Tweet
OUR OPINION: Back off on genocide bill in Congress
Grand Forks Herald (subscription), ND
Oct 17 2007
Successful American foreign policy generally passes two tests: It's
both right and in our national interest.
That's why the House should drop its resolution on Turkey's treatment
of its Armenian minority. The resolution labels as "genocide" the
Turks' World War I-era massacre of Armenians. The label may be morally
and historically right, but Turkey's furious and hostile reaction to
it threatens to cripple America's relations with a key ally.
House members chose a terrible time to press the issue and now should
recognize their mistake.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer gets the credit for
recognizing the "right" and "in our interest" theme. The requirements
shine like headlights on our national highways ahead. For example,
torture might yield information about terrorist attacks and so be
"in our interest." But it just isn't right, most Americans would agree.
That means it flunks one of these foreign-policy tests and should
be rejected.
The Turkish resolution also flunks because it clearly works against
U.S. interests. True, a strong statement about genocide might win us
some respect. As House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif.,
put it, "People around the globe who are familiar with these events
will appreciate the fact that the United States is speaking out
against a historic injustice."
But that good will must be balanced against Turkey's threats to not
only block the use of U.S. airbases on Turkish soil, but also attack
Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq in defiance of U.S. pleas.
That balance tips to the "Turkish threats" side with a clunk.
Hardline actions by Turkey could destabilize Iraq and jeopardize
America's mission there.
In fact, Turkey's enraged reaction could be so disruptive to the
U.S. war effort that some critics think that's the point. The
genocide resolution has been introduced in Congress before, writes
Ralph Peters, columnist for the New York Post. Why might it pass this
year of all years?
Because House Democrats want to sabotage the war in Iraq, Peters
writes. "The Dems calculate that, without those [US] flights and
convoys [through Turkey], we won't be able to keep our troops
adequately supplied.
"Key intelligence and strike missions would disappear. It's a brilliant
ploy - the Dems get to stab our troops in the back, but lay the blame
off on the Turks."
Have we reached that point? Has the partisan smog in Washington become
so acid and foul that congressmen actually would conspire to undermine
an American war effort?
It can't be true. It mustn't be true.
But here's something that is true: Whatever the motivations of its
supporters, the resolution already has hurt America's prospects in
Iraq. Passing it would put American troops and their mission at a
lot more risk. Congress instead should put the resolution on the shelf.
- Tom Dennis for the Herald
http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i ndex.cfm?id=53947&section=Opinion
Grand Forks Herald (subscription), ND
Oct 17 2007
Successful American foreign policy generally passes two tests: It's
both right and in our national interest.
That's why the House should drop its resolution on Turkey's treatment
of its Armenian minority. The resolution labels as "genocide" the
Turks' World War I-era massacre of Armenians. The label may be morally
and historically right, but Turkey's furious and hostile reaction to
it threatens to cripple America's relations with a key ally.
House members chose a terrible time to press the issue and now should
recognize their mistake.
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer gets the credit for
recognizing the "right" and "in our interest" theme. The requirements
shine like headlights on our national highways ahead. For example,
torture might yield information about terrorist attacks and so be
"in our interest." But it just isn't right, most Americans would agree.
That means it flunks one of these foreign-policy tests and should
be rejected.
The Turkish resolution also flunks because it clearly works against
U.S. interests. True, a strong statement about genocide might win us
some respect. As House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif.,
put it, "People around the globe who are familiar with these events
will appreciate the fact that the United States is speaking out
against a historic injustice."
But that good will must be balanced against Turkey's threats to not
only block the use of U.S. airbases on Turkish soil, but also attack
Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq in defiance of U.S. pleas.
That balance tips to the "Turkish threats" side with a clunk.
Hardline actions by Turkey could destabilize Iraq and jeopardize
America's mission there.
In fact, Turkey's enraged reaction could be so disruptive to the
U.S. war effort that some critics think that's the point. The
genocide resolution has been introduced in Congress before, writes
Ralph Peters, columnist for the New York Post. Why might it pass this
year of all years?
Because House Democrats want to sabotage the war in Iraq, Peters
writes. "The Dems calculate that, without those [US] flights and
convoys [through Turkey], we won't be able to keep our troops
adequately supplied.
"Key intelligence and strike missions would disappear. It's a brilliant
ploy - the Dems get to stab our troops in the back, but lay the blame
off on the Turks."
Have we reached that point? Has the partisan smog in Washington become
so acid and foul that congressmen actually would conspire to undermine
an American war effort?
It can't be true. It mustn't be true.
But here's something that is true: Whatever the motivations of its
supporters, the resolution already has hurt America's prospects in
Iraq. Passing it would put American troops and their mission at a
lot more risk. Congress instead should put the resolution on the shelf.
- Tom Dennis for the Herald
http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i ndex.cfm?id=53947&section=Opinion