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!