Publius brings up what I think is a genuinely difficult question about the House Resolution condemning the anti-Armenian genocide. I would differ in that I'm inclined to say that if I'm a legislator and the resolution comes up, I probably have to vote for it. To vote against is, if not quite tantamount to a denial of genocide, is at least subject to that interpretation and sets a bad precedent. There's no question it's disturbing to see the president avoid using the word "genocide" (and this isn't about Bush specifically; Clinton was just as bad.) There can be little question that Turkey's evasion of its historical responsibility is reprehensible. Still, I have to say that it's far from clear to me what passing this resolution right now accomplishes. There is, as Publius notes, no ongoing genocide. It can be argued that calling it what it was may make it easier to intervene in future genocides, but the causal logic there is pretty dubious; there are plenty of examples of recognizing past genocides and yet failing to stop ongoing ones. The resolution carries real diplomatic costs. I'm certainly open-minded about the question; maybe there are benefits that make it worth the costs of bringing this up now, but I have to confess that the arguments I've heard aren't overwhelming. --Scott Lemieux
