Talk:Carter Doctrine

Carter's response before the event?
Quicksite (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC) (newbie comment; sorry i am not familiar enough with the format & protocols for "discussion". But I read the following from the top of this wiki entry and it seems that one date much be off?

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 20 January 1977, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union

This seems to state that a 1977 speech was in response to an invasion 2 years later.


 * This was the first thing I noticed too. I'll try to fine an answer but perhaps someone will fix this sooner.172.135.146.125 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Carter Doctrine
The Carter clearly warns other powers, and not the Soviet Union by name; this according to all sources was done specifically & deliberately. It is a rewrite of history to categorically state the Carter Doctrine was singularly & solely addressed to the Soviet Union.

Go to the Carter Presidential Center for the evidence if you need to. --nobs

How's this language:

"While the Carter Doctrine was addressed to other powers, it was widely accepted at the time this meant the Soviet Union, (coming on the heals of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Subsequent presidents, namely G.H.W. Bush used the Carter Doctrine declaration of Persian Gulf security as being vital to U.S. strategic national interests as the basis for Gulf War of 1991." thx--nobs


 * I don't understand what you're talking about; the "Carter Doctrine" speech was directly addressed to the Soviet Union. Here's the passage from Carter's speech:


 * "The Soviet Union is going to have to answer some basic questions: Will it help promote a more stable international environment in which its own legitimate, peaceful concerns can be pursued? Or will it continue to expand its military power far beyond its genuine security needs, and use that power for colonial conquest? The Soviet Union must realize that its decision to use military force in Afghanistan will be costly to every political and economic relationship it values.


 * "The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.


 * "This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.


 * "Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.


 * "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."


 * Even the speechwriter says: "I did write that phrase and insisted that it be incorporated in the speech. It was designed to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf."


 * Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Is there something I'm missing? --Kevin Myers 02:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * here's the critical passage of the text (from the Carter Library):

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

any outside force specifically included, at that time, the 5th largest standing military in the world, Iraq.

or this excerpt from the book published in 1980, The Real War

other referance: Cyrus Vance, 'US Foreign Policy: Our Broader Strategy' 27 March 1980 Policy No. 153 --nobs
 * Likewise one can take this excerpt from President Carter's Nobel Lecture:
 * Our president, Woodrow Wilson, was honored here for promoting the League of Nations, whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

You can plainly see the President wedding his Presidential Doctrine (collective security of Afghanistan and Kuwait) to the continuos foreign policy of a predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. Hence, in President Carter's own words, the Gulf War of 1991 was the continuation of American foreign policy as articulated by both he and Woodrow Wilson.

I will concede that the Carter Doctrine largely at the time was construed to mean U.S prepared to use nukes if necessary to keep the Soviets out of the Gulf (as footnote 5 here suggests) Richard Burt, "Study Says a Soviet Move in Iran Might Require U.S. Atom Arms," The New York Times, February 2, 1980, p. 1., however the strategic assessment at the time was all encompassing, to include any oustide force, and as the President's speech said including military force, likewise carried the ambiguous message of conventional and/or nuclear means, and was not an effort tone down rhetoric or pacify the public who may have been leary of nuclear weapons. This strategic assessment was made by policy advisors, not speech writers. The speech writers job was simply to write the ambiguity into the text and make it all encompassing.

It makes no sense that the U.S. would nuke the Soviets if they moved against Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, but allow Iraq to do it conventionally. And likewise this Presidential declaration of U.S. strategic interests was not limited to Jimmy Carter's final year of office, restated here in declassifed Presidential Directive NSC-63, January 15, 1981, 6 days before President Carter left office, complete with a referance to "diminishing radical influences", the same language used the "The Real War" referancing "Radical Iraq"nobs


 * I guess we're making progress. Let me summarize. We need to be clear, so don't be offended by my brusqueness:
 * Your earlier contention that the Doctrine did not specifically mention the Soviet Union was clearly flat-out wrong;
 * Your conviction that the Doctrine was also intended as a warning to Iraq rests on your own analysis (and thus does not belong in a Wikipedia article). If you come up with a citation of an expert that clearly says the Carter Doctrine was also intended as a warning to Iraq (or whoever), by all means put it in the article.
 * Your statement that the strategic interests expressed in the Doctrine were not limited to Carter's term is correct, though I don't think this was ever in doubt.


 * The article could use work expanding that last point -- how Presidents since Carter have (or have not) pursued the strategy expressed in the Carter Doctrine, like the "Legacy" section in the Monroe Doctrine article.


 * BTW, your analysis of the Carter Nobel Speech IMO misses the mark somewhat with regards to the Carter Doctrine. His denunciation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan doesn't really self-validate the Carter Doctrine, which was about protecting American interests against further action by the Commies, and in no way served to counter the Soviet invasion. (He was praising his other efforts to protest the invasion, and not specifically the Carter Doctrine). But this is original interpretation by you and I, and not relevant in Wikipedia. --Kevin Myers 05:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your inputs & comments very much. I think we can work together. Did some thinking overnight especially on NSC-63 and perhaps the article can be expanded to include a link to the Rapid Deployment Force. Will clarify my contention about what the term "any" means.

As a side bar, the Nobel lecture was interesting in that President Carter spoke to Europeans in Europe about extending the doctrine of "collectively security" to Afghanistan and other parts outside of Europe. This has been a contention about the role of NATO & the future of NATO for several years now, which I have accumulated a mountain of information recently. (In no way do I suggest including in the article, as an aside I simply mention President Carter sounds like Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush's here).--nobs

A page on the Vietnam build down needs to be started. This will also be an important piece of Rumsfeld's early bio.--nobs This policy thus warned the Soviets away from Iran, which had just had a revolution and at the time was holding hostages in the United States Embassy, and from Iraq."
 * Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. 

To argue that "an assault" on Iran, a nation which
 * (1) had no diplomatic relations with the United States as of November 1979.
 * (2) had no trade relations, i.e. stopped shipping oil to the United States in November 1979
 * (3) was not part of any "collective security" agreement with the United States since November 1979

would be "an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America", even though the United States had no treaty obligations to do so, which would be repelled by "any means necessary", a vailed refernace to nuclear war is an incorrect reading of the Carter Doctrine.
 * The vital interests of the United States are collective security agreements and treaty obligations with co-signatories, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf Emirates.
 * The term "any", includes, but not limited to, Russia, Iraq, Mexico, al-Qaide, the mafia, the boy scouts, and virtually anyone.
 * the term "outside" is ambiguos; does it mean "outside the Persian Gulk region" or could it mean "outside the security umbrella of American collective treaty alliances"
 * the term "force" is used, and not the term "power", "nation", "state", or "government" etc. Hence it can include non-governmental entities, such as terrorist groups, etc, but may exclude boy scout organizations, for example.

And I beleive both former President Carter and Zbignew Brezhinski will support my arguement. --nobs

While the Carter Doctrine was prompted by the Afghan-Soviet War, and a fear existed of further Soviet movements against Iran, or other powers encroaching upon nations in the Gulf with collective security agreements with the U.S., a tremendous fear existed about harassment of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
 * Both President Carter and Richard Nixon make light of this in 1980. Both speak of the Soviets being "within 300 miles of the Straits of Hormuz", Carter in 1980 State of the Union, Nixon in his book The Real War where he adds, "From bases in southwestern Afghanistan, MiG fighters can reach the Straits, something that was previously beyond them.

This is from the Department of the Navy-- Naval Historical Center:
 * "During his final years in office, President Jimmy Carter took steps to restructure U.S. policy in the Middle East, although too late to save his political future. In his 1980 State of the Union address, the president outlined what became known as the Carter Doctrine, warning that the United States would not allow the Soviet Union to threaten the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. A 1980 pledge by Secretary of State Edmund Muskie went even further, putting the gulf states on notice that the United States would not allow anyone to interfere with oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. To add muscle to these pronouncements, the Carter administration began to build up the Rapid Deployment Forces, what would eventually become Central Command. In the interim, the president relied heavily on naval power. Carter expanded the naval presence of the United States in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, marking the beginning of what would turn out to be a decade of crisis and war in the region."

A harsh assessment, which I wouldn't necessarily argee with in its entirety. Or this from Professor Jean-Paul Rodriguez, Department of Economics & Geography, Hofstra University:

"Initially this doctrine aimed at deterring the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, but its application has been the result of very different events and contexts. The old Cold War nemesis gone, the threatening force turned out to be internal to the Gulf region; Iraq. The Carter Doctrine has been applied twice; in 1990 during the First Gulf War and in 2003 for the Second Gulf War. In the first case it was to quell the intentions of Iraq to gain control of a large portion of the regional oil fields with the potentially damaging economic and political consequences. In the second, a hidden goal was to insure the future stability of the Persian Gulf region and thus its oil supplies."

Or read the short article by Michael Klare (whose views and articulations I find fascinating and admire very much).

Or President Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry's remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations:

"I think back to the Carter era. When we described our rapid deployment force, we had nothing available in the area to deal with its security needs…

"In 1980, President Carter created the Rapid Deployment Forces designed for emergency deployment to the gulf. My military assistant, [Army] Maj. Gen. Paul Kern, was part of an Army unit assigned to the rapid deployment force, and he tells me that if they had been asked in 1980 to move quickly into the gulf, it would have taken them three months to put a substantial deterrent force into the theater. In August of 1990, it took us three weeks. In October of 1994, we did it in about three days. "It's been 50 years since President Franklin Roosevelt on his way back from the Yalta conference, met with King Abdul Aziz, the founder of the Saudi state. Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to declare that the United States has vital interestss in the region."

Point again is, the Carter Doctrine did not end with Jimmy Carter's Presidency, it gave birth to CENTCOM, a large non-NATO U.S Command which has thus far fought 3 wars in the region. To say the Carter Doctrine was intended to warn the Soviets from invading a country the U.S had no diplomatic, economic, or military alliances with, but its resources were of America's vital interests is essentially justifying a policy of neo-colonialsm.--nobs

Lookin good
Kevin: This article is looking pretty good; it looks more like a major foreign policy doctrine, rather than just a White House press release. I would suggest, while you're doing the research, seriously look at "vital interests", because an article along those lines needs to be created. Keep up the good work! nobs 17:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I notice a lot of gaps here & there in articles about the history of U.S. foreign policy, but I don't know how much time I'll find to work on them. My work on this article is probably finished. Peace! --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 18:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carter Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819194536/http://www.artsandmedia.net/cgi-bin/dc/newsdesk/2003/03/18_centcom_1 to http://www.artsandmedia.net/cgi-bin/dc/newsdesk/2003/03/18_centcom_1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222173930/http://mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol11/0409_russell.asp to http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol11/0409_russell.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/245
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314082332/http://saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2005/saudi-relations-interest-03-17.html to http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2005/saudi-relations-interest-03-17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carter Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915113622/http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/pddirectives/pd63.pdf to http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/pddirectives/pd63.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)