diplomacy with Hitler. More to the point, nations have to live with the results of their diplomatic efforts, so it's important that those efforts are attuned to work together. If you were a CEO trying to shift company strategy to focus on a certain goal, you'd find it at least annoying if a former CEO went out and directly worked against that strategy because they "had a better way to do it". Even worse, being pulled in both directions could end up leading to a worse outcome for that company than if one or the other solution had been chosen.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    OTOH, Carter was not a party to formal diplomatic channels and did not represent himself as such. I doubt that he generated confusion WRT whatever official diplomacy may have been taking place. In fact, his point was that there was none to speak of; only a march to war. So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen who also happens to have a pretty big megaphone due to his former gig (and humanitarian work thereafter). He has a responsibility to speak out when he believes his country is running off the rails, as do all American citizens. His voice just happens to carry a bit further than most. So, in fact, one could argue that his is a greater responsibility to speak out.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen He was President of the United States. He will have a State Funeral held upon his death (a date which will be too soon no matter when it happens). He is the farthest thing from "simply a private citizen", at least in the context of the foreign policy of the nation he led for four years. But either way, go check out the "Carter Doctrine", which he promulgated during his term in office if you think he was opposed to all force.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        Michael Jackson also had a pretty massive funeral, but WRT to U.S. Foreign policy he was a private citizen. Yes, the country will "officially" honor President Carter upon his passing; and yes, we still call him President Carter, but there are no foreign leaders who believe that he is driving U.S. Foreign policy. As such, his statements were simply the opinions of a well-known private citizen who objected to the country's march to war (along with many others). >if you think he was opposed to all force. Well, I never said he was opposed to all force. EDIT: BTW, did you edit your comment to which I first responded on this thread? Seems that there was initially language in it suggesting that Carter's statements might have created confusion about official U.S. foreign policy. That's actually what I was addressing. Guess I should have quoted.
Crito 13y ago
Good for him.

by mpyne 13y ago

alex_young 13y ago

Why is this bad? Isn't diplomacy an inherently good thing? BTW, that article is almost hopelessly hyperbolic. I really want to understand why diplomacy and Carter's advocacy are potentially wrong, but the author choose to level a personal attack rather than making reasoned arguments which may or may not have lead me to understand his position.

mpyne 13y ago
It is hyperbolic, but I was honestly surprised when Googling that anyone had written an article about it at all (I had learned of the meddling from Scowcroft/Bush's book). To answer your question though, diplomacy is certainly good and should be the first choice. But it's not "inherently good"; just ask Czechoslovakia how they felt about Chamberlin's diplomacy with Hitler. More to the point, nations have to live with the results of their diplomatic efforts, so it's important that those efforts are attuned to work together. If you were a CEO trying to shift company strategy to focus on a certain goal, you'd find it at least annoying if a former CEO went out and directly worked against that strategy because they "had a better way to do it". Even worse, being pulled in both directions could end up leading to a worse outcome for that company than if one or the other solution had been chosen.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  OTOH, Carter was not a party to formal diplomatic channels and did not represent himself as such. I doubt that he generated confusion WRT whatever official diplomacy may have been taking place. In fact, his point was that there was none to speak of; only a march to war. So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen who also happens to have a pretty big megaphone due to his former gig (and humanitarian work thereafter). He has a responsibility to speak out when he believes his country is running off the rails, as do all American citizens. His voice just happens to carry a bit further than most. So, in fact, one could argue that his is a greater responsibility to speak out.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen He was President of the United States. He will have a State Funeral held upon his death (a date which will be too soon no matter when it happens). He is the farthest thing from "simply a private citizen", at least in the context of the foreign policy of the nation he led for four years. But either way, go check out the "Carter Doctrine", which he promulgated during his term in office if you think he was opposed to all force.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      Michael Jackson also had a pretty massive funeral, but WRT to U.S. Foreign policy he was a private citizen. Yes, the country will "officially" honor President Carter upon his passing; and yes, we still call him President Carter, but there are no foreign leaders who believe that he is driving U.S. Foreign policy. As such, his statements were simply the opinions of a well-known private citizen who objected to the country's march to war (along with many others). >if you think he was opposed to all force. Well, I never said he was opposed to all force. EDIT: BTW, did you edit your comment to which I first responded on this thread? Seems that there was initially language in it suggesting that Carter's statements might have created confusion about official U.S. foreign policy. That's actually what I was addressing. Guess I should have quoted.

Crito 13y ago

Good for him.