First Principles

Over the objections of the Bush Administration, this past Wednesday the House Committee on Foreign Relations passed a resolution condemning Turkey for their alleged genocide of Armenians nearly 100 years ago. In response, the Turks recalled their US ambassador, may send their military into Iraqi Kurdistan (threatening the most stable part of Iraq), and now our primary supply lines into Iraq are threatened. Good work, oh ye self proclaimed arbiters of peace, diplomacy, and negotiation.

Why did they do it? The resolution’s sponsor, Adam Schiff (D-CA) put it this way:

“The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives. But we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well. How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?”

Ah, yes. Because the murderers in Darfur are quaking in their boots now. “Oh, my God! The Americans condemned genocide in 1915! If we don’t stop what we’re doing in the next 92 years, the Americans may… Allah preserve us … pass a strongly worded resolution against us after we’re long dead!!! NOOOO!!!!”

And the effect, of course, is to further alienate one of our most critical allies not just in Iraq, but in the wider War on Terror. Barack Obama promises to “renew the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges, such as terrorism”. Hillary Clinton chides that “we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism,” and that she is “willing to work in concert with other nations and institutions to reach common goals.”

Those are great promises and towering sentiments, but how? It’s not like the White House has two buttons in the Oval Office that read “War” and “Diplomacy”, and it’s just a matter of picking one or the other. What is said in the course of diplomatic relationships matter a great deal. It is telling that the same people who are so quick to condemn our friends are also so insistent that we chat it up with our enemies. By what set of principles does this make sense?

One of the things that should inform every search for guiding principles is efficacy. Does it work? The “Be friends with your enemies and enemies with your friends” strategy certainly doesn’t have a great history, as liberals are so quick to point out when complaining about our less seemly Cold War alliances. Jimmy Carter tried that strategy to the hilt again and again, with spectacularly disastrous results.

Yet another key guide is to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Assuming genocide did indeed take place long ago by long dead men and governments, in a perfect world Turkey would say, “We did it, we’re sorry, and we won’t do it again. You’re right, US – our heads are hung in shame. Whew – glad we got that off our chest! We feel closer to the US than ever for helping us through that – confession really is good for the soul. Now let’s get back to work supporting freedom in northern Iraq!” But since that’s not going to happen, why are we willing to sacrifice the good of having not only a crucial supply staging area, but an ally of one of the few modern liberal Muslim democracy?

So with all this history and all of these principles to inform them, why would the House Democrats do this? The real answer is one of two things – either they are incompetent, stupid, myopic, and tone deaf, or they are purposefully doing this in order to undermine any hope of success and stability in Iraq so they can win the White House in ’08. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories generally, and so I’ll choose to believe the former. But it should give everyone pause about the consequences of a far left foreign policy agenda, however noble their motives may be.

This situation with Turkey is just one more affirmation that however imperfect our friends may be, we should save our harsher words – and actions – for our actual enemies.