Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Funny Thing Timing

Over eight decades after the Ottoman slaughter of some one and one half million Armenians the US Congress has seen fit to introduce a bill that will define said Ottoman endeavor in a most accurate fashion applying the label genocide. Why the sudden interest in a near century old atrocity? According to Nancy Pelosi:

"because many of the survivors are very old."

One could toss that explanation into the category of political subterfuge. What's most interesting here is not the very obvious recognition of Armenian genocide but the timing of this sudden geo-political epifany. Turkey has long struggled with the Kurdish/Marxist separatist group, the PKK and in recent months began amassing military power along the Turkish/Iraqi border in preparation for possible crossborder operations designed to repress or destroy the PKK network that exists (in much the same fashion of the Taliban in western Pakistan) within Kurdish Iraq. The interesting bit is this piece of legislation comes about (in a very publicized fashion) at the same time that the Turkish parliament is hashing out whether or not such military operations will take place.

The Democrat's seem to be running what might well be defined as a very nascent 5GW operation against what will be the political 800 pound gorilla should they ascend to Executive power: The inheritance of the Iraq war.

Knowing full well that the most efficient route to ending the Iraq war (a strict redefinition of the funding) leads to political suicide the Democrats are increasingly more reliant on more subtle designs for usurping the increasingly flagging popular support, both domestic and geo-politically, for the Iraq war. Through a political stunt that has, on it's face, the compassionate recognition of travesty the Democrats might well deliver three mortal blows to the Bush administrations Iraq policy:

1. The effective severance of a very important strategic way point in terms of supplying the war effort. Turkish military leaders have promised military relations with the US will "never be the same again" and that America has, by proposing this bill, effectively "shot it's own foot."

2. The erasure of what is/was the only success of American policy in Iraq from Bush Sr. to Bush Jr. A stable, democratic, pro-American Iraqi Kurdistan.

3. Yet more ideological ammunition for al qaeda as another non-Arab military with an oppositional strategy to the current occupying non-Arab military enters en force into the fray. Political collapse within Iraq's rather tenuous "government."

The Bush administration and fellow Republican's are relegated to somehow denying the Democrat's initiative and at the same time showing a degree of recognition and compassion for what was genocide. In this respect one belligerent entails the moral message but with a destructive agenda (the collapse of current Iraq policy.) The other entails a morally repugnant (denying a very obvious genocide) message but with an agenda that hopes to maintain the hard fought for and built infrastructure for a war.

The anti-war crowd has handily mastered the media both through political spin and the unsung American idiom that Bad News is Good News in terms of marketability. By seizing this apparent axiom the Democrats have built a sound domestic framework for taking apart the Iraq war in terms of popular support. This latest piece of legislature might well prove to be the final blow as it very effectively concentrates on dissolving the strategic framework for much of the Iraq effort.

Crossposted at [Note: D5GW has moved to the above mentioned address. Please update accordingly.]

Powered by ScribeFire.


Dan tdaxp said...

Excellent analysis. By far the best I've read, anywhere.

Ymarsakar said...

If the anti-war Left has mastered the media, then what status does the Islamic Jihad hold given that they have mastered the anti-war Left?

Jay@Soob said...


Thanks for the kind words!


To what extent has the anti-war Left been mastered by Islamic Jihad? I don't think the issue can be simplified in such a manner that if you're not for the war then your for the "Jihadists."

Adrian said...

Like I said over at Coming Anarchy, the problem with this type of analysis is that ths bill is not a Democratic motion - it's bipartisan. Opposed by Bush (R) and Ike Skelton (D), and promoted by Pelosi (D), Frank Wolf (R), Reid (D), John Sununu (R), etc. Narratively it makes sense, but it doesn't explain why some anti-war Democrats oppose the bill, or why some pro-war Republicans oppose the bill.

Jay@Soob said...

I suspect those that oppose the bill on either side of the aisle do so for some of the potential drawbacks (to put it lightly) I outline above. Consider also the effect this is having on oil prices ($88 a barrel at one point today.)

As for those that support the bill let me re-post some of the comment Curtis left at D5GW.

"I think that hidden motives lie behind the vote, although at the same time I doubt that many Democrats voting for the resolution had rationalized the situation as well as you have."

In this respect some of those who went along with this piece of legislative idiocy did so for various "non-nefarious" reasons. They were either too naive or too blinded by their own image and the colossal task of keeping it inflated to reach the same conclusion (or some semblance of) I (and yourself) have as far as the negative effects the bill entails. That might sound a bit arrogant but, really, anyone with a basic understanding of the region could have (and if todays talk radio is any indication, indeed did) come to much the same conclusion.

Here's some examples of why I've taken a conspiratory approach.

The completely vapid excuse offered by Speaker Pelosi that this bill needs legs 'cause "many of those effected are very old." I'm not sure what the life expectancy for an Armemian was 87 years ago but pretty sure it wasn't even close to 88 or 89 (or more realistically, 92 or 93.)

When asked by George Snuffaluffagis if she'd rescind the bill if asked to do so by the President (as Clinton asked of Hassert when this bill was last proposed) she labeled the question (pretty damn valid one, IMO)"a hypothetical" and then began talking of Gitmo and Abu Graib.

I find both the timing of the bill and the fact that it's being pushed as hard as it is despite the very obvious potential for both upsetting the strategic framework for the Iraq war and the possible undoing of the decade and a half that brought Kurdish Iraq into a nascent model of what we'd all like to see the entire region obtain a bit too convenient.

At the very least it illustrates an incredible disregard for the fighting men and women in Iraq who will likely take on the task of both stabilizing and rebuilding Kurdistan after a Turkish affront.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.