US to debate Turkey genocide bill

The BBC describes yet another attempt by the US Congress to put a large caliber hole in the nation's collective foot here. Are these so-called national leaders of America ever going to "get it"? Turks are already torn by the calls of Western secular culture and those of their Islamic "brethern." The EU delays over admission have given the Turks pause when considering who their friends really are. Let's just give them another reason to join up with the Islamists.

Quote:

---

A key US congressional committee is to debate whether to classify as genocide the deaths of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
Turkey - which strongly denies Armenian claims that the killings amounted to genocide - has warned of "serious consequences" if the bill is passed.

Ankara has threatened to restrict US access to a key military base used for its operations in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

The BBC describes yet another attempt by the US Congress to put a large caliber hole in the nation's collective foot ... Are these so-called national leaders of America ever going to "get it"? ...
. . .

---

My Wife and I keep threatening to buy 535 T-Shirts with "Beware of Stupid People in Large Groups" imprinted and mailing them to D.C.

Agreed. From what little I know of it, it was definitely genocide, but meaningless words at a time like this...

BBC, 11 Jul 07: Turkey Recalls Ambassador to US

Quote:

---

Ankara is recalling its ambassador to Washington for consultations amid anger at a vote in Congress labelling the mass killing of Armenians as genocide. The passing of the resolution by a House committee on Wednesday despite appeals by the Bush administration was denounced by President Abdullah Gul.

Turkey accepts there were mass killings in 1915-17 but denies genocide. Turkey's foreign ministry said the ambassador would return to Turkey for a stay of "a week or 10 days". "We are not withdrawing our ambassador," said ministry spokesman Levent Bilman....

---

I think Bush was actually pressing for the prudent move in this situation by asking Congress not to go through with that resolution. It certainly was genocide, but by getting in a tizzy over a little 8-letter word, we've jeopardized an important strategic partnership. We've sparked a few protests (no big deal there, really), but we've also caused the Turks to withdraw their ambassador, and at a time when they're making overtures about military incursions into northern Iraq in order to smack down the Kurdish fighters who are harassing their border. Granted, Turkey would not be very important to us if it weren't for its alignment with NATO and its proximity to the greater Middle East, but given the missions we're trying to conduct in a region where we have few true allies, it seems silly to risk it.

Is it possible that the potential reactions to this resolution are intended? Maybe I'm way off base here, but this would sure seem to fit into a plan to end the Iraq phase of the war on terror. I'm also not sure of the party breakdown in the committee vote, so maybe I'm wrong.

However, the democrats want to end the war, but do not want to withdraw funding since it will merely expose their traditionally weakest point: foreign affairs. They've tried and failed to establish deadlines and such, so they are severely short of options (especially with the good news coming out of Iraq). My understanding is that the bulk of our supplies come through Turkey. Turning off that supply route would probably overload the Kuwait port and might force an earlier drawdown. Thoughts?

If the Germans--another key NATO ally--grew sensitive about calling the Holocaust a genocide, should we avoid the term in speaking of that case too so as to promote immediate foreign policy interests? Try changing the words of HR 106 to "Jewish Holocaust" and try to imagine any serious objection to its passage.

I suppose I've become wary of not naming genocides and other mass killings in the name of realpolitik, something that the West did with regard to Rwanda, Saddam's Anfal campaign, Indonesian occupation of East Timor, etc. Moreover, I think its probably good for Turkey in the long run if it faces up to this (much as other societies have had to face up to past brutality in their own histories).

I do agree that one can question how much Congress should engage in symbolic position-taking, how far back in history one would want to go, selective memory (why not Belgian rule in the Congo?), and so forth. But that seems to me to be a different issue than speaking the truth on genocide vs promoting foreign policy interests.

OK, that having been said, I'll head back to the major international genocide conference across the street!

Most folks view the Congressional committee's action as giving in to pressure from Armenian-Americans. But why are they giving in just now? This is not a new lobbying effort.

Here's an off-the-wall variant for everyone's consideration. The action potentially unravels sustainability for continued US operations in Iraq--without Turkey as a pass-through point and interim log/staging base/activity, sustainment of the troops in IZ gets harder. I believe that a whole lot of our base ops support (like Class I, II, and VII) pass through Turkey. I also think a lot of the FMS equipment used to equip the IA follows that path. (BTW, we already have precedent with regard to getting 4ID into the fight in 2003.)

Is the opposition to America's continued presence in IZ trying to use the genocide resolution as a way to sabotage Turkish-American relations and, consequently, a backdoor attempt to get the troops out of IZ?


(Let me specify up front that I do not really believe that this can be what's happening, not because it is too devious an idea, but because it represents too creative a thought process for those in the opposition camp ;))

(Edit As I read this thread after my posting, it appears that LawVol and I had about the same thought at about the same time. Separated at birth ???? :wry:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Is the opposition to America's continued presence in IZ trying to use the genocide resolution as a way to sabotage Turkish-American relations and, consequently, a backdoor attempt to get the troops out of IZ?

---

That seems far too nefarious, like something out of a Tom Clancy novel. ;)When I think of that possibility I automatically picture a man with a monocle and a handlebar moustache. If there's some truth to it, however, then that makes any moral justification for this resolution sound hollow.

No one can argue against the fact that Turkey needs to own up to what it did, but realistically speaking, how is a House resolution going to catalyze any reconciliation? It certainly isn't going to resurrect all those dead Armenians. I'm not trying to sound heartless here, but the Law of Unintended Consequences has reared its ugly head and we should probably be giving more thought to the immediate geopolitical fallout from this resolution than to the idea that calling an event that occurred 90 years ago genocide is going to heal all wounds.

A look at the issue by The Economist, 11 Oct 07: Judging Genocide

Quote:

---

....Turkey is enormously important to American military efforts in the Middle East. So leading American politicians past and present have lined up to oppose the resolution. President George Bush has said historians, not legislators, should decide the matter. Turkey has hired Dick Gephardt, a former leader of the Democrats in the House, to lobby against the bill. All eight living former secretaries of state, from Henry Kissinger to Madeleine Albright, who lost three grandparents in the Nazi Holocaust, oppose the bill. So does Condoleezza Rice, who holds the post now. Jane Harman, a powerful and hawkish Democrat, initially co-sponsored the measure. But last week she urged its withdrawal. A trip to Turkey, where she met the prime minister and the Armenian Orthodox patriarch, changed her mind.

Ms Harman echoed an argument that others have made against the resolution: that Turkey itself is tiptoeing towards normal relations with neighbouring Armenia. The resolution could throw that process off course. But in other ways Turkey has not helped its own case: its criminal code has been used against writers within the country who dare to mention genocide.

And other Turkish behaviour has further distanced it from America. Turkey recently signed a deal to develop oil and gas with Iran, and has made overtures to Hamas, which runs part of the Palestinian Authority and continues to refuse to recognise Israel. Such behaviour has cost Turkey some support among Jewish Americans—formerly ardent supporters of Turkey as a moderate Muslim republic that is friendly to Israel. Some even worry that a freshly insulted Turkey will not heed America’s opinion when, for example, it thinks about crossing the border into Iraq to pound Kurdish fighters....

---

What gets me is how the same Democrats who critisize bush for his lack of coalition building and resistance to reach out to Syria and Iraq, are now willfully going down the path to rid ourselves of one of our most important allies in the region.

Of note: Divided They Conquer: The Success of Armenian Ethnic Lobbies in the U.S. - Heather Gregg, MIT Center for International Studies, 2002.

CSIS, 15 Oct 07: The Armenian Genocide Bill and the Turkish Reaction in Iraq

Quote:

---

Tragic as the fate of the Armenians may have been in the aftermath of World War I, the fact remains that the issue is more than half a century old. Turkish-Armenian conciliation might serve an important purpose, as might any effort to reconcile Armenians, Turks, and Azerbaijanis. The dead, however, are not grateful, and stirring up new sources of ethnic and sectarian tension are the last thing the region needs.

This is particularly true when the end result is to create problems for the living. Pushing Turkey to be more hostile to Armenia is scarcely a useful goal, but Iraq and the Kurds are affected as well – along with vital US interests. As a result, the net impact of the Armenian genocide bill may well be to create yet another pointless regional source of anger against the US – this time coming from the Congress instead of the Administration.....

---

Initially, I just assumed this was another move designed by Congress to stick it to the administration over Iraq. Typical DC politics - fun times in DeeCeeland.

But no, this looks to be a case of actually really, really clueless House leadership at work here. The Armenian-American lobby is really strong, and have a presence in a number of House districts, and honestly, they are good at doing the necessary political spadework.

Part of the history is that this particular issue has come up previously, and again and again, and in prior administrations. Bill Clinton got it killed during his administration before the House could do anything with it, and it's going to happen again with this administration.

The latest:
Link

It's interesting to see all the bodies running away from this one. There's going to be a whole lot of seriously pissed off congresscritters over this one, because there's more than a few of them who feel they got blindsided over this issue. They had no idea how this would escalate, how this would come across to the nation of Turkey (not just the government), and all the sudden, it's being presented as a "Supporting the Troops" issue.

The folks who were pushing this issue damaged their credibility because they didn't give the congresscritters the straight talk about any blowback. This does not reflect well on House leadership.

Good news is that in a week it will be over. Notice didn't say "Forgotten".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watcher In The Middle

There's going to be a whole lot of seriously pissed off congresscritters over this one, because there's more than a few of them who feel they got blindsided over this issue. They had no idea how this would escalate, how this would come across to the nation of Turkey (not just the government), and all the sudden, it's being presented as a "Supporting the Troops" issue.

---

I find it hard to accept that members of Congress could be so clueless about international sensitivities as to get "blindsided" like this. :(

Maybe the "No Child Left Behind " program ought to focus some attention on senior lawmakers' education. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watcher In The Middle

Good news is that in a week it will be over. Notice didn't say "Forgotten".

---

Bad news is that the damage has already been done. You are right it will not be forgotten, but those who won't forget are natioins whose support America needs now and in the future.

Quote:

---

I find it hard to accept that members of Congress could be so clueless about international sensitivities as to get "blindsided" like this.

---

Why would this be surprising? This is an institution (the House) which Tom DeLay, a man whose Middle East policy prescriptions are largely dictated by the Left Behind series, ran for years. House Reps especially are elected primarily to focus on domestic issues. I don't know how anyone can be surprised at Congress' ignorance on the most basic issues, much less the nuances of Turkish nationalism and its response to Armenian-American grievances.

Quote:

---

To his credit, Reyes, a kindly, thoughtful man who also sits on the Armed Service Committee, does see the undertows drawing the region into chaos.

For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.

...

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

...

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah...”

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Poquito,” I said—a little.

“Poquito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh....”

...

On the day in 2003 when Iraqi mobs toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Bush was said to be unaware of the possibility that a Sunni-Shia civil war could fill the power vacuum, according to a reliable source with good White House connections.

...

Trent Lott, the veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, said only last September that “It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people.”

“Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion?” wondered Lott, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, after a meeting with Bush.

“Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference?

“They all look the same to me,” Lott said.

---

This is not a Congressional problem --- it is, at base, an American problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

Why would this be surprising?

---

I wasn't expressing surprise. My comment was more a personal statement of my unhappiness that Congress seems to be populated by so many clueless individuals, which by BTW was how I started off this thread last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

This is not a Congressional problem --- it is, at base, an American problem.

---

We are reaping the benefits of Jacksonian democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

I find it hard to accept that members of Congress could be so clueless about international sensitivities as to get "blindsided" like this. :(

---

I could walk outside this building and conduct a simple experiment. With a world map or globe, I would just ask passersby to point out the nation of Turkey and where generally Armenia is. I can't predict exactly how many could find one or both, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say about 20% for Turkey, and 1% for Armenia. These Congress Critters don't come from Mars, they come from here, you know. It wouldn't surprise me at all that few would even have a clue where Armenia is and what the circumstances in WWI were for the conflict between the Armenians and Turks.

My own representative is not a man who has ruminated long and hard about world affairs. I have no idea how he is leaning on this, but his decision is most certainly not as a result of having a good knowledge of WWI in the Ottoman Empire. He got there by pledging to uphold the sanctity of marriage against an onslaught by Godless homosexuals, stressing his pro-life bona fides, commitment to tax cuts, opposition to socialized medicine, and dedication to victory--not "cutting and running.") That's it, boys. That's a fact.

I don't know if this is a fault of Jacksonian democracy or just basic ignorance of world history in our citizenry. Most don't know, and don't even want to know. It is just apathy.

Quote:

---

I could walk outside this building and conduct a simple experiment. With a world map or globe, I would just ask passersby to point out the nation of Turkey and where generally Armenia is. I can't predict exactly how many could find one or both, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say about 20% for Turkey, and 1% for Armenia.

---

Don't be so optimistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

Don't be so optimistic.

---

Tequila,
You're probably right. 20% is probably way too high.

You might as well have posted a link to Miss Teenage South Carolina, who when asked why 1/5 of Americans could not locate the U.S. on a world map gave her legendary answer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

You know, some people out there do not have maps. Er, the Iraq...


I gave that figure off the cuff, mainly because there is bound to be some people who have looked at a map of the Middle East, which usually accompanies a Bible, tracing the journeys of the Apostle Paul. So they at least have maps!

Mark Twain once wrote that war is God's way of teaching America geography. Apparently, even war doesn't even work anymore.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21553151/

"Boosted profile for ‘emboldened’ Kurdish rebels
Kurdistan Workers’ Party in spotlight after years of drifting, factionalism
..................
Now the Kurdistan Workers’ Party has commandeered debate over Turkey’s Kurdish ethnic minority with attacks that goaded the government into threatening a cross-border offensive against separatist hideouts in Iraq.
..................
The PKK, estimated to have 5,000 fighters, could benefit politically from an Iraq campaign by claiming to be the champion of all Kurds in the face of an invader with a history of human rights abuses. "

an invader with a history of human rights abuses (ouch)

Quote:

---

Al Jazeera film documents Armenian massacre of Turks

---

An interesting headline from Hurriyet online. The story's here