Armenian Genocide Resolution - part II

Cal Thomas on the Armenian Genocide resolution


A well-reasoned article as to why passing the resolution is a bad idea in terms of current U.S. foreign policy. This is no doubt the same reasoning that both parties have decided is correct as to why the U.S. Congress should not pass the resolution.

Now read the article again and ask yourself why are we so concerned about the internal affairs of Turkey? Why are we worried about a country who has only proven itself to be a semi-democracy? Turkey is a democracy basically until the Muslim fundamentalists win election in which case, they are always immediately overthrown by a military coup. Doesn't that really make this more of a military dictatorship? One which, by the way, is the direct descendant of the secular Turkish military who carried out the Genocide.

Read the article again. I will try to boil down the big and convoluted picture. We are worried that a rebellious group who is using terrorist tactics to liberate a compatriot ethnic enclave operating out of a foreign nation that we are now occupying as the only stable military force available in order to create a peaceful democracy in that foreign nation might be attacked inside that foreign nation by an long-time ally in a war that ended 20 years ago that is a nominal democracy as a result of a resolution from Congress condemning events that took place 92 years ago and that are still the subject of much controversy and speculation which might in turn result in that long-time ally voting invading that foreign nation and electing a fundamentalist government as it has routinely done in the past when it has had the chance to act as a full democracy, which it isn't. All of this is of course being done in the context of spreading democracy in the region, which of course we don't really support fully for Turkey because it would lead to the creation of a state that supports fundamentalist Islam which would undermine our long-term attempts to stabilize (and interfere) in the region.

Is any of this really authorized by the Constitution? Isn't this the antithesis of avoiding the "entangling alliances" that George Washington warned about before he left office? Haven't we been burned enough by intervening in wars that aren't really our wars to begin with?

In the end, of course, the U.S. government will continue to give away as much or our money as possible to everyone involved on every side of this conflict and say that it somehow makes our country safer to be not only the world's policeman, but also the world's nanny and janitor.