I’m going to steer clear of the issue of whether it is morally right to acknowledge it with the word ‘genocide.’ (For the record, I think it is morally right plus long overdue, and it should be done while some people who lived through 1915 are still alive.) Those opposed to the House Resolution tend to focus on how it will drag down relations with Turkey.
CentralMassDad noted: The Democratic Party is “Clearly, not ready to be put in charge of foreign policy. I wonder if this is really little more than an attempt to wrong-foot Turkey in some way that causes yet more calamity in Iraq that can later be blamed on Bush.”
First, I’d note that if ANYONE in American politics is not fit to be in charge of foreign policy, it is George W. Bush. Starting the Iraq War was a far bigger blunder than anything a resolution could do to offend an ally. He started it, and he’s most responsible for it. He gets the lion’s share of the blame.
But this “downside” of offending Turkey actually has some upsides. America needs to get out of Iraq because America is not contributing to the construction of a stable state there. No matter how many “critical six months” we’ve been there, stability is not much improved. Bush will keep our troops in harm’s way as long as he can, and he’s managed to dodge Congressional pressure on defunding the war.
But if Turkey decides to stop cooperating with our logistical efforts to keep the war going, then Congress has found another way to pressure Bush into downsizing.
I’m sure Pelosi wants to cut off funding for this war, but Bush’s allies in Congress have thwarted her to that end. So if this resolution pleases her constituents, recognizes a long-ignored historical wrong, and makes it tough on Bush to keep his war going…
it’s a clear choice for Pelosi to make.
Take the longer view, for just a second. Even if you’re right that this makes it easier to pull out of Iraq – something I emphatically support, having military logistical forces in Turkey makes a good deal of sense. In fact, even had we not gone into Iraq it makes quite a bit of sense to have logistical support in a “friendly” Muslim country; from there we have some sort of toe-hole into the middle east and can use it as a launching pad for our intelligence officers. If our criticism of Bush has been that he hasn’t fostered good will between nations and that he refocused away from our true enemies — Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups — to focus on Saddam Hussein, then it seems counterintuitive to strain our relationship with a relatively moderate Muslim country. Especially if we could, in theory, wage a smarter, more sophisticated war based on intelligence on the ground. This is one of those rare instances where I agree with the conclusions the Bush Administration has made (though I do disagree with how the Administration has been framing the debate, of course).
<
p>
1. We do want good will with Turkey in the long run. Hoyer and Pelosi’s actions could be a problem with that. But let me point out something: Bush thought he could trample on the good will of our ally, Turkey, for the sake of his pet project, the Iraq War. Now he tells Pelosi she can’t push her issue because it will alienate Turkey. He’s got no credibility to make that argument with her. Maybe a little sauce for the gander will teach him something. (I know, that’s pretty optimistic with this gander!)
<
p>
2. “Especially if we could, in theory, wage a smarter, more sophisticated war based on intelligence on the ground.” In this theory of a smarter, more sophisticated war, is George W. Bush still President? Is Cheney still VP? Is Stephen Hadley still National Security Advisor? Does the U.S. still have fewer than 200,000 troops to pacify Iraq’s 27,000,000 people? Are there still over 100,000 Blackwater contractors there outside the Pentagon chain of command?
2: Um, no, but actions do have some long term effects. Believe it or not, the Turkish government and people will remember American actions two years from now.
<
p>
1: Turkey was willing to do all this for us because it benefits them, too. Don’t think they have no vested interest in having American aid money, and that a military presence in Turkey is only a burden on them. Oh, and, in my eyes, Bush has no credibility to make almost any argument, period. But that doesn’t mean that this resolution won’t strain relations with Turkey, an important ally.
<
p>
I just want to add a few more notes. I want to end the war in Iraq ASAP, and I’ve been a staunch anti-war activist since the drum-beat to war began.
<
p>
And I support this resolution in Congress. But I support it knowing full well that, yes, it will strain relations with Turkey and that is a problem that must be dealt with. However, I believe that it is the moral duty of the American government to recognize all previous genocides for a few reasons, not the least of which is that act of remembering genocides may allow us to act to end or prevent future genocides. I also believe all governments owe it to their people and the world to be honest and forthright about history.
<
p>
It’s important to me that we make honest arguments about why we support any given resolution, and it’s important that we not be blind to potential negative side effects of our actions. That’s what Cheney and the neo-cons did that got us into the mess in Iraq to begin with. They knew that Iraq would be a quagmire, but because of their beliefs, greed and overwhelming neo-con agenda, they simply didn’t prepare for what happened after the war.
<
p>
So, I don’t think we should underestimate what happens if we push for this resolution, either. But that doesn’t mean it’s not right to push for it.
Oddly I’m unable to recommend this post which raises interesting questions in a thoughtful manner.
and it seemed to me that Speaker Pelosi chose to be coy about the reasons for bring the resolution out of committee, (her statement sounded uncharacteristically weak, and I paraphrase: well it was something we’ve all been in favor of for years, and always heard that it was never a good time). So, I decided to wait until we have a Democrat in the White House and the huge majority in Congress after the ’08 elections (the glass is always half-full) before speculating out loud. At least in anything read in this country.
<
p>
It also has the benefit of keeping the administration off balance, playing defense, which is always a refreshing change.
1)The Turkish generals have been pushing for an incursion into Kurdistan, the last stable area of Iraq, for some time now, but there was no popular support until recently when this resolution inflamed the Turkish people and now the bulk of them support an incusrion
<
p>
2)If the Turks decide to stop providing logistical support to US troops its very bad for several reasons I think your glossing over
<
p>
a)More US troops will die-less supplies, less support, etc
b)Starving the beast was terrible tax policy (cutting taxes to cut spending, a UofC idea that failed miserably) and its a terrible foreign policy, cutting any kind of arms, funds, etc. to stop the war will only kill US troops on the ground and will not stop the war
c)Hurts the trip wire effect and makes Turkey more prone to invade
<
p>
3)Trip wire-by definition a group of troops meant to deter an aggressor, not enough to save off an aggressor but enough to cause a war and hurt the aggressor, i.e our troops in Korea (who if NK invaded SK would all die and therefore the US would have a casus belli)
<
p>
Our troops are a trip wire to stop Iran and Turkey from invading, if we pull out there is no longer an incentive to leave, if we piss off Turkey and they stop supplying the US army that would signal a drastic breakdown in relations and make them more likely to intervene EVEN if US troops are there
<
p>
4)The EU-Turkey wants in, Europe is split, if the US passes the resolution it will be used against the EU bid and look like tacit US endorsement of keeping Turkey out
<
p>
5)This resolution doesnt do shit-it doesnt bring back any dead Armenians, it doesnt get any reparations, it just antagonizes a government that a)didnt sponsor the genocide anyway and b)has been a valuable ally but is on the brink of folding, and it might make many new dead Americans and Kurds which is bad
5) The resolution does do something. It recognizes an old historical wound. Punishing murderers doesn’t reanimate their victims, either–it prevents further murders. This contributes, as afertig mentioned, to preventing future genocides. While the current Turkish government didn’t commit the genocide, they have been WAY, WAY too involved in denial. Any irritation on their part is due to their embracing falsehoods.
<
p>
4) There’s a lot of money to be made in the extra trade that will occur if Turkey enters the EU, and that’s just one of many factors in that deal. I doubt this will be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
<
p>
3) Turkey and Iran may not want to invade Iraq simply because they’d rather not take on the expense of occupying that country.
<
p>
2) Generals will move their troops to where the logistics can support them. I’m not buying that “more troops will die” argument because the U.S. military has followed the principle of force-protection to detriment of pacification of the occupied populace.
<
p>
1) Find a link for this assertion. Where’d you read that?
rhetoric from the left. The anti war crowd , enraged with all things Bush, now seek to cut our troops off at the knees by crippling crucial support via Turkey and get more of them killed all in the name of their hate filled partisan agenda? ..and then they have the hutspah to tell us they support our troops? They can’t do it the right way by cutting funding in Congress so now this “end around” partisan ploy to remove vital support from our troops and get them killed so a bunch of Washington left wingers can say “Take that Bush! Ya, we sure showed him!” They don’t give a damn about our service people’s lives whatsoever. This is a new low and a sad day for America….. And these politicians call themselves Americans? Pathetic. I hope the American people remember this a year from now.
I intended that original comment to be something of a Swiftian overstatment. I hope–truly hope– that this is not being pushed for reasons other than naive do-goodism.
<
p>
Kurdistan has been the single success story in Iraq sice 1992. They have established a relatively stable government and maintain a relatively safe society, especially when compared to the chaos that has reigned elsewhere in Iraq. They have accomplished this largely by the protection of the United States, through the enforcment of the no-fly zone.
<
p>
Turkey is, to put it mildly, not content with the looming prospect of even a quasi-independent Kurdistan, because they fear separatism from their own Kurdish minority, which through the PKK has engaged in terrorsim in Turkey in the past. Turkey is itching for a reason to intervene militarily in Iraqi Kurdistan to quash the success that has been acheived there.
<
p>
Never mind that Turkey is the last hope of democratic moderation in an increasingly hostile and radical Islamic world.
<
p>
Kicking the Turks in their teeth at this time presents a very real risk of causing a great many Kurds to die, and to cause even more American servicemen and women to die. Worse, over the long term, radicalizing Turkey reinforces the present state of affiars “clash of civilizations” which Democrats would do better to undermine.
<
p>
All this for absolutely meaningless drivel, which looks to “recognize past wrongs” and force Turkey to “confront its denial” of atrocities commited by a government that has been defuct for nearly a century, as if foreign affairs is some sort of touchy-feely group therapy session, and the US Congress has appointed itself therpist and decided to stage an intervention.
<
p>
I’m not sure what is worse: that Congressional Democrats are dimly unaware that their do goodism is likely to result in an awful lot of American and especially Kurdish deaths, or that they may have decided that such a result is ideal if it “puts pressure on Bush.” In either event, the Democratic Party is directly responsible for the consequences of its own policies.
“Turkey the last hope of democratic moderation in the Muslim world”
<
p>
Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy contributed greatly to the expansion of democracy in the world because Carter did not buy the “don’t criticize human rights abuses by our allies” argument, and his acknowledgement of such wrongs encouraged democratic movements looking to replace dictators, especially in Latin America. Turkey is a democracy so they can handle criticism–such as how it is wrong for Turkey to outlaw giving babies Kurdish names.
<
p>
“All this for absolutely meaningless drivel, which looks to “recognize past wrongs” and force Turkey to “confront its denial” of atrocities commited by a government that has been defuct for nearly a century, as if foreign affairs is some sort of touchy-feely group therapy session, and the US Congress has appointed itself therpist and decided to stage an intervention.”
<
p>
Good thing you don’t know any Armenians.
<
p>
My original statement means what it says. Bush started this war by arguing, “Do what I want or America will face disaster–mushroom clouds! mushroom clouds!” So when he says, “Don’t pass that resolution or Turkey will invade Iraq!” he’s not credible, and I can see why Pelosi’s not convinced by him.
<
p>
We should also be careful, by the way, not to take every idea joelpatterson — or KBusch for that matter — comes up with as indicative of what “the left” thinks.
<
p>
2. Kurdistan. Speaking of bank shots, the Administration’s encouragement of anti-Iranian terrorist groups is crazy. I haven’t seen evidence that they are pushing Kurdish elements hostile to Iran, but I wouldn’t put it past them. They’ve been shifting their alliances in a dangerously improvisatory manner as it is.
<
p>
If Congress wanted to do something more useful about human rights, a resolution condemning the PKK, urging the military to rein them in, urging negotiations with Turkey to resolve the Kurdish issue, and urging Turkey to improve its treatment of Kurds (or something like that — I can’t figure out exactly what would be best) might be much more helpful.
<
p>
Unlike Nuremberg which actually punished the Nazis that caused the genocide this does not punish anyone involved with the genocide, but even though the current Turkish government is in many respects not Ottomon many Muslims respect the Ottomons and view the caliphate with nostalgia, even in a ‘secular’ nation like Turkey. Moreover a critical mistake in the past has been saddling nations with ‘guilt clauses’ that antagonized them.
<
p>
After WWI Wilson forced the Germans with the treaty of Versailles to take all the blame for WWI a stigma that lead almost directly to the election of a hypernationalist Nazi government less than 14 years later.
<
p>
Similarly while I would agree that there was a genocide in Turkey committed against the Armenian people this would throw a wrench into very delicate political issues involving Turkish-US relations, Turkish-EU relations, and would certainly derail the recognition process between Turkey and Armenia while again doing little to substantially punish those responsible or empower the victims.
<
p>
It would do little to effect modern genocide either, most rational people and states recognize that the Armenian genocide occured, most Turks when you privately ask them do, but this particular resolution will only look like we are blaming them and the timing is far too suspect. It will not even satisfy most Armenians but rather satisfy a small and politically powerful lobby/subset of the Armenian population. And its not worth the great losses to US prestige and friendship in Turkey.
<
p>
<
p>
The voting populace in the EU is xenophobic and fears the “Islamization” of Europe both through immigration and birth rates but also by allowing Muslim nations to enter. Money has little to do with the problem as all sides would clearly gain from Turkeys entry into the free trade zone of the EU and from eventually integrating into the Euro.
<
p>
What it does do though is give those Turkish opponents yet another claim of human rights abuse and anti-democratic tendencies to block voting on the Turkish question, and it will have the stamp of approval by the US congress that the Turks committed genocide and therefore are undeserving of EU membership (and yes there is a double standard via Germany but remember its not a Muslim nation). And currently the US has a pro-membership stance and passing the resolution will be interpreted as something entirely different.
<
p>
<
p>
Neither country wants to occupy Iraq, Iran would likely do what it does now which is supply the Shia insurgency and send in military advisors from the Revolutionary Guard to assist them in killing Americans, but do so more openly and blatantly were the American occupation to end.
<
p>
More importantly the Turks would likely bomb, shell, and pull a limited land incursion to route out PKK forces in Northern Iraq; similar to the most recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
<
p>
<
p>
Im not sure what your arguing here, the generals have moved the troops to where Turkish logistics are supplying them, losing the Turkish staging areas for the initial invasion cost American lives by preventing the ideal two front war where forces would enter Iraq from the South and the North. Instead we went from just the South and though casualties at that stage of the war were low they would have still been reduced had Turkey allowed us to use their nation as a staging ground. Similarly were they to cut off use of their air force bases to US planes it would cut our supply lines in half and force us to transport double the supplies we currently do through Kuwait, Diego Garcia, and southern staging areas. It would slow down the rate of supply shipment to soldiers on the front lines and that delay could easily cost American lives.
<
p>
<
p>
http://www.guardian….
<
p>
Not the most recent article but I will paraphrase the top Turkish general if the Americans dont act we will regarding the PKK presence in Northern Iraq.
<
p>
Moreover they already are shelling Kurds in Iraq as recently as the 11th of October.
<
p>
http://www.philly.co…
One, the US Congress singling out Turkey for a genocide resolution is more than a bit hypocitical.
<
p>
(a) Jared Diamond, in Guns Germs & Steel reported that the Spanish and British invasion of the “new world” decimated (i.e., reduced to 1/10th) the aboriginal inhabitants of at least north and central America–largely by disease (smallpox). As far as I can tell, the US Congress has never condemned the Spanish or the British for their genocide.
<
p>
(b) As far as I can tell, the US Congress has never condemned the Japanese, not only for their rape of eastern China during WWII (which began in 1933), but their petulent refusal to acknowledge it.*
<
p>
(c) As far as I can tell, the US Congress has never condemned the US government for their forced resettlement of the aboriginal inhabitants of…the US…and the resulting deaths.
<
p>
So why are they singling the Turks now?
<
p>
*Lest anyone wonder, in contrast, the US Congress does not need to condemn the Germans for their actions in WWII; the Germans have been doing it themselves. Incessently.
<
p>
Two, regarding the Turkish generals’ wanting to engage in an incursion into the Kurdish regions of Iraq, several things should be kept in mind, which more than a few want to ignore. The (or, better said, some) Kurds in northern Iraq, have been engaged in cross-border attacks into Turkey, and also into Europe. Most of the terrorist attacks in Germany, for example, in the 1980s were carried out by the PKK–the Kurdish Peoples Party. Let me raise this analogy. When Hezbollah in Lebanan launches a terrorist attack in Israel, would you object to Israel defending itself by going into Lebanan? If not, why would you object to Turkey defending itself from PKK attacks from northern Iraq by going into northern Iraq? Particularly if the US won’t assist in Turkey’s defense.
<
p>
As to the latter, recall that Turkey is a Nato ally. Two points as to that. One, under the Nato treaty, the signatories are supposed to consider an attack on any member country as an attack on itself. If the US is not going to consider an attack from northern Iraq as an attack on itself, it has become not only a worthless ally, but feckless. Two, an possibly more important, it should be fairly evident that one reason that the Turks did not cooperate with the US war on Iraq is that they believed that the likely resulting quagmire would endanger Turkey, and the US wasn’t going to come to its aid. And, Turkey has been shown to be correct.
<
p>
Three, regarding Turkey and the EU, it is probable that the July 2007 elections more than suggest that Turkey is hedging their bets regarding EU membership. I have long predicted that it is unlikely that Turkey will be admitted to the EU any time soon, if at all. The leadership of Germany (Angele Merkel) is against it. Sarkozy of France is unknown, but he, like Merkel, is right of center. I don’t know about Prodi of Italy, but I doubt it. Greece is against it. Britain pretty much ignores Europe.
<
p>
What’s interesting about the July 2007 elections, is that the Turks–including the Kurds in Turkey–gave a resounding vote for a Muslim-near party headed by Erdogan. I suspect that the Turks will be seeking other markets than the EU to protect themselves in case they are not admitted to the EU.
Modern Language Association (MLA):
<
p>
Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts this extension in the sentence The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war, even though it is common knowledge that the number of Jews killed was much greater than a tenth of the original population. However, when the meaning is further extended to include large-scale destruction other than killing, as in The supply of fresh produce was decimated by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, only 26 percent of the Panel accepts the usage.
<
p>
—>Nitpicky, I know, but the misuse of the word is a pet peeve of mine. Apologies for the tangent.
<
p>
As a whole, I concur with your analysis, adding that the support for the “Muslim-near party” may have as much to do with displeasure with the military’s control of politics (e.g. mandatory secularism) as it does with support for say, institution of Sharia courts.
<
p>
—>Shane
…I’ve actually seen it both ways: reduction by 1/10th or reduction to 1/10th. Irrespective of that, the “substantial reduction” usage is certainly operative.
“The Kurds” is not a synonym for PKK.
<
p>
That’s fortunate because it means that there might be room to negotiate with the KDP and PUK.
…without an indication that you are doing a redaction.
<
p>
“The Kurds”
<
p>
What I wrote was
<
p>
The (or, better said, some) Kurds in northern Iraq, have been engaged in cross-border attacks into Turkey, and also into Europe Emphasis added.
<
p>
It would have been nice if you had been honest in purporting to quote what I wrote.
Example thereof, see above
You were in fact responding to my comment that I mentioned. If you meant to respond to an earlier comment, you should have made that known.
From Juan Cole
<
p>
<
p>
More here
<
p>
Emphasis added.
<
p>
Ah, so that is Pelosi’s interest in the matter. It sounds as if she isn’t particular concerned about the possible repercussions for the US military, just for her political career.
Now she can tell progressives she was only acting at the behest of her membership.
<
p>
From Politico.