undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmpyne12y ago0 comments

It is hyperbolic, but I was honestly surprised when Googling that anyone had written an article about it at all (I had learned of the meddling from Scowcroft/Bush's book).

To answer your question though, diplomacy is certainly good and should be the first choice. But it's not "inherently good"; just ask Czechoslovakia how they felt about Chamberlin's diplomacy with Hitler.

More to the point, nations have to live with the results of their diplomatic efforts, so it's important that those efforts are attuned to work together.

If you were a CEO trying to shift company strategy to focus on a certain goal, you'd find it at least annoying if a former CEO went out and directly worked against that strategy because they "had a better way to do it". Even worse, being pulled in both directions could end up leading to a worse outcome for that company than if one or the other solution had been chosen.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

unclebucknasty12y ago· 2 in thread

OTOH, Carter was not a party to formal diplomatic channels and did not represent himself as such. I doubt that he generated confusion WRT whatever official diplomacy may have been taking place. In fact, his point was that there was none to speak of; only a march to war.

So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen who also happens to have a pretty big megaphone due to his former gig (and humanitarian work thereafter). He has a responsibility to speak out when he believes his country is running off the rails, as do all American citizens. His voice just happens to carry a bit further than most. So, in fact, one could argue that his is a greater responsibility to speak out.

mpyneOP12y ago

> So, another way to look at it is that he is retired from public service and is simply a private citizen

He was President of the United States. He will have a State Funeral held upon his death (a date which will be too soon no matter when it happens). He is the farthest thing from "simply a private citizen", at least in the context of the foreign policy of the nation he led for four years.

But either way, go check out the "Carter Doctrine", which he promulgated during his term in office if you think he was opposed to all force.

unclebucknasty12y ago

Michael Jackson also had a pretty massive funeral, but WRT to U.S. Foreign policy he was a private citizen. Yes, the country will "officially" honor President Carter upon his passing; and yes, we still call him President Carter, but there are no foreign leaders who believe that he is driving U.S. Foreign policy. As such, his statements were simply the opinions of a well-known private citizen who objected to the country's march to war (along with many others).

>if you think he was opposed to all force.

Well, I never said he was opposed to all force.

EDIT: BTW, did you edit your comment to which I first responded on this thread? Seems that there was initially language in it suggesting that Carter's statements might have created confusion about official U.S. foreign policy. That's actually what I was addressing. Guess I should have quoted.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse