Diplomacy vs. War ?

[kentuck]

Looking back to the Iran hostage crisis that began in November 1979, should the US have resorted to military strikes against Iran? They did try to rescue the hostages, unsuccessfully, and that most likely led to the defeat of Carter in 1980 to Ronald Reagan. For 444 days, 52 hostages were held by the Iranian radicals. At first, there were 66, but they released 14 women and minority hostages in an attempt to curry favor with the minorities in this country and around the world. With the assistance of an Algerian diplomat, the Carter Administration was able to work out an agreement with the Iranians on January 19th, 1980 - in which the US agreed to never interfere in the internal affairs of Iran and to release $8 billion dollars in Iranian assets. Twenty minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, the hostages were released.

However, did the Carter Administration handle the hostage crisis entirely wrong? Should they have bombed Iran? Would the world be better off today? Would the hostages have been killed? How many people would have died if we had resorted to war rather than "diplomacy"? Would "war" have been a preferable solution, looking back to 1980? Would not Carter probably have won the election of 1980 if he had been more a "man of war" than a "man of peace"?

[bryant69]

1. Learning the lessons of History

is usually bullshit. History gives you perspective and gives you ideas, but very rarely does it allow you to plug in a predetermined answer. Look at Chamberlain; he made the wrong call in appeasing hitler, something we all recognize now. But Conservatoids have turned that lesson into a blanket condemnation of any approach other than military. Diplomacy = appeasement.

Referring to this specific situation, I personally think Carter had enough troubles without starting a war over in the middle east; I don't know that he could have wrapped it up quickly enough to take the election. It would have sent gas prices further skyrocketing. On the other hand it would change the dynamic we are facing now; possibly for the better, although it is impossible to know for sure. It very well could have made things worse.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[PATRICK]

2. Carter doomed either way

His critics ruled the airways. When he DID try a bold move the helicpters crashed in the desert. If he DID bomb the Iranians and thus doomed the hostages to quick death he MIGHT have won the election but then the other side would have re-entered the Vietnam ruined heart of the party again. His mistake, as with Cuomo and others, was in running again after braving the dilemma, trying to do the right thing, and not succeeding. Economically punished by the oil cartel with little time to get America out from under the dominance he simply could not succeed. personal performance aside, his judgment was shown in its last flaw by thinking he could win a second term. The GOALS were more important than his second term.

Considering what we now know what we are up against, one wishesd for a lot more than our good leaders could deliver by way of political acumen and bold selfless strategy. Bold selfless(and smart) strategy is something the other side is completely incapable of. Both Clinton and carter, after knowinbg the loonies were coming in, exerted their diplomacy the most to cement what the GOP would otherwise destroy. Too late.

My perspective is different than the news media style "what if" debates, as if issues existed in a vacuum and a little more murder might do the trick. Carter in the ME experienced fatal tunnel vision regarding the horrible US role in setting up the Shah, playing Cold War politics first and getting blindsided by the oil game, then getting shafted by the Casey/Bush contingent and the radicalization of conservatism away from the Holy Grail of the Democratic "middle road". He was in over his head AND utterly ruined by events and timing. Then, a fine time for pride, he considered his candidacy indispensible for the endeavors.

To suggest on top of this he should have been a monster and go Cheney is to dignify an evil prop that to his credit he could not stoop to and drag us all down with him.

[KansDem]

3. You answered your own question in your post...

For 444 days, 52 hostages were held by the Iranian radicals.

I remember one national evening news broadcast that would open each night with "Day xyz, American Held Hostage!" This went on night after night with the number of days increasing by one each day.

Had the Corporate Media done the same thing with the Bushistas, George would never have gotten close enough in the polls to steal Election2004.

Just imagine if the Corporate Media whores had hammered America with:

"Day 123: No Weapons of Mass Destruction Found!"

or

"1,000 American Troops Killed in Iraq: Where Are the Weapons?"

Imagine the damage done to GW Bush if Americans were exposed daily to the constant hammering of his blunders and lies.

on edit: I reread your post and realized I didn't really answer your questions. I believe Carter was done in by the Corporate Media and wanted to express how George would have experienced the same fate if the media whores were just as tough on him as on Carter.

Sorry for the rant...

[Bandit]

4. One of the things I respected Ford for was his immediate response

to the capture of US troops in the Mai Guy (sp) affair. He immediately sent in troops and recovered our people withour bombing major civilian centers. It was handled correctly and Iran should have been handled in the same manner. Granted all the hostages came back alive so maybe Carter did right, I don't know but I sure didn't like the inaction of the USA at the time. One reason I voted for Reagan and against Carter. It was one of my biggest mistakes ever.