You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter?
2009-05-26
By B Raman

North Korea thumbs its nuclear nose at Washington.

During the U.S. Presidential primaries last year, I had expressed my misgivings that Barack Obama might turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, whose confused thinking and soft image paved the way for the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

The subsequent Iranian defiance of the U.S. and Carter's inability to deal effectively with the crisis in which Iranian students raided the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and held a number of U.S. diplomats hostage led to disillusionment with him in sections of the U.S. and to his failure to get re-elected in 1980. The strong line taken by him against the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet troops towards the end of 1979 did not help him in wiping out the image of a soft and confused president.

The defiant action of North Korea in testing a long-range missile with military applications last month, and its latest act of defiance in reportedly carrying out an underground nuclear test on May 25, can be attributed--at least partly, if not fully--to its conviction that it will have nothing to fear from the Obama administration for its acts of defiance. It is true that even when George Bush was the president, North Korea had carried out its first underground nuclear test in October 2006. The supposedly strong policy of the Bush administration did not deter it from carrying out its first test.

After Obama assumed office in January, whatever hesitation that existed in North Korea's policy-making circles regarding the likely response of U.S. administration has disappeared, and its leadership now feels it can defy the U.S. and the international community with impunity.

A series of actions taken by the Obama administration have created an impression in Iran, the "Af-Pak" region, China and North Korea that Obama does not have the political will to retaliate decisively to acts that are detrimental to U.S. interests, and to international peace and security.

Among such actions, one could cite: the soft policy toward Iran: the reluctance to articulate strongly U.S. determination to support the security interests of Israel; the ambivalent attitude toward Pakistan despite its continued support to anti-India terrorist groups and its ineffective action against the sanctuaries of Al-Qaida and the Taliban in Pakistani territory; its silence on the question of the violation of the human rights of the Burmese people and the continued illegal detention of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military regime in Myanmar; and its silence on the Tibetan issue.

Its over-keenness to court Beijing's support in dealing with the economic crisis, and its anxiety to ensure the continued flow of Chinese money into U.S. Treasury bonds, have also added to the soft image of the U.S.

President Obama cannot blame the problem-states of the world--Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar and North Korea--if they have come to the conclusion that they can take liberties with the present administration in Washington without having to fear any adverse consequences. North Korea's defiance is only the beginning. One has every reason to apprehend that Iran might be the next to follow.

Israel and India have been the most affected by the perceived soft policies of the Obama administration. Israel is legitimately concerned over the likely impact of this soft policy on the behavior of Iran. South Korea and Japan, which would have been concerned over the implications of the soft policy of the Obama administration, had no national option because they lack independent means of acting against North Korea.

Israel will not stand and watch helplessly if it concludes that Iran might follow the example of North Korea. Israel will not hesitate to act unilaterally against Iran if it apprehends that it is on the verge of acquiring a military nuclear capability. It will prefer to act with the understanding of the U.S., but if there is no change in the soft policy of the Obama administration, it will not hesitate to act even without prior consultation with the U.S.

India, too, has been noting with concern the total confusion, which seems to prevail in the corridors of the Obama administration over its Af-Pak policy. Some of the recent comments of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about alleged past incoherence in U.S. policy toward Pakistan--and about the part-responsibility of the U.S. for the state of affairs in the Af-Pak region--have given comfort to the military-intelligence establishment and the political leaders in Pakistan.

Obama's new over-generosity to the Pakistani armed forces and his reluctance to hold them accountable for their sins of commission and omission in the war against terrorism have convinced the Pakistani leaders that they have no adverse consequences to fear from the Obama administration. India would be the first to feel the adverse consequences of this newly found confidence in Islamabad vis-a-vis its relations with the U.S.

Jimmy Carter took a little over three years to create the image of the U.S. as a confused and soft power. Obama is bidding fair to create that image even in his first year in office. The North Korean defiance is the first result of this perceived soft image. There will be more surprises for the U.S. and the international community to follow if Obama and his aides do not embark on corrective actions before it is too late.

Bahukutumbi Raman is a retired officer of the Indian intelligence service and director of the Institute For Topical Studies, in Chennai, India. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.
Posted by:john frum

#9  And the scary Charisma of an unnamed former Ruler of Germany in the early 40's....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-05-26 19:25  

#8  More like the wisdom of Jimmy Carter combined with the ethics of Bill Clinton.
Posted by: DMFD   2009-05-26 18:56  

#7  I seem to recall the Soviet-winning-streak under Jimmah.
Posted by: Bugs Gremble3850   2009-05-26 18:45  

#6  Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter?

Is this a trick question?
Posted by: gorb   2009-05-26 17:01  

#5  It will take 20 years to right all the wrongs of this administration, if America lasts that long.

That presumes that we won't encounter an economic singularity first. If the dollar goes to essentially zero, as some serious folks believe it will over the next few years, there will be wholesale changes in government.
Posted by: AzCat   2009-05-26 16:06  

#4  It will take 20 years to right all the wrongs of this administration...

We are still working off the New Deal. If we haven't undone that damage in 70+ years what reason is there to think we'll ever be rid of the new damage Bammo is doing?
Posted by: Iblis   2009-05-26 15:42  

#3  A while back, before the election, I said the best we could hope for is another Jimmy Carter. Well a Carter he is not, Carter was afraid to make a decision or take a stand. Zero gave Detriot to the UAW, his brownshirts, ACORN, is Fed funded, he signed the largest pork bill ever into our tax base, and this is all in the first four months! It will take 20 years to right all the wrongs of this administration, if America lasts that long.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2009-05-26 13:17  

#2  I agree, we wish he was just a Carter but instead it seems we got Vidkun Quisling. Oh happy day.

Posted by: Silentbrick   2009-05-26 12:23  

#1  "Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter?"

We should be so lucky. :-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-05-26 11:57  

00:00