I don't much like the personal attacks on Carter in this post but some of points are worthwhile. President Carter is too far down the chicken little path and his piece reads like cheap fear mongering to me.
Paul
ALRIGHT, I REREAD THE CARTER PIECE, and it's just begging for a fisking ...
oxblog.blogspot.com
Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness.
Pretty cool how we've had the same bipartisan consensus for longer than we've had the same two parties! Also pretty cool how this "bipartisan consensus" on American foreign policy has lasted through Manifest Destiny, Jackson's Indian Wars, the Spanish-American and Mexican-American Wars, the Civil War, and the Cold War without changing, but now, along comes Bush and wrecks the whole thing. Ah, well.
These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint.
And Bush is accused of being too overtly pious? The "respect for international law" bit is just a canard unless he's going to tell us what the international laws are. Is it violating another nation's sovereign territory? Then how's it different from -- ahem! -- sending military helicopters on a mission into Iran? (Well, aside from the fact that an invasion of Iraq is likely not to go disastrously wrong, that is?) Is it acting without a Security Council Resolution? Then how is it different from Kosovo? Ah! It's because invading Iraq is "without international support." Apparently Carter joins Chirac in considering nineteen countries in Europe alone to be insignificant. (UPDATE: Carter wrote an NYT op-ed in 1999 opposing the use of miltary force against Milosevic, calling for "patient negotiation," and, yes, calling US military attacks on Serbian ethnic cleansers a "quagmire." At least the man's consistent ... )
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises
Ooooh, yeah, reeeeeeeeeeal smart move to remind us of your foreign policy record while in office. 'Cause while you were around, things went brilliantly in, say, Afghanistan and Iran.
I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.
Jimmy Carter: philosopher, president, carpenter, freelance diplomat, and all around swell guy!
This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
Again, could you imagine the outcry if a Republican based his policy on an "almost universal conviction of religious leaders"? Oh, and, um, aren't there maybe a few rabbis who might disagree? Ah, but notice the subtle swipe: support for Israel is some sort of fanaticism, not at all like the reasonable religious leaders Carter takes his cues from.
The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
Ummm, (1) couldn't the leaks maybe, possibly be disinformation? And (2) Don't you think maybe the targets are being chosen so as not to involve bombing "a relatively defenseless Iraqi population," but rather the command and control of the Iraqi military? But Carter doesn't even consider this! He read the war plans in the New York Times, and they couldn't be wrong about anything!
Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
First, as David has pointed out in a number of brilliant and well-researched posts this week (here, here, here, here, and here, although some of the posts in between are good, too!), collateral damage from recent US wars has been astonishingly low -- lower than wars in any other place or time in history. Second, Carter seems to be saying that Saddam's explicit violation of the laws of war -- i.e., his moving military material into civilian areas -- should be sufficient to forestall a US attack. Now, that sort of appeasement may have been the linchpin of Carter's foreign policy, but I'm fairly glad Bush doesn't buy it.
Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
Even if you accept this, doesn't Carter even consider the "other serious crimes"? The murders, the starvation, the invasions (unilateral ones, at that! and without Security Council backing!), the support for Hamas, which is obvious, even if you don't buy that he supports al Qaeda -- these mean nothing? The fact that he is building weapons of mass destruction, which he could give to terrorists, means nothing? We have to wait until one goes off to act?
The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority.
Wait, so I'm confused now. Is he saying that he would prefer it if we went in, forcibly destroyed the weapons, and then left, without bothering to reconstruct Iraq? That strikes me as (a) immoral, and (b) stupid.
Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.
Different from what people said about Afghanistan how? A "quite possible" statement is a cheap rhetorical trick -- anything is "possible" in war. But if we are committed to rebuilding Iraq as a viable democracy -- yes, that's the same commitment which Carter derided in the previous paragraph -- we will help prevent this possibility from becoming a reality. The fact that Carter can seriously doubt that whatever follows Saddam may not be "a clear improvement over what exists" shows that he does not have any clue about the magnitude of the horrors of Saddam's rule.
Indeed, the fact that Carter could write that entire piece without evincing any concern for the Iraqi people's suffering under Saddam -- oh, wait, I forgot, he called Saddam "obnoxious" -- is mind-boggling. Appeasement at any cost!
What Carter is proposing isn't peace. It's allowing a ruler who has never been at peace -- a ruler who has invaded invaded Iran and Kuwait, shot missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, supported terrorists, massacred his own people, diverted oil-for-food money to his weapons programs and lavish palaces, and attempted to assassinate a former US president -- to stare down the US. It is surrender. |
