Jimmy Carter is Wrong About Syria
NOTE: The following is a response to yesterday’s op-ed in the New York Times from former President Jimmy Carter. Since I’m fairly sure the NYTimes doesn’t have a regular Medium account, I’ll tag NYTCo Communications for fairness.
I was fairly surprised this morning to see former President Jimmy Carter’s op-ed “A Five-Nation Plan to End the Syrian Crisis”. I hold a great deal of respect for President Carter, and his commitment to peace in admirable. Unfortunately, Carter has a policy of peace through acquiescence. The United States of America is not always perfect, and our commitment to values not always pure. But making peace through a deal with the devil isn’t true peace. It’s a facade that taints our values of democracy and freedom.
Despite our persistent but confidential protests, the early American position was that the first step in resolving the dispute had to be the removal of Mr. Assad from office. Those who knew him saw this as a fruitless demand, but it has been maintained for more than four years. In effect, our prerequisite for peace efforts has been an impossibility.
The problem with this article starts here, by stating that the United States is foolish for its commitment to values. We don’t stop calling for the end of ISIS because someone believes it’s “fruitless”. Part of the American Dream is setting your goals high and sticking to them. Even President Carter has to acknowledge that keeping Assad in power isn’t a viable option.
Throughout this article he repeatedly mentions diplomatic suggestions by Russia and Iran, giving no context their actions outside of this situation. It is true that Russia has said they would like to partner with the U.S. to find a solution to this crisis diplomatically, but Carter pays no attention to Russia’s own agenda. A comprehensive foreign policy strategy requires viewing each instance of a nations actions in the context of its global agenda. Russia’s could not be more obvious. Over the past week, Putin has done his best to play the part of the peacemaker, looking for a friend in the West. However, his interest in doing so is not out of the goodness of his heart, but rather the need to gain credibility within the global community. Even Putin recognizes you can only play the outlaw for so long before patience wears thin in the world.
If we accept Russia’s offer and bring them to the table as equals at this stage we will be giving complete validation to Putin’s strategy. He will have learned that he can use the world as his playground, committing atrocities and ignoring international law so long as he comes back for forgiveness every once in a while. This is unacceptable, and Putin must learn that as badly as the United States desires to stabilize this conflict, it is not willing to betray its values to do so.
The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential. Mr. Assad’s only concession in four years of war was giving up chemical weapons, and he did so only under pressure from Russia and Iran. Similarly, he will not end the war by accepting concessions imposed by the West, but is likely to do so if urged by his allies.
Eventually, the cooperation of Russia and Iran will be welcome. But we must not forget about the lives he has cost in Ukraine or his repeated crackdowns at home in our desperation to avoid conflict. Sometimes it’s harder to do nothing than act. But we must not act in a way that emboldens Putin.
Carter has his heart set in the right place, but his solution to this crisis is one of acquiescence. War is terrible, but not fighting for what you believe in is just as bad. Carter must learn that in the world of foreign policy, respect is just as important a commodity as bullets.
