(3 of 3)
> Carter came into office pledging significant reductions in the number of U.S. troops in Korea, then rescinded the plan.
> He promised a campaign for human rights around the world, then began to make exceptions for certain allies, then largely abandoned the program.
> After U.S. diplomats spent months trying to persuade NATO members in Europe to accept the neutron bomb, Carter suddenly canceled production of the weapon.
> As a guest of the Shah of Iran on New Year's Eve, 1977, Carter toasted his host for his "great leadership." A year later, when mobs were rioting in Tehran, Carter helped nudge the Shah into exile. During this crisis, Carter ordered a U.S. naval task force to sail toward the Persian Gulf, then ordered it back to the Philippines.
> On hearing of a Soviet brigade in Cuba last summer, Carter pronounced it "unacceptable." When the Soviets ignored him, arguing that the troops had been there more than ten years, Carter announced that the brigade "is certainly no reason for a return to the cold war." Last week the State Department reported that the brigade was not only still there, but was out on combat maneuvers.
In addition to the shifts in policy, there is often an improvised quality to Carter's actions. After announcing the grain embargo, Carter discovered that 17 million tons were under contract to the Soviets in the futures market and that the cancellation of sales would provoke bank failures all over the U.S. A mere phone call to the Agriculture Department would have turned up this information. Grain markets had to be closed for two days and an expensive rescue package for grain farmers slapped together.
The White House seemed just as surprised to learn that Argentina had enormous grain reserves ready for sale to the U.S.S.R., a fact known by any grain trader in Chicago. The U.S. then sent a special emissary to Argentina to ask Strongman Jorge Videla to cooperate in the U.S. embargo, but Videla, who had been pilloried by the State Department's human rights pronouncements, refused. The Soviets will be able to make up about 60% of the lost U.S. shipments. Concedes a senior State Department official: "The grain embargo has become symbolic."
The paradox in Carter's failures is that the voters keep turning out to support his candidacy for reelection. It is partly the same patriotic tendency that caused John Kennedy's poll ratings to rise after the debacle at the Bay of Pigs. But there are signs that Carter's extended Indian summer may be turning colder. In the wake of the U.N. uproar, Senator Ted Kennedy began attacking Carter forcefully on the issue; the dismay of pro-Israeli voters could become significant in the two big primaries just coming up: Illinois and New York.
The fate of the hostages in Iran is still a perplexing element in Carter's future. Their safe return would bring a great wave of euphoria, whereas their continued detention makes Carter's vacillations look more damaging as each week passes. Even the euphoria of a safe return cannot last indefinitely, however. The dangerous instabilities of the world and the erosion of the U.S. economy will provide continuing challenges of the kind that Carter has shown himself somewhat ill suited to master.