Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is hell bent on making the murky waters of both Iraq and Turkey all the more muddy. She and her comrade Sten Hoyer are bound and determined to see the resolution condemning Turkey for "genocide" committed during World War I against the Armenians regardless of the consequences to US interests or US troops in 2007.
The Geek has already registered his opposition to this piece of feel-good tripe on several grounds. First, it is historically inaccurate as it fails to account for the context both political and military surrounding the forced expulsion of Armenians from eastern Anatolia including the deaths of thousands. Second, the proposed House Resolution fails to note that Turkey is a successor state to the Ottoman Empire, which was the polity that undertook the expulsion and persecution. Third, and most important, the action exacerbates the situation in which Turkey finds itself today with respect to the Kurdish guerrilla group, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which has been waging defensive insurgency in southern Turkey for over twenty years at a great cost in Turkish lives.
She and others in the House have blown off the legitimate concerns expressed by SecDef Gates regarding continued access to air bases and roads important to the conduct of US combat operations in Iraq. Her determination to press ahead is so great that she and her ilk are willing to put American lives at increased risk.
Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-14-voa20.cfm, quotes her as saying, "I tell you this. Some of the things that are harmful to our troops relate to values, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, all of those issues about who we are as a country. And I think that our troops are well served when we declare who we are as a country and increase the respect that people have for us as a nation."
Fine sentiment, the Geek is sure.
But, he has to ask, so what?
Combat grunts are remarkably unconcerned with sentiment when someone is shooting at them or trying to rip their brains out with a roadside bomb. What they care about is a lot more basic. Am I getting the support I need to do my job--and come home in one piece, not several, packed in a fiberglass box?
The death of Armenians nearly a century ago in the midst of a collapsing empire facing invasion on no less than four fronts is massively irrelevant to our troops in Iraq today. So, Speaker Pelosi, don't try to hide behind the shield of doing something which "well serves our troops."
Also, Madam Speaker, don't try to pretend that this resolution will somehow assure the world concerning our values and goals. The current administration has cast sufficient doubt upon those with its invasion of Iraq.
Our values will be far more effectively announced to the world by our cleaning up the mess in Iraq than by all the phony baloney resolutions that congress might crank out. Our values are demonstrated by what we do--not by House Resolutions.
It doesn't matter if we are the first or the twenty-fourth country to make some sort of resolution regarding the Ottoman Empire's treatment of their resident Armenian population. Perhaps these other countries did not have national interests in play in the region. They weren't waging wars in Iraq. They weren't facing the complication of a potential Turkish invasion of the Kurdish region of Iraq.
Oh, Speaker Pelosi, what happened in Rwanda and is happening in Darfur is not genocide. To be genocide the action must be state sponsored, state executed extermination directed against an identifiable racial, ethnic, or religious minority living within the territory effectively controlled by that state. Rwanda, Darfur, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, none of these were or are genocide. They were and are mass killings.
Quit cheapening the language, Ms Pelosi. Stop distorting history, Speaker. And, more than anything else, don't pretend you are doing something good for our troops in Iraq when all you are actually doing is putting them in harm's way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is the type of mindless Congressional behavior that has the potential to go lots & lots of places, all of them bad.
For example (and just as an illustration), couldn't Turkey come right back and point out that our skirts aren't exactly so clean, in particular if we look back at our Civil War, with Sherman's march to the sea, or Phil Sheridan and his work in the Shenandoah Valley. I mean, there's still lots and lots of people from those areas who would call what happened there "scorched earth", which might not be that all that far from jumping right over to "Genocide".
In your words:
"To be genocide the action must be state sponsored, state executed extermination directed against an identifiable racial, ethnic, or religious minority living within the territory effectively controlled by that state"
Looks to be just a little bit too close to what actually happened during our own Civil War.
Btw, I'm from the North, so I don't see it quite that way. But Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer could be opening up a major can of worms here. You never know where stuff like this will end up.
Does this mean they are willing and ready to hold House hearings on our US (Union) Civil War generals (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and others) over issues of using a strategy of genocide again the people of what is now the South Eastern states of the United States?
Wow - I'm looking forward to having this debate on the House floor - NOT!!!
Imagine where this type of debate could go.
Sherman was the only general during the War Between the States to seek victory though the avenue of enervation. That is through the progressive reduction of the enemy's political will to continue the war.
In a sense Sherman was a terrorist. He stated that one of his goals was to spread despair through the South with his proposed March to the Sea. Along with destroying Confederate lines of communication, state supplies and facilities and "foraging liberally off the land," his deep penetration unit did just that.
As he knew from having lived and taught in the South (in Louisiana)Southerners were deeply attached to their families. Thus he expected that as word of his operation spread to members of Lee's Army, these personnel would be both split in loyalties and demoralised. They were.
In addition the psychological effects of the operation spread through the South and did, as he expected, cause wide spread civilian demoralization and sapped the remaining will to continue the war.
As a result, at a remarkably low butcher's bill, Uncle Billy's march was a textbook example of the effectiveness of enervation as a route to victory.
Terrorist? Arguably so. Genocidal monster? Only in the mythology of die-hard Confederates today.
BTW The Geek had ancestors in the North making cannons and some in the South fighting at the Sunken Road, but the intelligent ones were in the New Mexico Territory fighting only heat and boredom.
Just call Pelosi and the other Dems what they are--traitors! Other bloggers have used the "T" word. You got a better argument though, I'll give you that.
Keep it up but call things by the right word--that's one of your main points isn't it?
"Just call Pelosi and the other Dems what they are--traitors!"
I never see the benefit in using that type of language in what is obviously political discourse (extremely stupid political discourse, no doubt). There are just no advantages to doing so.
Look, right now those are the players in charge of the congress (US House). If they keep going like this, that won't continue - when you are in leadership, you only get so many chances to "get stupid", and more importantly, "stay stupid". They are using up their chances at an accelerating rate.
You will note the the Senate Dem's have basically pushed, beaten, and otherwise convinced Harry Reid to STFU, because every single time he opens his mouth, he subtracts from the total sum of Democratic political capital.
But stuff still has to get done in DC, and in the House its with the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer. You can only go to Murtha if you are willing to buy into "earmarks" (a/k/a "legalized bribes"), and these days, there's very serious thought developing out there that such "earmarks" are eventually going to turn into a seriously bad idea if you want a long term future in politics. Most of the other House majority party players are too great of ideologues to be able to work with.
Calling somebody a "Traitor" is a great move if you want to make sure you accomplish NOTHING.
My .02
The Geek is opposed to using the word "traitor" to describe the individuals and those like them for two reasons: First, doing such serves no useful purpose; second, it would be a semantic error of the first degree.
The Geek believes in using language with precision. Doing so allows both effective, accurate thinking and equally appropriate action.
A major problem in politics, journalism and academic circles is the denaturing of the English language which is the most precise form of communication yet developed by human efforts in trying and often failing to communicate what is being thought and to think effectively. The misuse of the word "genocide" is a case in point. The use of the word "traitor" to characterise Ms Pelosi and others would be equally wrong.
Since the Geek is a small time blogger probably ranking in the bottom one tenth of one percent in the "hits parade," he can afford to be non-inflammatory and stick to reasoned discourse based on his understanding of both history and the trajectories of current affairs
Post a Comment