Sorry VDH, but the notion of Dhimmi Carter with a spine is even more ludicrous than the notion of John 'Effing Kerry having principles.

Otherwise good.

President Dhimmi Carter still accepted his Nobel Peace prize AFTER 9/11 even though the Nobel committee made it quite clear they gave it to him to snide President Bush.

VDH should imagine going back a few more years to 1976 in hopes that America wasn't so stupid in electing Jimmy the Dhimmi.

Excellent article, interesting premise. But, from what I've read, I'm not entirely certain our military could have carried out such a mission in 1979.

Pity, though, that Carter couldn't have forgotten being a pastor and been a president for once.

The appeasement actually goes back even further when there was no effective response to the nationalization of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia, an oil industry that was only made possible by westerners.

Talking of appeasement - these events in Spain were predictable a year ago. I confirmed with a jihadi in Wood Green that Spain was a potential target and so is Britain if he can manage to rationalise it.........

we´ll know the minute Hamza et al stuff up and let one suicide bomber through - amongst more militant salafists Bakri et al are regarded as MI5 spies already.

This Allahbot below confirmed the above and also stated that often quoted Hamas screed ¨we love death more than life¨

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]You cannot appease muslims until you submit or die

I agree with VDH that Carter with a spine would have had a positive impact on history. But his comment that dead hostages would have been "151 fewer American lives than the Iranian-backed Hezbollah would take four years later in a single day in Lebanon" is far too flippant. These hostages weren't pieces on a chess board--they were real live people and can't be considered as one group of potential deaths versus another.

shoot, if Carter had supported the Shaw rather than pulled the rug on him, the islamists wouldnt have taken over in Iran in the first place....

Have to admit I never thought of this. I wonder if military confrontation was ever seriously contemplated by Carter?

What I remember from 1979 was the overwhelming concern of most people for the fate of the hostages. I'm not sure the American people would have supported a full-scale invasion. Which is not to say that, with the benefit of hindsight, threatening military action wasn't a better response than what eventually happened, which was a debacle by any standard.

The question of whether Islamic radicals would have been sufficiently chastened by an invasion of Iran to have made a difference in the development of Islamic terrorism over the past 25 years is still open though, IMHO. The key events were the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which developed the mujahedeen, the Arab-Israeli conflict, which spawned Arab terrorism in general and the rise of Saddam, all taking place in the context of a stagnating and unfree Arab-Muslim world.

Fifty million dead, the Holocaust and the near destruction of European civilization were the wages of "appeasement"

Germany was hardly self-sufficient when Hitler first violated the Versailles Treaty by moving troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. Preemptive action could have saved many lives.

And that's what today's leftist loons can't get through their numb skulls. If papa Bush had been as spineless as Carter, we could very well have a quixotic madman controlling two-thirds of the world's oil reserves.

On the other hand, we did get Reagan elected and the hostages back.

So it was not a total loss.

Carter? What if Clinton had a spine when the Cole and the African embassies were attacked. What if Kerry had a spine when poison gas was released in the . . . sorry, getting ahead of myself.

Just like that idiot Truman - we now have a nuclear armed Norh Korea and thanks to Carter and Reagan we will have a nuclear armed islamic republic that is overtly aggressive. We should have taken Iran out years ago when they were engaged in the war with Iraq

#8 BPP -

I wonder if military confrontation was ever seriously contemplated by Carter.

His reinstatement of the draft notwithstanding, I highly doubt it.

A very well-written article. I have one historical disagreement:

"appeasement”—a term that early-1930s liberals proudly embraced as far more enlightened..."

Early 1930's liberals were actually the most likely political groups to recognize the danger of National Socialism. The leaders of the appeasement party in Great Britain, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, were members of the Tory Conservative Party. Winston Churchill was actually a member of Britain's Liberal Party until the mid-1920's when the party imploded and most of its voters switched to the Labor Party. Since Winston wasn't a socialist, he switched to the Tories.

In France, the Conservatives were split between those who actually admired National Socialism and wanted to emulate it in France (they eventually became the core of the Vichy regime) and those who distrusted anything German on traditional grounds. The party that wanted to stand up to Germany and wanted to intervene in Spain in 1936 against the Fascists was the Socialist Party under Leon Blum.

My point is that appeasement is not a "liberal" disease - at least it wasn't in the 1930's.

BPP: As I understand Carter did nothing about the removal of the Shah. He basically just shrugged his shoulders as if it didn't concern the United States.

That's one event that Bernard Lewis highlights in his books.

#15 Axiom: For those with long memories, it is important to note that the Shah was a good ruler only in hindsight compared with the dreck that came after him. He ran a dictatorial police state, and ran it rather poorly, considering the billions in oil revenues which flowed to state coffers.

?? Wasn't there an attempted military response that was an unmitigated disaster?

Anyway I disagree with the premise on principal because hindsight is always 20/20.

I do agree negotiation was a mistake. Never negotiate with terrorists and people who take hostages. Every citizen is a front line soldier in a hostage situation. You give in once and you're forever having to put up with more of the same. Wasn't it Golda who said that?

The best thing that happened as a result of Carter's waffling was that Ronald Reagan was elected President and ended the Cold War.

Can you imagine the world today if we had Muslim terrorists AND the Soviet Union to deal with?

sorry to go OT on this thread so soon, but here is a must-read letter from Iraq re: Fallujah, etc.

"It appears to me this was a well-planned attack on the Spanish in an effort to drive a wedge further between our two countries, now that the newly elected Spanish government wants to pull their forces out of Iraq. ...

Letter from JOC

and if you scroll down you'll read this:

Now, Inside the Beltway has been provided a peek at Ed Moser's latest book, "Keeping Kerry Candid: Help John Kerry Make Up His Mind."

In keeping with the theme of today's column, here's a pair of Kerry quotes culled from the book (the first just before the start of the Iraqi war, the second exactly one week after the war began):

•"I remember being one of those [soldiers] and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't speak a word [criticizing the president] without measuring how it'll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert."

•"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

Operation Eagle Claw

Failed mainly due to not taking note of the potential for dust/sand storms and what they do to equipment.

Entebbe it wasn't.

#8 BPP

The key events were the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,

I'm pretty sure that if Iran was crawling with US troops in 1979-80 the Soviets never would have invaded Afganistan and Bin Laden wouldn't have been radicalized by those events.

#18 Gordon:

The best thing that happened as a result of Carter's waffling was that Ronald Reagan was elected President and ended the Cold War.

Can you imagine the world today if we had Muslim terrorists AND the Soviet Union to deal with?

Gordon ... is that really you? You might just surprise us yet, hmmm?

I notice VDH forgot to mention American dithering over joining the war. Doesn't he think that might have caused a few of those deaths? What exactly is the difference between the neutrality/isolationism and appeasement?

Other than that its a decent piece.

VDH - another excellent take Finish It or Forget It

We should simply ignore most supposed Islamic restrictions on war-making since they are entirely one-sided, asymmetrical, and self-serving.

Gordon -- re the 30's -- you are right on liberals -- but the far left was wholly pro-appeasement. The leftwing movements of the United States were dedicated to staying as far as possible from German/ bourgeois wars. They changed on a dime on June 22, 1941 -- some communist orators even famously doing so in mid-speech.

Or maybe, just maybe, if the CIA hadn't been fucking around in Iran in the first place, Carter wouldn't have had to deal with it.

I'm noticing how, at this very moment, GW's, erm, spine (was that what was bulging out of that flight suit?) is engendering a servile and grateful Iraqi populace.

Henry C:

The appeasement actually goes back even further when there was no effective response to the nationalization of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia

Henry, more to the point is the entire West's refusal to take action in October 1973 when OPEC (ie, Saudi Arabia) declared an oil embargo against the US, Europe and Japan, gutting the world economy.

That was the very moment to retake the Saudi oil fields through an international military coalition. But not one country did a fucking thing. We let it slide. Then Carter let the Iranian attack on our Embassy slide. The rest is current history.

We're still trying to do this one step at a time instead of gathering a Western Alliance to launch all-out war against the Islamic Fascists.

Which means a real bloodbath in a couple years.

Gary Bruce-- Reagan always said that the Arabs were right to raise oil prices in 1973. Our contracts with them were based upon dollars which traded at a fixed rate to gold. When Nixon closed the gold window, it effectively devalued their contracts-- Reagan pointed out that the arabs had kept the cost of oil in gold roughly constant.

#14. Good points.

It's been said many times recently...."Didn't liberals used to oppose facist dictators? Didn't liberals want self-determination and a democratically elected government? Didn't liberals want basic rights for women?"

Apparently their hate for the US is stronger then there love of the above.

#27 Gary Bruce:

Actually, perhaps the key tipping point was when France pulled out of Algeria in 1962 instead of staying and crushing the Arab revolt.

Actually, the key tipping point was when the U.S. didn't back Britain, France, and Israel when they invaded Egypt in 1956 and re-took the Suez canal.

Actually, the key tipping point was when Britain allowed Pakistan to be created as a separate Muslim state, instead of forcing Muslims to be a minority within a predominantly Hindu Greater India.

Actually, perhaps the key tipping point was when the rest of the world didn't stop Ataturk from kicking the Greeks and Russians out and forming Turkey, in violation of the partition plan drawn up for it after World War I.

Actually, perhaps the key tipping point was when the British and French intervened in the 1854 Crimean War against Russia, which was trying to demolish the Ottoman Empire and claim the Bosporus as Russian territory.

Levi from Queens:

Reagan always said that the Arabs were right to raise oil prices in 1973.

I didn't say we should have retaken the Saudi oil fields when OPEC raised oil prices, but when OPEC embargoed their oil. After they lifted their embargo, they quadrupled prices overnight.

We could have retaken the Saudi oil fields the moment they declared their embargo against the West, following the Yom Kippur War, pointing to the embargo as an act of (economic) war. Instead, we did nothing. We're living with the outcome of that cowardice.

Of course, we had just lost the Vietnam War, and Nixon was months from impeachment, so the Islalo-fascists chose their moment to strike at an opportune time.

Gordon:

Actually, perhaps the key tipping point was when the British and French intervened in the 1854 Crimean War against Russia, which was trying to demolish the Ottoman Empire and claim the Bosporus as Russian territory.

The tipping point for you came a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

"Call a Saudi fundamentalist mullah a fascist, and you can be sure you’ll be tarred as an Islamophobe."

No Way! This doesn't happen!

/sarcasm off

#16 Gordon

For those with long memories, it is important to note that the Shah was a good ruler only in hindsight compared with the dreck that came after him. He ran a dictatorial police state, and ran it rather poorly, considering the billions in oil revenues which flowed to state coffers.

Compared to other Muslim states of the time, Iran was a shining beacon. It had the best educational system (woman were allowed!) and a reasonably free press. Far behind the West, but far ahead of other states in the area.

A terrific essay! I hope only that Bush doesn't turn into an appeaser now that we've encountered more serious resistance and opposition!

Carter's lack of action, no beitzim, is but one reason
that he's considered the worst president of the second
half of the 20th century.

WhoooooWheeee!

That's one ball bustin', ballad of rational Hanson!
Or advanced Hansonism.

I'm already long convinced though. I put on my Hanson, right before I put on my breast plate.

I wish there was a way to say thanks to the man.

OT

I just finished reading _The Soul of War_ and _Ripples of Battle_. One thing I can't help but notice about VDH (I really can't help it) is that he uses the B.C./A.D. date system and not the B.C.E/C.E. abomination.

Little known trivia:

Jimmah Cawtah recalled a rescue mission, helicopters in the air about to cross the Iran-Turkey border, days before the Embassy was taken, while the Marines were still in control.

He wanted to "negotiate a diplomatic solution". Well, the peanut farmer learned that the world isn't made up of other peanut farmers, and that muslims cannot be trusted.
An expensive lesson!

#14 Gordon

My point is that appeasement is not a "liberal" disease - at least it wasn't in the 1930's.

It's a moot point. Many British "liberals" were actually Communists. The Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 caused them some major headaches:

On September 6 Thorez and other French Communists joined their regiments, calling for aid to Poland, only to desert at Moscow's behest a few days later. Harry Pollitt, the British Communist leader, wrote a pamphlet unfortunately titled "How to Win the War," and after two weeks both he and his pamphlet had to drop from public gaze. The German Communists in exile made strange noises suggesting that the Allies were worse than Hitler. The general line was that already stated by Stalin in March, that the war was an ''imperialist'' one for the redivision of the world. The Communists said much more about Allied than about Nazi ''culpability,'' and demanded ''peace.''

I think of the current conflict as the natural consequence of delayed actions on our part over the last thirty years in response to continual Moslem aggression.

It includes Nixon's refusal to take action in response to the Arab oil embargo (1973), Carter's refusal to take action against Iran (1979), Reagan's refusal to take action against Lebanon/Hezbollah/Iran in 1982, on and on, up to Bush I and Clinton. There was a consensus in the American political community not to drain the Islamic cesspool. And now we're in it up to our necks as a result. Deferred maintenance never works for countries.

#40 Halldor: Conflating Liberals and Communists was ridiculous in the 1930's, and it is ridiculous now.

In 1973, Following the Yom Kipper War, The U.S. under Nixon, stood on the brink of intercepting and destroying the PLO as it was driven from Jordan. Before PLO got to, and eventyally destroyedLebanon. The disincentive? The 20,000 Soviet troops stationed in Syria and the feared Soviet trump card of a (Soviet) thermo nuclear response. Sorry, no SDI counterdisincentive for the Soviets to chew on in 1973. Iran and Norks face this now. VDH should examine this missed opportunity. It lead to the "Lebanonization" of things- another word for 'destroy anything and everything that belongs to someone else'- the 'root causes' are in marx and his agents

Excellent, and of course I want to have some of what he's been smokin'.

It must take some powerful stuff to visualize Jimmuh Cawtuh with actual balls.

No, I don't mean to "visualize" that in the literal sense, else I would need some even stronger drugs to get over THAT image.

Carter also gave us Mugabe and Ortega. @$$hole.

#42 Gordon

Yep, but it happened all the same. Unless you consider that opinion-forming writers like Auden, Isherwood and Spender were only liberals. Their allegiance - like that of many British intellectuals in the 30s - was to the Communist Party. Orwell had a lot to say about this, by the way.

When the party of allah bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Reagan did nothing. Why not? Why not utterly destroy Hezb-allah after that? A very serious error on behalf of Reagan. Why doesn't this column label that as "appeasement"?

#39 Shadowfax

the peanut farmer learned that the world isn't made up of other peanut farmers, and that muslims cannot be trusted.

Carter never learned his lesson. He should have learned it but he didn't. He's still espousing the same kind of internationalist, pacifist garbage he put forth as President. To the further empowerment of our Islamofascist enemies.

#46 Split Lip

When the party of allah bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Reagan did nothing. Why not? Why not utterly destroy Hezb-allah after that? A very serious error on behalf of Reagan. Why doesn't this column label that as "appeasement"?

In fact, it does. Take another look...

Even Ronald Reagan’s saber-rattling “You can run but not hide” did not preclude trading arms to the Iranian terrorists or abruptly abandoning Lebanon after the horrific Hezbollah attack

This piece by Hanson sucks.

"... promises to bomb, first, all of its major military assets, and then its main government buildings and residences of its ruling mullocracy..."

Hmmmmm............. Still sounds like a refreshingly novel idea to me - even after all the years...

41 Gary Bruce

I think of the current conflict as the natural consequence of delayed actions on our part over the last thirty years in response to continual Moslem aggression.

Playing alternative history games makes for an amusing diversion, and who's to say who's right? Everyone here, and VDH too, is making the analogy with Hitler and appeasement in the 30's. I'm sorry, but the analogy just isn't that clear. In Germany, you had an expanisionist government led by a dictator who basically ruled by decree. Sure, kicking the Germans out of the Rhineland would have made a huge difference in deterring Germany from invading.

The Muslim world is totally different. You don't have a single centralized state you are trying to prevent from invading, you have entire sections of the population of many countries who are intent on inflicting whatever damage they can when they can in a kind of nihilistic spasm.

Bernard Lewis and others have written, Arab resentment and feelings of humiliation, which are necessary (but not sufficient) precursors of terrorism, have their roots in centuries of decline relative to the West. Furthermore, Muslim radicals have their roots in the development of the Muslim Brotherhood, which dates from the 40's and 50's. But most of all, Muslim radicals are more often at war with their own governments than they are with the West. Iran is the exceptional case where they actually took over. Almost everywhere else, they have been ruthlessly surpressed.

One thing that also seems clear is that a Western response in one part of the Muslim world can have repercussions in another part. That is where the analogy with the 30's really breaks down. Supposed we had taken over a part of the Saudi oil fields. Who's to say that wouldn't have triggered a reaction in other areas, the way the Iraq war now has further radicalized certain Arabs. The old appeasement-only-emboldens-fascists trope may be true if you're dealing with a single entity, but that's not what we have on our hands here.

It's not clear to me what would have stopped this virus. But it strikes me as very simplistic to say that if we had just kicked some ass back in the 70's we wouldn't have had this problem.

#22 - Sharona

I was just thinking the same thing about Gordon... Is this the real Gordon... making sense?

If so, my day has been truly made...

Speaking of appeasement (or in this case, non-appeasement) James S. Robbins in NRO reminds us of one response to hostage taking that sounds pretty effective.

In September 1985, four Soviet diplomats in Beirut were kidnapped by members of Hezbollah. One of them, Arkady Katkov, was shot in the head, and the rest were imprisoned. The terrorists wanted the Soviet Union to bring pressure on Syria to stop giving military support to a rival militia group. The situation was similar to that the United States, France, and other countries faced vis-à-vis the same Iranian-backed Shiite militants. But the Soviet response was different. Working with Syria, the KGB tracked down three young relatives of the Hezbollah leader. The Soviets then, so it is said, mutilated one of the men and sent body parts to the terrorists with a promise that the other two in their care would be treated similarly unless their people were released. That evening, the three diplomats, emaciated, unshaven, barefoot, and wearing dirty track suits, appeared at the gates of the Soviet embassy. Problem solved.

#51 BPP

The Muslim world is totally different. You don't have a single centralized state you are trying to prevent from invading, you have entire sections of the population of many countries who are intent on inflicting whatever damage they can when they can in a kind of nihilistic spasm.

On the other hand, an analogy can be drawn between the single centralized ideology of Nazism and the single centralized ideology of Islam(ism). Perhaps if works like those of Pipes and Spencer had been written thirty years earlier, they might have helped to wake up governments and public opinion to what was really going on?

#3 Dianna 4/12/2004 10:12AM PST
Excellent article, interesting premise. But, from what I've read, I'm not entirely certain our military could have carried out such a mission in 1979.

Not even a 'hypothetical' question. We DID try a "rescue mission", and it failed / burned up in the Iranian desert.

#8 BPP 4/12/2004 10:28AM PST
...The key events were the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which developed the mujahedeen, the Arab-Israeli conflict, which spawned Arab terrorism in general and the rise of Saddam, all taking place in the context of a stagnating and unfree Arab-Muslim world.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was fomenting his Islamic Revolution in Iran from exile, in Iraq and France (how's that for 'history'?).
The Shah fled Iran in Jan. '79
Khomeini felt his position was strong enough to return to Iran Feb 16, '79
The US Embassy in Tehran was stormed Nov 4 '79; 63 Americans were taken hostage, and 52 of them were held for 444 days.
The abortive hostage rescue attempt took place Apr 24 '80
The American Hostages were released on Jan21 '81, wthin 24hrs of Reagan being sworn into office

The Soviets had been backing a Communist takeover of AFghanistan, that bore fruit in '78, when a coup was staged there.
The soviets spent 18mos funding and backing that new power structure as it attempted to spread throughout Afghanistan.
Sept 79 saw a spasm in that puppet govt, assassination attempts.
The next three months saw a rapid buildup in Soviet forces IN Afghanistan, culminating in the "invitation" from the AFghan leader, and the resulting massive invasion of Afghanistan in Dec 79.

I'll go one step beyond VDH, and state that Carter's weak non-response to the violent takeover of the US Embassy was emblematic of his lack of strength in the face of aggression, and contributed directly to that Soviet action in Afghanistan.
The state of the Nation (USA) in the mid-70s was horrible in the post-Vietnam pullout / fallout. That, combined with Carter's (in)actions during his presidency, capped with the 'cherry on top' of laying down in the face of the Ayatollah's pissant Revolution contributed heavily to the Soviet decision to push into Afghanistan.

@ 53 Inside the Whale - I remember reading something like that - is it a true story? Sounds realistic since it appears the Russians recently executed a Chechen terrorist/rebel leader in Qatar - plus there was no playing around with the terrorists that took over that theater in Moscow a few years ago.

Open Question -- Since we a playinig what if, any suggestions on what Ford would have done in 79?

#51 BPP

Arab resentment and feelings of humiliation, which are necessary (but not sufficient) precursors of terrorism, have their roots in centuries of decline relative to the West.

This may be relevant to historical analysis but is less significant to how we should act now and in Iraq. We're in triage with terrorism. And with the patient hemorrhaging all over the gurney, it's not necessarily an appropriate time to take a family history.

I don't mean to shut down your inquiry, your discussion of root causes and historical parallels. But it does seem awfully academic alongside the issue we're at war. And the abject failure of the diplomatic course with Islamofascism.

#56 Grail

Open Question -- Since we a playinig what if, any suggestions on what Ford would have done in 79?

I cannot imagine a more pathetic response than that proffered by Carter. So I'll have to go with Door #2.

I expect Ford would have been more decisive. A lot would have depended on how comfortable he felt with Congress, et al. But I expect he'd have opted for a military response...

BPP:

Who's to say that wouldn't have triggered a reaction in other areas, the way the Iraq war now has further radicalized certain Arabs. The old appeasement-only-emboldens-fascists trope may be true if you're dealing with a single entity, but that's not what we have on our hands here.

The two biggest Islamic trouble makers in the past thirty years have been Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shi'a)--and both provided us with a casus belli (sp?) for war at a time when we could have defeated each without significant cost to ourselves.

Since 1973 and 1979, the consequences of our inaction then have been obvious to everyone--and we're now going to have to sacrifice a lot more to achieve victory.

#47 bpolsky

"Carter never learned his lesson. He should have learned it but he didn't. He's still espousing the same kind of internationalist, pacifist garbage he put forth as President. To the further empowerment of our Islamofascist enemies."

You're right. I guess "bitch slapped" would be a better description of what Khomeini did to him. Some bitches never learn, no matter how many times you slap 'em.

(The above mentioned "bitches" are not women. Only a cowardly weasel would slap a woman around. Like, say, an arab!)

Uh, one inconvenient fact left out of the "analysis." Iran shares a southern border with what was then the Soviet Union. The Cold War was still on and things in the USSR weren't very stable, with premiers dying and being replaced every year. Even the most cowboyish of presidents wouldn't have been stupid enough to invade a neighboring country next to the USSR. That never would have been a reasonable option, as much as we would like to live in neocon fantasyland.

Bpolsky:

the abject failure of the diplomatic course with Islamofascism

Bush's go-slow strategy was evident today, when General Abizaid of Central Command said Iran and Syria had been "unhelpful" in Iraq. Which means that neutered public rhetoric is being substituted for military action.

Ed Moran was right when he said Bush was in election year paralysis--W won't initiate any serious military activity until after the election. If the enemy will play along, which they ain't. Knowing this, why let the enemy determine the pace of the war?

#62 Shaker

Even the most cowboyish of presidents wouldn't have been stupid enough to invade a neighboring country next to the USSR. That never would have been a reasonable option, as much as we would like to live in neocon fantasyland.

Not sure I agree since Iran, prior to the fall of the Shah, was a US "asset."

Shaker:

Even the most cowboyish of presidents wouldn't have been stupid enough to invade a neighboring country next to the USSR. That never would have been a reasonable option, as much as we would like to live in neocon fantasyland.

Mmm. What about saturation bombing of military, economic and political targets by carrier fleets in the Gulf? Insertion of special forces with trained Iranians to overthrow the Mullahcracy?

There were other military options, but the point is that we didn't do anything.

"I expect Ford would have been more decisive."

True. Remember the Mayaguez incident? I know Marines and airmen died (2 were friends of mine, stationed in Okinawa with me at the time), but that was a result of bad intelligence (sound familiar?), not a lack of action on Ford's part.

Also the "rescue" attempt faile because Carter insisted that it be an integrated, mutli-force operation, with Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine & even Coast Guard (?) personnel involved. But no real integrated training took place. One report I read stated that an Air Force two-striper (why was a two-striper on this mission?) laid his field jacket over the cooling vent for the gyroscope, causing it to overheat and malfunction on takeoff, when it careened into the C-130.
Jimmah's misguided sense of "fairness" struck again!

#63 Gary Bruce

Ed Moran was right when he said Bush was in election year paralysis--W won't initiate any serious military activity until after the election.

I don't at all disagree with the diagnosis here, but I think it's a disaster for the country and it may well lead to Bush's defeat in November.

and speaking of Jimmy Carter, the Democrat Political Time Warp Machine™, and their pathetically childish 'I'm rubber you're glue' campaign techniques - Kerry campaign rolls out 'Misery Index'
"Misery Index". Pathetic. The recycling of or rote repetition of 30-yr -old political techniques is the BEST that the Kerry-McAuliffe Axis can come up with??
They are going to hang (this week's new) campaign strategy on the Economy??
With Unemployment at the same 5.6-5.7% rate that it was during the Clinton presidency?
With 30-yr LOWS in interest Rates?
With almost nonexistent Inflation rates?? (Carter's 'Misery' boat-anchor)
With home ownership at a historic high rate of 68%? (continuing a mutli year trend)
With the CPI fairly stable? (especially compared to the near-runaway Inflation of the Carter presidency)

This campaign meme is easily shredded with just a few minutes' fact-finding.
a Kerry 'Midery-Index' against Bush is nothing more than grist for the campaign mill, spinning agit-prop headlines every time REAL Economic good news is release - look no further than what the Kerry campaign was spouting in the 72hrs when job growth rate was soaring at record rates, 308,000 new jobs in March
Also keep your eye on the US Gov Bureau of Labor Statistics

Get ready to score another failed Kerry campaign tactic.

On top of the pathetic re-use of a campaign tactic - "Misery Index" - the Kerry campaign has disengenuously completely altered the calculation of the old-school 'Misery Index' to include a whole slew of factors which didn't figure in the old value.
It's nothing more than conflating all the cherry-picked Negatives, slapping an old label on them, and saying 'see? see? Bush is worse than Carter!' Puh-leeez.

The Left's attempts at Newspeak revisionism continue apace.

#66 Shadowfax

Also the "rescue" attempt failed because Carter insisted that it be an integrated, mutli-force operation, with Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine & even Coast Guard (?) personnel involved.

I forget this little twist!

So now we can also blame Carter for the disease of politically correct thinking!

Hitchens on the comparing of Iraq to Vietnam and Lebanon

and speaking of Political Time Warp Machine™, Cox & Forkum already skewered the idea.
What was that 60s sci-fi show that had a vertical spinning vortex thing that the hero stepped in?
I was thinking something like that, with ALL the Left's / Dem's revisionist issues plastered around the periphery like a Wheel of Misfortune™

OT

I cannot understand how any Democrat can suggest that John Kerry would do a better job in Iraq.

LOL
I am watching Edwards on CNN right now and here is a rundown of the questions asked of him.

< after of course his ranting about Bush's handling of Iraq >

CNN: What would John Kerry do if he was in Iraq.

EDWARDS: We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: Ok fine, so what would you do differently if you two were in Iraq?

EDWARDS: We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: Ok well then, what exactly does that mean?

EDWARDS: We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: OK GODDAMIT but what does that mean?

EDWARDS: It means we would have had international presence such as NATO, the UN and other Muslim country's behind us and we wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: ??? Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

CNN: So what else would you do that was different then Bush in Iraq?

EDWARDS: We would change the way we handle foreign intelligence and do it differently than Bush does if we were in Iraq.
The problem with the FBI is their structural problem with their linear approach.

CNN: WTF? What does that mean?

EDWARDS: I don't know but it sure sounds good doesn't it and no doubt many people will fall for it and TRULY believe We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: OK so what would you do in Iraq any differently than Bush?

EDWARDS: We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: Goddammit, don't you EVER answer a question by giving a legitimate answer?

EDWARDS: We would do it differently if we were in Iraq than Bush.
Oh, sorry, you asked if I ever answer a question with a legitimate answer?

But I am!

We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq so we would create a secondary Intelligence committee since the FBI only deals with terrorism legally, therefore we need a secondary agency that only deals with terrorism, for, remember, we wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: WTF? YOU still haven't answered my question properly have you?

EDWARDS: Yes I have, loud and clear, we wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: Oh GO AWAY you are giving me a migraine!

EDWARDS: Just remember, we wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq. We would have brought in the UN, NATO and other Muslim country's.

CNN: Yes as you have told me at least a half dozen times now but would you pull out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: No, we are in Iraq now.

CNN: So how would you handle it differently then if you were in power?

EDWARDS: We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: Arrrrggggghhhh you still haven't told me what YOU would do IF you were in Iraq INSTEAD of Bush?

EDWARDS: We wouldn't be in the position today that Bush is if we were in Iraq.

CNN: OK one last time...............would you pull out of Iraq by the June handover date if you were in Iraq?

EDWARDS: We would handle it all very differently if we were in Iraq.

CNN: I GIVE UP, GO AWAY!

Slight exaggeration?
Barely! ;-(

/shakes head

#39 Shadowfax 4/12/2004 11:32AM PST

Little known trivia:

Jimmah Cawtah recalled a rescue mission, helicopters in the air about to cross the Iran-Turkey border, days before the Embassy was taken, while the Marines were still in control.

He wanted to "negotiate a diplomatic solution". Well, the peanut farmer learned that the world isn't made up of other peanut farmers, and that muslims cannot be trusted.
An expensive lesson!

what??

It's interesting that VDH counts TWA 800 as a terrorist act.

gruesome murders of American citizens and diplomats (including TWA Flight 800, Pan Am 103, ...

He's seldom accused of being a member of the of the tin-foil hat brigade. I wonder what he knows?

#46 split lip 4/12/2004 11:53AM PST
When the party of allah bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Reagan did nothing. Why not? Why not utterly destroy Hezb-allah after that? A very serious error on behalf of Reagan. Why doesn't this column label that as "appeasement"?

Many of the folks here Have and Do. Trying reading a bit.

#49 James Earl Carter Jr. 4/12/2004 12:09PM PST
This piece by Hanson sucks.

linking to the Jimmy Carter library?

Partisan defense?
Comedic Irony?
ha

#62 shaker 4/12/2004 01:20PM PST
...neocon fantasyland.

Take your cardboard-cutout symbollic "understanding" of GeoPolitics, and go sit in the corner.

I hate to defend Jimmy Carter, and I still think we should have laid down an ultimatum, and followed up on it after it became clear the revolutionary Iranian govt. supported the hostage taking.

But- IIRC, the US did not yet have cruise missiles, we didn't have stealth technology, and with the exception of some weapon systems like the Bullpup camera guided bomb, we didn't have much in accurate bombs. Iran also had US built F-4 and F-14 fighters.

So this wouldn't have been a Gulf War 1 type scenario where Iranian air defenses were crippled within a few days of the start of combat, and the US would have had to drop enough bombs to ensure hitting the desired targets, meaning a fair number of Iranian "civilian" casualties, along with some US flight crews shot down and captured.

Andy Rooney, Liberal Asshat and Appeaser

Steyn on Fallujah Iraq's Tempest in a Teapot

Newsflash:

President Bush will hold his first solo news conference of the year on Tuesday night to update Americans on U.S.-led efforts in Iraq, the White House said on Monday.

"We are at a critical period in Iraq and the president looks forward to talking to the American people and updating the American people where we are in Iraq right now and where we are headed," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I pinched this Plan for Peace from a Yahoo board :

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those good ol' boys: We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" (for "deport") and it's back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given to the Army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...

Fruit of Appeasement

History fiction is so nice: you can prove anything you want. Well, you can't really, but people will stop thinking while reading or listening to your reasoning.

So Hanson tells us something very strange: with military strength instead of appeasement, WW II could have been avoided.
But that is missing the point. Let's consider some facts.

Hitlers goals where known since he published "Mein Kampf". Knowing history, we know this book announced the Holocaust aswell as WWII. But before all this happened, nobody could know (or believe) it would. Besides, it was a great help to Hitler, that many underestimated him. This is especially true for those conservative but not nazi politicians who helped him into power 1933, thinking he could be used as some easy to control puppet. And it is true for Chamberlain and Dalladier who believed Hitlers hunger for "Lebensraum" could be satisfied until 1938.
-> Problem: dictators are very often underestimated in the beginning - that gives them time to strengthen. But this is a general problem: we cannot know history before it happened. That does not make it easier to decide for the "right" or "wrong" policy.

Now lets face the situation in those days:
- the economic crisis had hit world economy and weakened democracies. Totalitarian systems - Germany, Italy and Japan - could face the problem with tricks democracies can't use. Things like "Arbeitsdienst" or just printing "some" extra banknokes. In fact it is said that Hitler started his war in 1939 allthough his military was not ready because the state's bankrupcy was quite ahead.
- British and French military strengh was quite weak compared to Germanys brandnew and therefore highly modern army in the 1930ies. And Hitler did not miss to demonstrate his military strength to show them. History shows: France signed an armistice in 1940 and without (quite late) american Help and Hitlers comming war against the USSR, Britain could have shared this destiny.
- With WW I in mind, US public opinion opted for an isolationist policy - no support to expect for France and Britain from there in the 1930ies.

Did Chamberlain and Daladier have many options but Appeasement? I doubt it.
If they had, what could they have done? Take Hitler and the nazi party away from power? How that? Declare war on Germany in 1936 or 1937? Do we know how this war would have developped? How many lives it would have cost, how many spared? Wouldn't it have become something very similar to the WW II that happened?

Hanson doesn't give any answer. He just speaks of the "wages of 'appeasement'".

It's allways very easy to say some policy was wrong, when history has happened. But it is highly speculative to say what policy would have been the better one.
This is highly speculative.

This is why I do not agree, that column is brilliantly written. In fact, it is higly insubstantial history fiction about the Teheran he tries to prove with highly insubstantial pseudo-analysis of european history of the last century.

Hmmm...what's someone with a name like "Murphy" doing with a German e-mail address and writing German-syntaxed English?

#84 Murphy

But it is highly speculative to say what policy would have been the better one. This is highly speculative.

You're right. Hanson is speculative.

But the fact is we know what we got when Hitler wasn't challenged, just as we know what we've got now with Islamofascism...an unfettered monster bent on the destruction of the West.

“Imagine a different November 4, 1979, in Teheran. Shortly after Iranian terrorists storm the American embassy and take some 90 American hostages, President Jimmy Carter announces that Islamic fundamentalism is not a legitimate response to the excess of the Shah but a new and dangerous fascism that threatens all that liberal society holds dear. And then he issues an ultimatum to Teheran’s leaders: Release the captives or face a devastating military response”

Unfortunately, by November 4, 1979 it was too late to reverse the course and years blindly supporting the Shah (it started with Operation TP Ajax during the Eisenhower administration).

Also, if the Reagan administration didn’t use “the October Surprise”, the hostage situation would have still existed when Reagan was inaugurated and it is very doubtful that he, Reagan, would have used a “devastating military response”.

But, we can debate “what if’s” forever whout knowing who is right or wrong.

What is not debatable is that the Carter and Reagan administration needed and encouraged “Islamic fundamentalism” to fight the “jihad” following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Islamic fundamentalist school were created in Pakistan, funded by the oil-rich Middle East Islamic States with many fighters imported from Egypt et. al. and directed by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) with overall strategic guidance and support from the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services.

CAN WE EVER LEARN FROM "BLOWBACK"?

October Surprise

Go thou back to Executive Intelligence Review, whence thou art come.

#87

There would have been no Soviet Invasion if Carter had supported the Shah and warned the French to stay out of Iran.

#87 DoubleStandard 4/12/2004 03:37PM PST
...Islamic fundamentalist school were created in Pakistan, funded by the oil-rich Middle East Islamic States with many fighters imported from Egypt et. al. and directed by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) with overall strategic guidance and support from the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services.

CAN WE EVER LEARN FROM "BLOWBACK"?

"Blowback"?? How's this for 'blowback' - you deliberate lie / conflate in your agenda-driven assertions regarding the USA be the causative factor in the jihadis / mujahadeen. Ignoring 2300yrs of regional history, and particularly the mujahadeen that stomped the British there 160yrs ago.

Your intimation that the USA bears responsibility for the Mujahadeen is specious, and is directly related to the mythos that the USA / CIA "created" UBL.

The REAL mujahadeen went on to become the 'Northern Alliance' in opposition to the Taliban arose. The REAL mujahadeen now form the center of Afghani politics.
The Islamic jihadists are the warriors of the Saudi-funded wahabist / sharia shitholesmadrassas that have been strewn throughout the hemisphere, just as the House of Fraud has seeded 'Muslim Student Associations' across our own campuses.

Frank IBC:

Hmmm...what's someone with a name like "Murphy" doing with a German e-mail address and writing German-syntaxed English?

I'm sorry Frank. I happen to be German. That's why I have a German e-mail address and it's very probably the cause for my German-syntaxed English. I appologize for that.

But what exactly is your point?

#87 DoubleStandard 4/12/2004 03:37PM PST
...Islamic fundamentalist school were created in Pakistan, funded by the oil-rich Middle East Islamic States with many fighters imported from Egypt et. al. and directed by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) with overall strategic guidance and support from the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services.

CAN WE EVER LEARN FROM "BLOWBACK"?

How's this for 'blowback'?
You deliberately lie / conflate issues when you assert the USA was the primary cause / creative force behind the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
Nevermind 2300yrs of history there, or the mujahadeen decimating the British there ~150yrs ago.
The REAL Afghani mujahadeen became the 'Northern Alliance' when the Taliban rose, and are now the center of Afghani politics.
The Islamic jihadists are the spawn of Fraudi billions seeding wahabi / sharia shitholes madrassas throughout the hemisphere and in 'Muslim Student Associations' on US campuses.

Your 'October Surprise' is nothing more than the foul headwaters of the entire 'USA / CIA created Osama' conspiracist meme.

what is it? 'misery index', 'tet', 'october surprise' - everybody on the Left 'google everything they can from the Carter era / 70s' Week?
Or somebody seeding LGf with LaRouche-droppings?

I hardly see Carter's standoff being any more rewarding to the terrorist world than Reagan's arms for hostages payoff.

So why didn't Reagan try and take down that tumultous revolutionary mob-state to punish them instead of paying them, when his turn came?

Remember, they were all quite irate with us over our propping up the Shah and his years of corrupt, iron fisted rule. So I see Nixon's support of the Shah as well as Reagan's support of terror groups in Nicaruagua, El Salvador, Chile and elsewhere as more deliterious to our current lack of moral authority than was Carter's undeniable whimpiness.

Having said that, I totally support Bush in his war on terrorism and detest Kerry's surrender plans. I don't fault US policy in any era as being nearly as culpable as the Muslim propensity for letting blood and brutalizing innocents.

Its time we all stand together now in this war rather than hone our partisan blame artist skills that will lead us to only crumble within.

I do not claim and cannot even prove that the U.S. government created or is responsible for UBL or jihadis/mujahadeen.

That is not the issue and not truly pertinent to this dialogue.

I simply wanted to highlight that following the close of the Vietnam War (1975), it was politically impossible to directly place U.S. troops into Central Asia to physically oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Therefore, the U.S. government utilized the readily available surrogates (the Afghans and the Afghan-Arabs - the unwanted Arab radicals who were encouraged and sometimes obligated to leave the Middle East and Northern Africa to go fight the jihad.

More importantly, in his 1996 memoirs, former CIA Director Robert Gates admitted that the U.S. government aided the mujahideen prior to the Soviet invasion.

This preinvasion assistance was confirmed by Brzezinski (see the Le Nouvel Observateur interview). And, one cannot forget the context of “the Afghan trap (bear trap)” quotation.

Finally, the issue of “blowback”, as you may know is a CIA term of art first used in reference to Operation TP Ajax.

#86 bpolsky

But the fact is we know what we got when Hitler wasn't challenged, just as we know what we've got now with Islamofascism...an unfettered monster bent on the destruction of the West.

Yes, we do have fanatic islamist terrorists on this planet. And yes, they deeply hate the west. But the situation is not comparable to what we had before WW II. There hardly are democracies in the Arab part of the world, true. But we do not have a single regime which would be powerfull enough to even start a war against the West.

We do have fanatic, islamist terrorists (that's who you call Islamofascists, I think?). But they are sitting in different countries. Maybe supported but not controlled by the local regimes.
Iraq is a good example: it was said, Saddam was a supporter of terrorist organisations. Well... the war against Iraq is won. Saddam has been captured. But did terror stop? No.

War against terror is not comparable to a war against a specific regime.

And: war against terror is not even comparable to the Iran crisis at the end of the 1970ies. It was clear: the enemy is the Mullah regime in Teheran.

Hansom mixes 1933 Berlin and 1979 Teheran to talk about 2004 Bagdad. And that is insubstantial. Another thing is: he tells want went wrong according to him, but he does not offer solutions. That makes this article even more insubstantial.

#95 Murphy

But we do not have a single regime which would be powerfull enough to even start a war against the West.

Just not the case, my friend. 9/11 was an act of war. The bombing of the Khobar Towers was an act of war. The bombing of the Cole was an act of war. The bombing of the African embassies was an act of war.

It's true that none of the perpetrators can muster the support of an army the equivalent to what Hitler amassed, but why does this mean they cannot wage war?

In fact, one could argue that the fact the terrorists are not rooted to a single homeland affords them the kind of freedom that, say, Germany did not have in WWII.

But this also misses the point that the terrorist organizations all enjoy financial support from the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran, among others.

Secondly, as is now clear in Iraq, we are at war with Iranians and Syrians. But this is an undeclared proxy war. No less lethal and in some ways more difficult to confront. But it is war nevertheless.

Maybe supported but not controlled by the local regimes.

I think the facts would argue otherwise. I'm not going to post the reference here. It's been running quite a bit over a number of blog sites, but Iran has clearly been pulling strings with and providing bankroll (to the tune of $70 million or more!) for Sadr.

it was said, Saddam was a supporter of terrorist organisations. Well... the war against Iraq is won. Saddam has been captured. But did terror stop? No.

But no one said Saddam was the ONLY supporter of terrorism. We also have the Syrians. The Iranians. The Lebanese. A whole host of unsavory characters, the bulk of whom are Islamicists or, failing that, unreconstituted Marxists.

But since we're talking about Saddam, I'd note that he's no longer paying the families of Palestinian "shaheeds" a bounty of $25,000 per suicide child.

Hansom mixes 1933 Berlin and 1979 Teheran to talk about 2004 Bagdad. And that is insubstantial.

My response to this is "why?"

While no historical reference is ever a perfect analogy to current events, this is no way means there's no relevance or value to the historical analogy. In fact, Chamberlain failed to respond to 1933 Berlin and Carter failed to respond to 1979 Teheran. And Hitler and bin Laden each took these as indicators of weakness. And that's all that matters here...how the fascists perceived the behavior of its opposition.

Hello one and all.

Re. No. 84, Murphy:

I respectfully disagree. Here's why:
1. Hitler demonstrated his intentions by word and action several times in the mid 1930's - the re-occupation and militarization of the Rhineland; violating the Versailes treaties by creating a larger than allowed army, creating an air force and a larger navy; subverting Austria, and so on. There was plenty of causi belli if the Allies wanted it.
2. England and France between them had much larger and better equipped armed forces in the 1930's. Germany in say, 1938 had no long-range aircraft, very few submarines, no bases on the English Channel and an army that was still mostly in training, with tanks very inferior to what the French had. A forceful Anglo-French reaction to the Czech crisis of 1938 might have stopped the European side of WWII before it started.
3. Chamberlain and co. didn't have to overthrow the German government, just make it clear that any attempt to re-draw the map of Europe by force would be resisted by force. Instead they spent 5 years giving Germany everything she wanted, letting her become more and more powerful, until finally when war did come it was almost too late for them.
4. As for the main thrust of Hanson's article, what he is (IMHO) trying to say, indirectly, is that failure to confront Islamic Fascism forcefully is just as big a mistake now and in 1979 as it was when dealing with the German variety in 1938, an assertion I hardily agree with.

Re: no. 94, Double Standard:

Islamic terrorism is a tool used by Islamic movements supported by states. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan all see that terrorism is a low cost way of waging warfare. There is also an international Islamic movement attempting to rebuild the caliphate of the 7th century, and to the extent that they succeed they become more attractive. If we are to avoid a very bloody war of civilizations, we must show by winning in Iraq and elsewhere that terrorism does not lead to success. And, that an Islamic renaissnace is possible without the caliphate.

DoubleStandard writes:

I simply wanted to highlight that following the close of the Vietnam War (1975), it was politically impossible to directly place U.S. troops into Central Asia to physically oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Vietnam had nothing to do with it.

In 1979-1980, the Soviets were still the number one threat to the free world -- a greater threat than the Islamozoids are today (at least as of now). To place American troops in front of the Soviet Army would have been trifling with nuclear armageddon.

So the U.S. supported Islamic fighters, in a very limited way -- just as the Soviets supported the likes of PLO and other Islamic and fascist Arab dictators. And it worked: Afghanistan bled the Soviets dry, and caused the collapse of the USSR within a decade. That was an unequivocally good thing, even if it did have the negative side effect of raising the profile of Islamic extremists and planting false hopes in their heads.

Now we have bin Laden and his rag-tag bunch to deal with. It's unpleasant, and people will die -- but it still beats the pants off having to maneuver against a nation with thousands of nukes. Such are the realities of global politics.

Which brings me back to Carter. Shaker was correct: no freaking way was any action going to get taken against Iran: it simply wasn't that big a deal. Not relative to the Soviets -- not now, certainly not in 1979. An armed invasion or an open war on Iran would have been about as good an idea as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -- and the Soviets had the advantage of their own support networks right next door. In order to be worthwhile, the occupation of Iran would have to be complete and ruthless -- not the kind of thing us Westerners do well, to say nothing of the Soviets sponsoring every form of terror and insurrection just as Iran and Syria are doing in Iraq now. Nor would even air operations over Iran be a good idea: the Soviets would scramble their own fighters to keep an eye on Americans, and the American forces would be pinned down between the Soviets, the Soviet puppets in Irag and Afghanistan -- and oh yeah, the hostile Iranians. All for what? To bring back a hated, corrupt dictator? Not to go all Kennedy on you folks, but there are some lessons from Vietnam worth learning.

I have no love for Jimmy Carter, and take a back seat to no one in my disdain for his know-it-all "progressivism" and bootlicking of thugs from Castro to Arafat. I also think the rescue of the hostages from the American embassy need not have been bungled. But as to changing the situation on the ground in Iran, Carter could do nothing, and the actions he took -- or lack of them -- were exactly what he had to do. The smart response to Iran and its Islamic revolution was just what Reagan did: work with the Russians in encouraging Iraq to invade, and let them bleed each other dry. That kept both the Mullahs and the would-be Saladdin of Baghdad busy for a decade, draining their resources and letting us win the Cold War. Now we can deal with both, without worrying about making Soviet generals in Kazakhstan nervous.

Let's gain some perspective: global Islamism is a piker when compared againt global Communism. The latter enveloped nearly half the world, ran well-organized military states, brutalized and killed by the millions, and had thousands of nukes ready to vaporize us at the turn of a switch. (Have we forgotten this already?) The nutty Koran-thumpers have a few barely coherent networks, some bad rhetoric, and explosives expertise that wouldn't have impressed an early-20th-century anarchist. If need be (and I sure hope not), we can wipe them and their progeny off the face of the earth, and they can do nothing about this. Their biggest threat is that they might deliver a single small nuke into a city -- horrifying, but small beer when compared to the Soviet and Chinese ICBMs. To say that Carter should have made aggressive moves in the face of the Soviets to keep this batch of Allah-bothering losers from threating us twenty years later, is a bit much.

#98 E Nough

Well said, but I've one important disagreement. With the Soviets we also had the nuclear stalemate of mutually assured destruction. With the Islamists, we don't.

bpolsky, I don't see a disagreement -- in fact, I thought that's roughly what I said in my last paragraph. But either way, you're absolutely right.

#98 E. Nough

Very good analysis. There was one mitigating factor, though with the Soviets - they were realists. This is not to give them any moral credit, their butchery of millions is all too well documented. But ultimately their leaders would not go down in flames for their cause as Hitler did and as the jihadis would (and are). Plus the jihadis have their finger on a large portion of the world's oil supply. Hell, if it weren't for that we could probably ignore them altogether (well, not really, a little exaggeration for effect).

" global Islamism is a piker when compared againt global Communism."

but you don't seem to consider that the Soviets -- unlike the Attas of this world who just want to blow themselves up to do maximum damage -- were rational actors. Muslim terrorists aren't. the Soviets didn't have any metaphysical end to achieve. with the Soviets, the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction worked. the Soviets weren't looking forward to Armageddon -- if anything, positivism is just the opposite of religious fanatism.
Cuban Missile Crisis? you cut a deal with Khruschev, avoid the end of the world. the Soviets never tried to detonate a nuke in front of the White House -- I bet Al Qaeda is working on that exact project right now. after all, how do you top 9-11? only with a radiological/nuclear attack on US soil. and the irony is, if it happens it'll probably be former-Soviet radioactive material.

((also, the Vietnamese considered the possibility of attacks on US soil but decided to stick to the classic counterinsurgency warfare.))

I'd happily trade the old USSR with the Al Qaeda menace, thank you very much. maybe that's because I have a fetish for rational thought, and I'd rather deal with rational actors.
you can't argue with people's religious obsessions and nightmares. on the other hand, you can argue with an empire.

Imagine a different November 4, 1979, in Teheran.

i'll try a rebuke. I base my argumentation on R.Kapuscinski's book "Shah-in-shah", a Polish reporter who witnessed the whole situation.

Shortly after Iranian terrorists

students. they were students. maybe a mob but not terrorists in the sense of bomb builders.

storm the American embassy and take some 90 American hostages,

as I recall they released 38 almost immediately. Blacks and women. they kept the white men.

President Jimmy Carter announces that Islamic fundamentalism

it was not islamic fundamentalism which toppled the Shah. it was a mixture of all parts of the Persian society, including liberals (educated), slum dwellers, Communists, students.

is not a legitimate response to the excess of the Shah

excess is a humble word. There was a wide consensus that the Shah and his environment were:
a) stealing from society (unspeakable corruption; someone who did not take part in it, was a suspect to them)
b) anti-Persian (imagine an equivalent to anti-American)
c) dangerously militaristic (half the oil incomes went to weapon purchases)
d) repressive to the extreme (Savak's tortures more sophisticated than whatever we have heard about Saddams brutes)
e) a tool of foreign powers (imagine Chirac telling your president what to do) . the hostage takers seized documents from the embassy,which proved that.

but a new and dangerous fascism that threatens all that liberal society holds dear.

the Savak security was comparable to Gestapo. every liberal has either fled or was hiding.

And then he issues an ultimatum to Teheran’s leaders: Release the captives or face a devastating military response. When that demand is not met, instead of freezing Iran’s assets, stopping the importation of its oil, or seeking support at the UN, Carter orders an immediate blockade of the country, followed by promises to bomb, first, all of its major military assets,

the people of Iran objected the Shah's militarisation. Just as Eisenhower said: "Guns or butter?". Most of the military toys were useless, because they had to be operated by the 40.000 American specialists.

and then its main government buildings and residences of its ruling mullocracy.

at that point the mullahs were still not in power. there was a secular, liberal prime minister in power after the revolution.
damages to buildings. collateral deaths. 98% of the mullahs survive.

The Ayatollah Khomeini may well have called his bluff; we may well have tragically lost the hostages (151 fewer American lives than the Iranian-backed Hezbollah would take four years later in a single day in Lebanon).

a)Carter is impeached by the Republicans as the man who killed 90 ( or more correctly 52) Americans.

b) for years later 151 Americans die anyway.

And there may well have been the sort of chaos in Teheran that we now witness in Baghdad.

this one unclear. chaos as in insurgency or terrorist bombings? how and why?

But we would have seen it all in 1979—and not in 2001, after almost a quarter-century of continuous Middle East terrorism, culminating in the mass murder of 3,000 Americans and the leveling of the World Trade Center.

a) the hostages were released.
b) WTC was the work of a Saudi.
c) such bombing would have accelerated an WTC.
d) there is no link between the embassy hostage taking and WTC

The twentieth century should have taught the citizens of liberal democracies the catastrophic consequences of placating tyrants.

the Shah was an oppressive tyrant.

British and French restraint over the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the absorption of the Czech Sudetenland, and the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia did not win gratitude but rather Hitler’s contempt for their weakness.

this is not comparable. Hitler's goal was world domination. Iran at that point wanted souvereignity.

Fifty million dead, the Holocaust, and the near destruction of European civilization were the wages of “appeasement”—a term that early-1930s liberals proudly embraced as far more enlightened than the old idea of “deterrence” and “military readiness.”

I see no connection between 52 hostages and 50 million dead in a totally different ideology.

Carter orders an immediate blockade of the country, followed by promises to bomb, first, all of its major military assets

i forgot:

the Iranians forget that they actually hate the Soviets, too. They call in Soviet air defense.

Carter looses the elections bacause ha allowed the Soviets to take another country easily.