There are three relevant questions concerning the Armenian genocide.
(a) Did it happen?
(b) Should the U.S. House of Representatives be expressing itself on this now?
(c) Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's determination to bring this to a vote, knowing that it risked provoking Turkey into withdrawing crucial assistance to American soldiers in Iraq, a conscious (columnist Thomas Sowell) or unconscious (blogger Mickey Kaus) attempt to sabotage the U.S. war effort?
The answers are:
(a) Yes, unequivocally.
(b) No, unequivocally.
(c) God only knows.
That between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians were brutally and systematically massacred starting in 1915 in a deliberate genocidal campaign is a matter of simple historical record. If you really want to deepen and broaden awareness of that historical record, you should support the establishment of the Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial in Washington. But to pass a declarative resolution in the House of Representatives in the middle of a war in which we are inordinately dependent on Turkey would be the height of irresponsibility.
The atrocities happened 90 years ago. Not a single living Turk under the age of 102 is in any way culpable. Even Mesrob Mutafyan, patriarch of the Armenian community in Turkey, has stated that his community is opposed to the resolution, correctly calling it the result of domestic American politics.
Turkey is already massing troops near its border with Iraq, threatening a campaign against Kurdish rebels that could destabilize the one stable front in Iraq. The same House of Representatives that has been complaining loudly about the lack of armored vehicles for our troops is blithely jeopardizing relations with the country through which 95 percent of the new heavily armored vehicles are now transiting on the way to saving American lives in Iraq.
And for what? To feel morally clean?
How does this work? Pelosi says: "Genocide still exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur." Precisely. And what exactly is she doing about Darfur? Nothing. Pronouncing yourself on a genocide committed 90 years ago by an empire that no longer exists is Pelosi's demonstration of seriousness about existing, ongoing genocide?
Indeed, the Democratic Party she's leading in the House has been trying for months to force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that could very well lead to genocidal civil war. This prospect has apparently not deterred her in the least.
"Friends don't let friends commit crimes against humanity," explained Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which approved the Armenian genocide resolution. This must rank among the most stupid statements ever uttered by a member of Congress, admittedly a very high bar.
Does Smith know anything about the history of the Armenian genocide? Of the role played by Henry Morgenthau? As U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Morgenthau tried desperately to intervene on behalf of the Armenians. It was his consular officials deep within Turkey who (together with missionaries) brought out news of the genocide. And it was Morgenthau who helped tell the world about it in his writings. Near East Relief, the U.S. charity strongly backed by President Woodrow Wilson and the Congress, raised and distributed an astonishing $117 million in food, clothing and other vital assistance that, wrote historian Howard Sachar, "quite literally kept an entire nation alive."
So much for the United States letting friends commit crimes against humanity. And at the time, the Ottomans were not friends. They were an enemy power in World War I, allied with Germany. Now the Turks are indeed friends, giving us indispensable logistical help in our war against today's premier perpetrators of crimes against humanity -- al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Friends don't gratuitously antagonize friends who are helping to fight the world's foremost war criminals.
So why has Pelosi been so committed to bringing this resolution to the floor? (At least until a revolt within her party and the prospect of defeat caused her to waver.) Because she is deeply unserious about foreign policy. This little stunt gets added to the ledger: first, her visit to Syria, which did nothing but give legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad, who continues to engage in the systematic murder of pro-Western Lebanese members of parliament; then, her letter to Costa Rica's ambassador, just nine days before a national referendum, aiding and abetting opponents of a very important free-trade agreement with the United States.
Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer's razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/20/2007 16:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
So here we have a country which was considered to be a colonial enterprise in the Middle East, hated with a vengeance, totally imperialistic, only interested in its own culture and shoving its language down the native throats, only interested in the natives' oil and in return selling arms to repressive regimes. And then thirty years later, it has suddenly become a close friend of the very same people who previously thought of them as an enemy. Yes, Sir, I am referring to France, the same cheese eating surrendering monkeys who have successfully managed to turn their foreign policy dramatically upside down, inside out, and to turn enemies into friends. Compare that to the USA and UK, which are still embroiled in that hell-hole called as the Middle East. What happened there? Any lessons to be learnt?
Frankly, up and until 1967, France was considered as the mortal enemy of the Middle East. The majority of the crusades were staffed, funded and originated in the French kingdoms. The name Franks relates to the French. Most of the massacres during the crusades, whether in Byzantine lands, Constantinople, Levant, Jerusalem or in Egypt were carried out by the Frenchmen. While the Brits think that they exerted most of the influence in the Ottoman Empire, it was actually the French who can arguably be said to have the greatest influence. French troops were present when the Turks were turned back at the gates of Vienna. Do you remember the battle of Lepanto? French capital, lots of French ships. Charles Martell? How about the huge French backing, funding, people and tactics which were involved in the roll-back of the Arab/Berber Empire of Granada in Spain? Or Napoleons invasion of Egypt, the carve out of the Ottoman Empire the French got the best parts of the carcass if you ask me - ranging from Algeria to Syria / Lebanon, etc. France sold weapons gaily to everybody and their dogs. And then came the disaster that was the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, followed by the strong French support for Israel (and the huge arms deals!) Think about the biggest military defeat for the Arabs, the 1967 war. It was almost completely due to French military equipment for the air force, army and the tiny naval fleet. Who can forget the long brutal colonisation of Algeria followed by the devastatingly brutal gradual retreat and final independence for Algeria with millions killed, injured, hurt, imprisoned and made destitute.
You ask about oil? Well, after World War I, the carcass of the Ottoman Empire and the German colonies were subdivided, and France got a share of the Turkish Petroleum Company - an Anglo-German dominated company - as part of the repatriations emanating from the Versailles treaty. This company was the seed leading to the Compagnie Française des Pétrole in1924 and in turn became TOTAL in 1954. TOTAL was a very heavy investor in Iraq during the middle part of the century, right up to the point when the Iraqi oil fields were nationalised. Unlike the USA and UK, France does not have local domestic sources of Oil, which made it very single minded in pursuit of stable, secure and most importantly long term supply of oil.
So a country which clearly wants oil and has had a very long history of anti-Arab / anti-Muslim actions is now, in the beginning part of this century, a very close and trusted friend of the Arabs! France deploys troops in Lebanon and not even a single squeak. France wags her fingers at Arab potentates and not even a single murmur of protest. Terrorist gangs are generally quiet about France. France negotiated the release of the nurses held for over ten years in Libya. Everyone loves France. It's not just the Arabs, but the Iranian Shia love it too. Remember the long hosting of Ayatollah Khomeini during his exile in France? (His house there is now apparently a pilgrimage site!) But this support has faded because France supported Iraq in the Iraq Iran War. Even the current sabre rattling against Iran is part of the same design, this puts them firmly in the Sunni Arab camp. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,506396,00.html)
So what did France do? Starting from the 1960s onwards, it started to redress its balance to Israel and started supporting Arabs a bit more. This was a master stroke. France imposed an embargo on arms sales on both sides before the 1967 war. Since most of Israels weaponry was French, Israel was hit proportionally harder. And paradoxically, since Israel won so handsomely using French arms, the Arabs junked their clunky Soviet equipment and went for more French arms. And the cherry on the cake, was that after the war, France managed to sell more parts and equipment to Israel, funded by the Americans. So, at a masterstroke, France gained public congratulations from the Arabs, ended up earning loads of brownie points from the Arabs, and sold more to both sides.
Guess who supplied Iraq with its Osirak Nuclear Reactor, which the Israelis destroyed? Guess who was supplying Iraq with huge amounts of weaponry during the Iraq Iran War? Guess who helped to broker the agreement which ended Lebanons civil war? Who do you think was the biggest opposer of Iraqi sanctions before the Gulf War I? And when it became clear that Saddam Hussein would not repay the debts owed to France for arms sales, who do you think was the fourth largest contributor to the coalition after USA, UK and Saudi Arabia (well, you can quibble whether Saudi Arabia really was a contributor, but that is detracting from the point)? Guess who positioned themselves very well for the post Gulf War I period? Do you remember the corruption allegations and accusations relating to the Iraqi Oil for Food programme against a gentleman called as Charles Pasqua and the BNP Paribas bank? Which western country fought the hardest against Gulf War II? No prizes for guessing!
So how it is that France has a great reputation (despite having the most atrocious reputation amongst its own domestic Arab minority population)? What can the UK and USA learn from France's foreign policy? UK and USA are the Great and Smaller Satan at this moment on the Arab Street and in its basement. You are almost guaranteed to have the effigies of Brown and Blair and/or the flags of the two countries burnt during every Arab street demonstration.
Well, the first and foremost bit is that its national interest (oil) is aligned to its foreign policy. For almost a century, the state was aligned with going after external oil with the exception of some war years. So the policy is stable. It learnt from its colonial experience in Algeria and has decided not to get involved in colonial endeavours. It supports the ex-colony governments, ties them together in a very tight francophone web of culture, language, politics, diplomatic, military and government contacts. When was the last time you heard France going to war or beating the war drums because a French ex-colonys government has been beastly to its citizens? Do you seriously think that France gives a rats behind about democracy, equality, liberty and fraternity of those oppressed people?
All elements of its intelligentsia subscribe to Frances foreign policy, so it does not alter given changes of its president or prime minister. Whether we are talking De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Chirac, Jospin and now Sarkozy, the foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for almost half a century. This is because the elite of French society are drawn from a tight circle and the think tanks and intellectuals, are all bought into this national interest, national ethos and foreign policy.
It is also remarkably consistent in its secularism, which paradoxically is very appealing to its Arab Muslim client states. They like knowing that the French State will follow its own national interest and that it will have nothing to do with anti-Islam, Islamophobia or what have you. It is also remarkably hypocrisy-free in terms of its arms sales these days. No questions asked, you want arms, you want technology, you want engineering products, show me the money and the stuff is yours. Whether we are talking food processing, engineering, petrochemical, shipping, France is your woman (if you pardon the pun, France is a woman, and dont you know? Unlike Germany which is masculine!) Why is it that French products were never hit with the boycott calls after the infamous Mohammad cartoons row blew up, despite French newspapers and magazines publishing the very same ones? While UK, despite not publishing them, was panned left, right and centre?
The solution is simple! If the UK and USA want to go down the route of France They need to drop the governmental support for Israel, stop banging on about democracy, freedom, free speech, etc. They need to divorce foreign policy from trade policy and be ready to sell anything / everything to anybody who has money. Be discreet but consistent about supporting autocratic rulers, who will in turn support trade, industrial and defence industries. They need not worry about their populace, but have to make sure that the intelligentsia will march to the same tune of the national interest of UK and USA being the most important issue. The rest follow much later if at all. There you go - simple answer.
All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!
#1
Actually, I don't think there were any French ships at Lepanto. The Christian fleet was almost all Venetian, Spanish, Genoese and other Italian contributions. The only ships that could be called French were a half-dozen from the Knights of Malta, which had a substantial number of French members, but even they were just a reasonable proportion of this order of Christian Knights.
anti-Shria Family Values
Grrr or Arff if you haven't already..
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
10/20/2007 02:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I remember the tale of a small boy who saw a funny looking, ugly mutt, which had long hind legs and short fore legs, loping along a street. He asked his father what breed the funny looking dog was, and his father responded that the dog was "a rare breed-- a Mongolian fish hound."
Hezbollah on Friday denounced a senior Pentagon official's call for a U.S. "strategic partnership" with Lebanon's army, saying American attempts to boost military ties were a ploy for domination and could turn the country into another Iraq.
Washington has dramatically increased military aid to Lebanon's pro-Western government over the past year. On Thursday, Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, said the U.S. wants to make military ties even closer, with a "strategic partnership" to strengthen the country's forces.
Edelman said in an interview with Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. television that the buildup of the military would mean the Shiite Muslim guerrilla group Hezbollah would have no excuse to bear arms.
His comments came on the same day that a Lebanese opposition newspaper reported that Washington is proposing a treaty with Lebanon that would make it a strategic partner and lead to the creation of American bases.
The Lebanese government and the U.S. ambassador in Beirut denied the report in the opposition-leaning As-Safir newspaper, and Edelman made no mention of bases in his comments.
The comments and the newspaper report brought quick condemnation from Hezbollah, which is an ally of Syria and Iran and leads Lebanon's political opposition to the anti-Syrian government. The opposition, which is locked in a power struggle with the government, already accuses Prime Minister Fuad Saniora of being too close to the United States.
In a statement Friday, Hezbollah said the American efforts were "part of a comprehensive plan to link Lebanon with the American project for the region ... under deceitful banners such as strategic partnership," it said.
Hezbollah, which Washington accuses of being a terrorist organization, accused the United States of "interference" in Lebanese affairs, saying the American plans "and the dangers it encompass could turn the country into another Iraq."
It did not elaborate. Some in Lebanon have expressed fears that a foreign military presence could attract al-Qaeda and other militants, as has happened in Iraq.
Syria, meanwhile, accused the United States of threatening Lebanon's stability with its backing of the government in the country's political turmoil. In a letter sent to the United Nations on Thursday, it said U.S. interference "has so far deepened divisions" by "clearly and openly siding with one Lebanese side after the other."
The United States and anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon accuse Damascus of fueling Lebanon's instability with its backing of Hezbollah, and say Syria is trying to restore the political domination it held over Lebanon for nearly 30 years until 2005.
The opposition, in turn, accuses Saniora's government which came to power after the end of Syrian rule of putting Lebanon in the U.S. camp. The opposition has tried for months to remove his government and the two sides are in a dangerous deadlock over the choice of the country's next president.
After last year's war between Hezbollah and Israel, the United States sharply increased its military assistance to Lebanon to US$270 million in 2007 more than five times the amount provided a year ago in a show of support to Saniora.
The military in Lebanon has long been weak, numbering 56,000 personnel, with about 220 battle tanks, no effective air power and no air defense system. Hezbollah guerrillas are widely considered a stronger, more experienced force, and they were able to fight Lebanon's military to a standstill last year.
Since the battle with Israel, Lebanese forces and U.N. peacekeepers have deployed in the south Hezbollah's stronghold in part with a mandate to prevent new arms flows to the guerrillas. But they have not taken steps to disarm Hezbollah.
Asked whether helping the Lebanese army aimed at eventually taking on Hezbollah, Edelman said that as the army strengthens its capabilities "there will be less excuse for other armed groups to continue to bear arms."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Lebanon is peopled with ghosts. But the phantoms now returning to haunt this damaged country -the militias which tore it apart more than 30 years ago - are real. Guns are flooding back into the country - $800 for an AK-47, $3,700 for a brand-new French Famas - as Lebanon security apparatus hunt desperately for the leadership of the new and secret armies.
Only last week, they arrested two followers of ex-General Michel Aoun - the pro-Hezbollah opposition's apparent candidate for president - for allegedly training pro-Aounist gunmen. After themselves being accused of acting like a militia for arresting Dario Kodeih and Elie Abi Younes, the Lebanese Internal Security Force issued a photograph of Christian gunmen holding AK-47 and M-16 rifles. Aoun's party replied quaintly that "they were just out having fun with real weapons but were not undergoing any military training". Fun indeed.
What now worries the Lebanese authorities, however, is the sheer scale of weaponry arriving in Lebanon. It appears to include new Glock pistols (asking price $1,000). There are growing fears, moreover, that many of these guns are from the vast stock of 190,000 rifles and pistols which the US military "lost" when they handed them out to Iraqi police officers without registering their numbers or destination. The American weapons included 125,000 Glock pistols. The Lebanese-Iraqi connection is anyway well established. A growing number of suicide bombers in Iraq come from the Lebanese cities of Tripoli and Sidon.
Fouad Siniora's Lebanese government - supplied by the US with recent shipments of new weapons for the official Lebanese army - has now admitted that militias are also being created among Muslim pro-government groups. Widespread reports that Saad Hariri - son of the assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri - has himself created an embryo militia have been officially denied. But a number of armed Hariri supporters initially opened fire into the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian camp after its takeover by pro-Al-Qaida gunmen last April. Hariri's men also have forces in Beirut (supposedly unarmed) and again this is denied. Those who suspect the opposite, however, might like to check the register of the Mayflower Hotel in the western sector of Beirut.
The Fatah Al-Islam rebels who took over Nahr el-Bared last April - 400 died in the 206-day siege by the army, 168 of them soldiers - also used new weapons, including sniper rifles. In a gloomy ceremony last week, the military buried 98 of the 222 Muslim fighters who died, in a mass grave in Tripoli. They included Palestinians but also men from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Tunis and Algeria.
Among the militants of Fatah Al -Islam still sought by Lebanese authorities are three Russians - "Abu Abdullah", Tamour Vladimir Khoskov and Aslan Eric Yimkojayev - all believed to be from the former Soviet Muslim republics. A fourth Russian citizen, Sergei Vladimir Fisotsk, is in custody in Beirut. Along with three Palestinians member of Fatah Al-Islam, he faces a possible death sentence.
Siniora's government is well aware of the dangers that these new developments represent - "such a situation could lead to a new civil war", one minister said of the military training taking place in Lebanon - in a country in which only the Hezbollah militia, classed as a "resistance" movement, hitherto had permission to bear arms. But Hezbollah too has been re-arming; not only with rockets but with small arms that could only be used in street fighting. Aoun's supporters were allegedly practising with weapons near the town of Byblos north of Beirut but there are reports of further training in the Bekaa Valley.
Military outposts manned by Palestinian gunmen loyal to Syria have reappeared in the Bekaa, closely watched by a Lebanese army which was severely blooded in the Nahr El-Bared fighting. Sayed Mohamed Hussein Fadlallah, one of the most senior - and wisest - Shi'ite clerics in Lebanon, warned last Friday: "Rearming as well as the tense and sectarianism-loaded political rhetoric, all threaten Lebanon's diversity and expose Lebanon to divisions." Fadlallah stated that the US - which supports Hariri - wished to divide the country. The American plan to chop up Iraq, it seems, is another ghost that has crept silently into Lebanon.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/20/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Thus far, American policy toward Pakistan has amounted to unconditional support for Musharraf, coupled with occasional air strikes against high-level al Qaeda targets in the tribal areas. Emblematic of the latter is an October 30, 2006, strike against a madrassa in a Bajaur village that allegedly served as an al Qaeda training camp. While Zawahiri may have been the strike's target, the madrassa was affiliated with another key al Qaeda confederate, Faqir Mohammed, who had contracted a strategic marriage with a woman from the local Mamoond tribe. A U.S. Predator strike destroyed the school, but it hardly slowed down Mohammed, who gave an interview with NBC at the scene of the wreckage and later spoke at the funeral for the victims.
Nor is any satisfactory alternative military strategy on offer. One senior American military intelligence officer said it would take a sustained air campaign to deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven in the FATA. "We're talking about a Serbia-style prolonged campaign," he said. NATO's air campaign against Serbia's military lasted from March 24 through June 11, 1999, and comprised over 38,000 missions involving approximately 1,000 aircraft and a barrage of Tomahawk missiles. Such a campaign in Pakistan's tribal areas, the officer said, would "heavily degrade" but not eliminate al Qaeda. "Their camps won't be actively producing terrorists," he said, "but they'll survive the air campaign." Furthermore, a campaign on that scale might result in the toppling of Musharraf--who, in the vivid phrase of retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, is already "dancing on razor blades." . . .
What about covert action? American Special Operations forces are already engaging in actions coordinated with the air strikes. The most notable achievement in this regard occurred in southern Afghanistan, where NATO and Afghan forces killed Mullah Dadullah Lang, the Taliban's top military commander, back in May. There are barriers, though, to expanding the Special Operations forces' role. The topography makes it difficult to insert and remove forces without being detected. Within the military, there is a real desire to avoid another Operation Eagle Claw--the ill-fated attempt to rescue hostages held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran during President Carter's term.
Unfortunately, the potential for things going awry is high if Special Operations missions are increased. Special Operations forces act in small teams and are lightly armed, so could be overwhelmed by larger contingents of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Enemy forces in Pakistan are better armed and trained than the Somali forces in the Black Hawk Down incident, and they have SA-18 surface-to-air missiles capable of downing American helicopters.
#1
There are 3,000,000 heroin addicts in Pakistan. That problem is worsening with the Karzai clown posse's indulgence of Pashto re-constitution of Afghanistan from an opium producer to a heroin manufacturer. As soon as we admit that all we are doing in that cess pool is killing Taliban, giving land to the Afghan goofs, allowing the goofs to give it back to the Talibs, ad nauseum, then we can at long last wage a real war on terror. Pashtos and Waziris have never been so wealthy. Our indulgence has given them sufficient wealth to challenge the Pakistan government. Make Central Asia a Condi-free-zone, and then we can have a real war. I am getting sick to my stomach whenever I hear of some alleged advance to "freedom." That is not happening, regardless of how many Taliban we kill, and how much land we hold pending karzai squanderage.
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
