Saturday, May 26, 2007

Can Jimmy Cater Blame Bush and Blair?

Former US President Jimmy Carter criticized current President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair with regard to Iraq policy. Carter accused Blair of supporting the Iraq War, and argued that the next British prime minister should be less enthusiastic to act with the Bush administration on Iraq (“Carter attacks Blair's Iraq role”, 19 May, BBC News). Shortly after this TV interview, he denounced Bush as the worst president in history (“In Carter-Bush Duel, Dual Retreats”, May 22, Washington Post). But is he in a position to denounce both leaders so openly in public? Apparently, he does not understand the consequence of his policy to the Middle East.

Jimmy Carter failed to stop the Iranian Revolution, which brought about widespread catastrophes in the Middle East. It has triggered the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Gulf States, and even Algeria. Had the Guard of Persian Gulf existed, Saddam Hussein would never have attacked Iran, Kuwait, and Kurdistan for his grandiose pursuit of towering over his fellow Arab nations. Also, the Soviet Union would not have intervened into Afghanistan. Moreover, Osama bin Laden is a product of the Afghan War and the Gulf War. In other words, Carter’s failure to deal with Iran led to 9-11 attack by Al Qaeda terrorists.

Negative impacts posed by the Iranian Revolution are far greater than those posed the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Actually, most of the troubles in the Middle East are irrelevant to this, as I mention in the previous post, “Misunderstandings on America and the Middle East.” I recommend you to read “A World without Israel” by Joseph Joffe in Foreign Policy in January 2005.

The Nixon-Kissinger duo could have stopped mullahs’ revolution as they did against communist Salvador Allende in Chili. Pahlavi may not have been democratic but he was an enlightened despot, following the path of Turkey and Japan. Quite appallingly, Carter called Muhammad Reza Pahlavi a tyrant. It is completely a misconduct to blame one of the best friends of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in that way.

Strangely enough, Carter behaves as if he forgot an inconvenient truth that he had transformed into a neocon from a pacifist liberal, in face of Soviet invasion to Afghanistan and US embassy attack in Iran. He increased defense budget since these crises, which was inherited to next president Ronald Reagan. Only through serious pinches, had Carter learned to act as the supreme commander. This is what the president should be. Jimmy Carter needs to keep this in mind.

The loss of Iran cost a lot to the US and its Western allies. US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher worked hard to roll back this loss. Bush and Blair are trying to reestablish an order in the Middle East, which collapsed under the Carter administration.

To my regret, some media laud Carter pacifist hero. What has he done to world peace? It has become apparent that his deal with North Korea in 1994 has not served the vital objective to prevent Kim Jong Il from possessing nuclear bombs. Simply, he earned a huge amount of money through winning the Nobel Peace Prize. We can learn a very important lesson that we must not judge the person solely based on the prize and the title.

Quite interestingly, the public does not support Jimmy Carter. Numerous letters to criticize Carter were sent to the Seattle Times ("Had 9/11 occurred under Carter we would be much worse off", May 25).

Jimmy Carter is the most responsible for uprisings in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Had he succeeded in preventing the Iranian Revolution, Saddam threats could have been contained and the Soviets would never have intervened into Afghanistan. Islamic radicals would not be as rampant throughout the Middle East as it is today. Former President Carter caused a substantial degree of disturbance in the Middle East and the world. He has no qualification to blame President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Please be quiet, sir.