[akv]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I'll see your rhetorical question and raise you.
To what extent should America's ideals inform our understanding of our interests?
Is a 'realist' approach to foreign policy consistent with our view of American exceptionalism? (How does pressuring Turkey on this point impact its relations with Russia?)

Tough Questions All,

IMHO, American exceptionalism is a by product of the blessings of geography, natural resources, and puritan work ethic in a secular state. It is simple fact America is currently the global economic and military superpower. I believe Mario Puzo's quote from The Godfather " Men cannot afford to be careless" applies to superpowers as well. Ideals are certainly very important, however are ideals static or do they evolve with time? We are still a very young nation, how do the ideals of an adolescent change by middle age, some do and some don't, but with time doesn't it seem ideals too encounter limits? Take Democracy for instance, a concept our nation holds dear and takes great pride in, a cornerstone of our exceptionalism. Yet there are clearly limits to Democracy as well. Let's say we get Iraq or Afghanistan to the point where they are stable states with fair elections, and then they elect UBL or the Muslim Brotherhood to power, then what? While not a panacea, a 'realist' approach based on US interests should guide our leaders. I believe it was Admiral Nimitz whose rules for leadership were, know your stuff, be a man, take care of your men, this seems sound advice at any level. I believe ideals mature into responsibilities.

Finally I'm not sure how pressuring Turkey impacts her relations with Russia, I would guess it gives the Russians an opening to say to Turkey,
" See how America treats her allies" akin to the opportunity Obama afforded them with the Poles and Czechs earlier. I hope the Turks are just blowing smoke to save face, but as someone mentioned earlier the logic here and now smells.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, this characterization on the part of Brzezinski and Scowcroft is not quite so tidy historically or historiographically. The manifold debates over "Germans into Nazis" continue to this day.*

Fair point, that debate is likely endless, however doesn't it seem the majority of Germans or at least their leadership don't deny the Nazi evils. Whether they knew or they didn't etc, they aren't shrinking from acknowledging these acts happened in their country.

Contrast that to the Turkish official on 60 Minutes a few weeks back, who offered up something like " It was a rough time, some Armenians died, some Turks died, many Armenians were killed by roving gangs". Provoked or not, the Turkish PM's recent Armenian deportation remarks are drawing world ire, this is supposed to be a modern European secular state and NATO ally.

Originally Posted by Incarcerated

That being said, this is a non-binding Congressional ‘resolution,’ opposed by the White House (see post # 7). It is a gesture, not policy.

True, however we all know certain "gestures" can lead to all sorts of bad things...