Former President Carter criticizes President Obama on ISIS: "We waited too long to deal with them"
24 replies, posted
[quote](CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said President Barack Obama "waited too long" to go after ISIS and criticized what he described as the president's changing foreign policy.
[B]"First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria," Carter told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in an interview published Tuesday.[/B] The 39th president was in Texas working on a Habitat for Humanity project.
"Then when [ISIS] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn't object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned," he continued.
The United States has so far led a coalition of countries in airstrike campaigns against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. But the militant group has continued to operate, and it's expected to soon capture the key Syrian border city of Kobani.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/politics/jimmy-carter-obama-isis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2[/url]
Too soon is reactionary.
Too late is hesitant.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The real solution would have been to remove Saddam in '91 and have a large UN coalition occupy the country and extirpate the Islamists from any position of power. It would have solved so many problems.
Hindsight is 20/20
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis"]Well to be fair it's not like Carter's record in Middle East affairs is exactly Stellar[/URL]
So people complain if you go in earlier or later? Jesus, its like Obama can't win with his critics.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;46183245]Too soon is reactionary.
Too late is hesitant.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.[/QUOTE]
Always go in when you're faced with this kind of dilemma, which isn't a dilemma at all really since, either way, you're going to take flak. Fast action wrangles problems quicker than inaction, of course.
Either way, this should open up some interesting discussions on the necessitation of ground forces being deployed. Because that's what it's going to take. Our airstrikes and aid can only do so much and go so far; they are not going to be able to resolve this crisis.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46184663]except going in instantly when the problem comes up doesn't exactly lend well to good decision making
in most cases, it just makes even more problems and throws more soldiers into the meat grinder[/QUOTE]
Makes more sense than waiting around and doing nothing, allowing the situation to spiral out of control to an even more radical point than it was in the first place and indirectly being responsible for thousands of innocent people's deaths and the geopolitical destabilization of an entire region-- all because you were too scared you might make a mistake somewhere.
But oh well. It is what it is. We waited too long here, and now we have to deal with that poor judgement call. This really is one of those situations where we could have contained the problem and prevented it from getting so far out of hand if we'd only acted sooner.
As much as I respected Carter as a person I have to admit he was a horrible President, he was right about renewable energy but he was far too [i]nice[/i] to be a President.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46183459][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis"]Well to be fair it's not like Carter's record in Middle East affairs is exactly Stellar[/URL][/QUOTE]
Are you kidding? The greatest foreign policy success of the Carter presidency actually involved the Middle East.
[QUOTE]fter the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and its Arab enemies, Egypt and Syria, the Israelis had gradually disengaged their forces and moved a distance back in the Sinai Peninsula. They were still occupying Egyptian territory, however, and there was no peace between these adversaries. In the fall of 1978, Carter invited Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt's President Anwar Sadat to sit down with Carter at Camp David, a rural presidential retreat outside Washington. Between September 5 and September 17, 1978, Carter shuttled between Israeli and Egyptian delegations, hammering out the terms of peace. Consequently, Begin and Sadat reached a historic agreement: Israel would withdraw from the entire Sinai Peninsula; the U.S. would establish monitoring posts to ensure that neither side attacked the other; Israel and Egypt would recognize each other's governments and sign a peace treaty; and Israel pledged to negotiate with the Palestinians for peace.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Not since Theodore Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 had a president so effectively mediated a dispute between two other nations.[/B] Begin made several concessions to Carter, including agreeing to the principle of Egyptian sovereignty over the entire Sinai, and complete Israeli withdrawal from all military facilities and settlements. In return, Carter agreed to provide Israel with funds to rebuild Israeli military bases in the Negev Desert. Because Sadat and Carter had positions that were quite close, the two men became good friends as the conference progressed. Sadat also made some concessions to Carter, which alienated some of his own delegation. His prime minister resigned at the end, believing that Sadat had been outmaneuvered by the Americans and Israelis.
The Camp David Accords, initialed on September 17, 1978 and formally signed in Washington on March 26, 1979, were the most significant foreign policy achievement of the Carter administration, and supporters hoped it would revive his struggling presidency. [B]Although Begin and Sadat received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for this action, Carter received no significant political benefit from this achievement.[/B][/QUOTE]
+
[QUOTE][I]Carter continued to expand American contacts with communist China, granting the communist regime formal diplomatic recognition on January 1, 1979.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Wich were the building grounds of today's relationship of China to the world.
[URL="http://millercenter.org/president/carter/essays/biography/5"]More on his presidency here.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46183478]So people complain if you go in earlier or later? Jesus, its like Obama can't win with his critics.[/QUOTE]
Always has been like that.
Best part is how Obama isn't exactly the only one who calls all the shots.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46185567]Always has been like that.
Best part is how Obama isn't exactly the only one who calls all the shots.[/QUOTE]
The president, unfortunately, has a great deal of power in our foreign policy and military ventures.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46183284]The real solution would have been to remove Saddam in '91 and have a large UN coalition occupy the country and extirpate the Islamists from any position of power. It would have solved so many problems.[/QUOTE]
[del]That's what we did, or tried to. Instead, more extremists just crawled out of the caves once we left. It's like trying to get rid of bed bugs with a rubber mallet.[/del]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46185611]That's what we did, or tried to. Instead, more extremists just crawled out of the caves once we left. It's like trying to get rid of bed bugs with a rubber mallet.[/QUOTE]
Let's be honest, that'd be extremely satisfying to watch the bed bugs get smashed with the mallet.
It's like every political official, involved in the conflict or not, is jumping on to the hate train just to gain a gathering of people who agree, which is everyone. Like, really. It's not that he cares about the situation, it's that just saying that will get people to like him.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46185611]That's what we did, or tried to. Instead, more extremists just crawled out of the caves once we left. It's like trying to get rid of bed bugs with a rubber mallet.[/QUOTE]
No what we did was let Iraq fester for over a decade while millions of people continued to suffer under Saddam's nightmare regime. And when we did invade, it wasn't with what you could call an international consensus.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46185668]No what we did was let Iraq fester for over a decade while millions of people continued to suffer under Saddam's nightmare regime. And when we did invade, it wasn't with what you could call an international consensus.[/QUOTE]
Our goal was to liberate Kuwait, not destroy Iraq and Saddam. We went in, we did that, and we left.
It was a better "Mission Accomplished" than the second war.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46185694]Our goal was to liberate Kuwait, not destroy Iraq and Saddam. We went in, we did that, and we left.
It was a better "Mission Accomplished" than the second war.[/QUOTE]
The Ba'ath Party had forfeited its right to rule after its repeated invasions of neighboring countries and unspeakable human rights violations. I know why the coalition originally engaged Iraq, but the scope should have been broadened.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46183284]The real solution would have been to remove Saddam in '91 and have a large UN coalition occupy the country and extirpate the Islamists from any position of power. It would have solved so many problems.[/QUOTE]
This. Makes zero sense to "punish" Saddam and come back later when he's well equipped. Should've removed him then or don't even bother later.
[QUOTE=Hilton;46185663]It's like every political official, involved in the conflict or not, is jumping on to the hate train just to gain a gathering of people who agree, which is everyone. Like, really. It's not that he cares about the situation, it's that just saying that will get people to like him.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that, Carter does care about the region and people in general. He's done more as a private citizen then he ever did as a President. He's very well known for his charitable work.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46185414]Wich were the building grounds of today's relationship of China to the world.
[URL="http://millercenter.org/president/carter/essays/biography/5"]More on his presidency here.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Arguably a lot of this could also be credited to his advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Deal with the problem swiftly but have a plan laid out as soon as possible.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46183478]So people complain if you go in earlier or later? Jesus, its like Obama can't win with his critics.[/QUOTE]
The Republican party was both screaming for blood and mortars and would have immediately called Obama a warmonger if he had started earlier.
[QUOTE=Reds;46186073]The Republican party was both screaming for blood and mortars and would have immediately called Obama a warmonger if he had started earlier.[/QUOTE]
My guess is that's why he's waited as long as he has. Elections are coming up, and there's going to probably be a real battle for control of the Senate this year. Too much bad press for the Democrats would come out of an early intervention. It took a while to convince the American people ISIS was the threat that thy are to us, but polls indicated they finally started coming around in favor of intervention at the end of August/beginning of September.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.