This week Jimmy Carter explained that he lost re-election to Reagan because of the Iranian hostage situation. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C0P1H80&show_article=1 In this AP article, he explains that he was unwilling to entertain a military attack on Iran because of the potential loss of the hostages as well as many Iranian civilians. I’m surprised that President Carter still doesn’t understand what happened with Iran and how his compassionate posturing causes more bloodshed than it prevents. This administration also seems to see the history of the Reagan presidency through the same lenses.
Apparently, the problem Carter faced with Iran was disproportionate knowledge. Carter didn’t know what to do to get Iran to hand over the hostages. He had many choices before him, but Iran rightly guessed that Carter would choose from the liberal playbook of getting many expert opinions and then doing nothing while sitting in quiet contemplation. After being chastised into a single extrication attempt that failed, Carter couldn’t imagine what to do next. So, he waited. Iran rightly guessed that this would be the approach of the Carter administration. When Reagan stepped into office, Iran was faced with another set of facts. If the hostages weren’t handed over post haste, the leaders in Iran could be fairly certain they would be dealing with an invastion. So, Iran handed over the hostages. No bloodshed. No ugly extrication attempt. No childish bickering. Just “Here, take ‘em.”
Liberals cannot seem to imagine that their methods don’t work. In the minds of most liberals, their ideas are underwritten by all the best minds in academia. Their ideas use large words and take up many important chapters in textbooks. They have to be right! As it turns out, they aren’t. It seems that no matter how often history proves this, liberals just rewrite history to make it seem workable. The bottom line is obvious to even the most casual observer: Iran was scared of Reagan and it wasn’t scared at all about Carter. Iran felt certain that Reagan would do the one thing that Carter didn’t do: take action.
Just as Bin Laden voices in his own special way, Obama is “powerless”. He is powerless because no one believes for a second that he will actually do anything if Iran steps over the line. So, to Iran, the line is meaningless. It always reminds me of that line where Sinbad is pointing at a woman in a car driving away screaming, “If you don’t stop, I’ll be standing here pointing.” No one is in any doubt that Obama will take little or no action. The world theatre has already watched him do nothing in the face of provocation, certainly no one will take action if they can be fairly certain that Obama will leave them hanging out to dry as he did with Eastern Europe. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2184967/obama_scraps_missile_defense_in_eastern.html)
Obama takes a similar stance with Afghanistan. Let’s all sit down and think about this. Meanwhile, extremists in the region sense the ambivalence the President has towards Afghanistan, and they have stepped up their game. As Obama sits and contemplates, Afghanistan disentegrates into chaos. Wasn’t this the war he said was super important? Meh, Afghanistan knows what Iran knows, but Jimmy Carter has yet to figure out.
Some good insight here into the liberal mindset
civil_truth Monday, November 16th at 6:15PM EST (link)Not to mention the multiple iterations: the liberal dithers, our enemies act and change the situation, which leads to more dithering over the changed situation, and while that new dithering goes on, the situation changes again -and so on until it becomes clear that the situation is lost.
However, as you point out with Carter, the liberal never realizes that the deliberation/dithering was a critical factor in the loss - and particularly that the enemy’s actions are predicated on that dithering.
It’s the delusion that more knowledge leads to better action - whereas often, more action leads to better knowledge.
And Rightly So!
President Carter addressed the nation
Justin_Case Monday, November 16th at 6:52PM EST (link)shortly after the hostages were taken. In his speech he stated that, if the hostages were not immediately released, dire consequences awaited the Iranians. Of course, the Iranians rightly figured that that Carter’s words rang hollow. To the best of my recollection, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued words to the effect that the Americans were “beating a paper drum”.
In the months following the takeover of the American Embassy, the Iranians played on American emotions like a yo-yo. Hopes that the hostage’s release would be imminent, were always dashed. Anything that resembled diplomatic breakthroughs were always delayed and ultimately canceled. The Iranians held fast to their demand that the Shah, who was receiving medical treatment in the US, be handed over to them.
When President Obama first suggested negotiations with the Iranians over their nuclear capabilities during last year’s campaign, the intransigence of the Iranians immediately came to my mind. It’s obvious that Obama is ignorant of what took place thirty years ago. The same fate awaits him.
Wow!
Carolynp Thursday, November 19th at 12:19AM EST (link)Great comments all around.
Carolynp