BY JOEL SWANSON

In print | November 1, 2007

I never thought I’d say this, but I recently found myself wishing that Bush was even more evil than he already is.

Oh, he’s an incompassionate dickwad to be sure. Anyone who is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, but vetoed a fraction of that spending on healthcare for poor children, can’t be a good guy. But at least if he were more evil, his refusal to support a Congressional resolution officially recognizing the Armenian genocide would be less hypocritical, if not laudable.

The Armenian genocide, which occurred from 1915 until 1917, involved the Turkish government’s deportation and massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent Armenian civilians. The atrocity is considered, by many scholars, to be one of the first modern genocides, due to its massive scale and its attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group. Despite the extensive historical documentation for this event, the contemporary Turkish government still officially refers to the crime as a “relocation” and rejects the term “genocide.” Justification for this stance has varied; at times, the Turkish government insists that any killings were not reflective of official government policy, while at other times it claims that Armenians were a legitimate political threat due to their perceived closeness with Russia, while still other times it argues that Armenian ethnic “gangs” were attacking Turks. The reason is ultimately irrelevant; the genocide occurred, and no denial will change this. This has not stopped Turkey from utilizing a law prohibiting “insulting Turkishness” to prosecute intellectuals such as Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk who has publicly acknowledged the genocide.

Despite Turkey’s denials, 22 countries have passed resolutions acknowledging that the events that occurred between 1915 and 1917 fit the modern definition of genocide. Recently, Congressman George Radanovich (R-CA) introduced H.R. 316, which would have made the U.S. the twenty-third country to officially recognize the atrocity as a genocide. President Bush opposed the resolution on the grounds that it would damage relations between the U.S. and Turkey, a crucial ally in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The mere proposal of the resolution was sufficient to cause Turkey to recall its ambassador to the U.S., and the Turkish government threatened to withdraw its logistical support for the war effort if the resolution passed. The chance of the resolution ever passing now is virtually nil.

To be sure, there are legitimate reasons to oppose the resolution. Anyone operating from a pragmatic, non-idealistic realpolitik framework could make the argument that it is pointless to pass a largely ceremonial resolution with few real-life benefits if this resolution would cause real-life harm to the U.S. in the form of losing a key ally. But Bush was never practical and non-idealistic. On the contrary, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, his rhetoric was always ideological, at least in public. His narrative framed the U.S. as the bold, gallant liberator, intent only on freeing the poor innocent Iraqis from the yoke of their evil oppressor Saddam Hussein.

And this is why I almost wish Bush had been more openly evil the entire time. He wasn’t fooling anyone with the feigned nobility of the Iraq war; if anything, such rhetoric only made the U.S. seem more sanctimonious. Bush never really cared much about any ideal; he wanted only to secure his sweetheart private deals for oil and security companies. No one ever believed in his supposedly idealistic goals; his failure to do anything at all about the crisis in Darfur belies all of his supposed humanitarianism. If he had explicitly said this, and openly adopted a mantra of “Fuck you, we’re America, we don’t give a damn what you think unless it’s in our interest” to the rest of the world, at least his current rhetoric on Turkey would be intellectually consistent.

But Bush never said any of this. Instead, we had to listen to years of this cowboy prattling on and on about the big bad Saddam and how we were going to liberate the Iraqi people. You can’t claim the moral high ground by opposing an admittedly horrific regime, and then cozy up with a government that denies a genocide, as Bush is doing with Turkey. After all, aren’t we all supposed to be terrified of the evil Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at least partially because he denies the Holocaust?

I’m left almost wishing that Bush had just sold the Iraq war by bringing out Dick Cheney in a Darth Vader mask, breathing heavily, intoning, “Never underestimate the power of American self-interest.”

But of course Bush would never do this. He’s far too wedded to his fairy tale hero narrative. Indeed, it’s almost surprising that he’s so openly basing his opposition to the Armenian genocide resolution on such practical considerations as not offending Turkey, rather than trying to claim that this stance too is part of some larger ideal. If Karl Rove were still around, and not under federal investigation for potentially leaking the identity of a classified CIA agent, then we would likely see all sorts of talking points about how Bush is boldly defending the memories of the innocent Turks who had no choice but to protect themselves from the marauding gangs of Armenians. Administration officials would appear on Bill O’Reilly to call those who acknowledge the Armenian genocide “alarmists” and accuse them of “hating the Turks.” Bush would fly to Turkey and stage a photo-op of him with his arm around the shoulders of Turkish president Abdullah Gul, who he would praise as a “bold leader for our troubled times” who “stands up to those Armenian terrorists.” Some Democrat might suggest meekly that the Armenian genocide might have actually happened, but conservative talk show host Sean Hannity would proudly announce that Bush wasn’t forced by circumstance to pander to genocide deniers, but rather that Bush’s stance shows “bold leadership” against “those terrorist-coddling Democrats,” who “care too much about the rights of Armenians to take the steps needed to protect our troops and our country.” Fox News’s ratings would soar.

But Karl Rove is gone, and Bush’s approval ratings are far too low for him to attempt such a bold-faced public relations coup. So he’s been reduced to a shell of his former self, too chastened to claim heroism anymore. Perhaps it’s better this way though. If he hadn’t fooled the American people with his false narrative for so long, maybe we wouldn’t be stuck in this unending quagmire in Iraq.

Joel is a sophomore. You can reach him at jswanso1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »