Many shared this article, and it's an important one that appeared recently on The Saker's website:
There's much food for speculation here on what may be going on, so to put my own high octane speculations into context, what the article points out is the growing "bi-partisan consensus" in the USSA to label ISIS's actions in the Middle East for what they are: genocide against Christians. Ever the "pragmatist", even cackling "we came; we saw; he died" Hillary Clinton has added her own braying to the calls. But what the article also points out is that the policy that gave rise to the group in the first place originated in Washington, with healthy dollops of complicity meted out to London, Paris, and Berlin, with Turkey being the willing pawn in the whole miserable and dreary exercise.
In that context, the article's author, Michale Collins, offers this analysis behind the "sudden concern" for the Middle East's Christian population:
A press by Rep. Fortenberry’s office just after the hearing demonstrated the bipartisan nature of the effort to declare ISIS anathema.
“A growing coalition is urging the world to recognize that ISIL is committing genocide against Christians, Yezidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities. While Secretary of State John Kerry has not yet reached that conclusion [to label ISIS acts as genocide], I was grateful for his willingness to openly engage in a thoughtful dialogue on this gravely important matter. I hope the State Department makes a comprehensive and inclusive genocide designation soon.”
This is not at all typical behavior by House Republicans toward the secretary of state and it is no accident. The words “grateful and willingness to engage” along with “thoughtful dialog” are a clear sign of bipartisan coalescence against ISIS. Those in Congress and the White House who supported the cause of Syrian rebels and who enabled Turkey’s supply of material and funds by their failure to object are now standing together to characterize ISIS actions in the harshest terms, genocide.
This accomplishes two purposes. It provides a major diversion from any serious examination of the history of U.S. policy in the conflict, including the start of the attack by demands that ‘Assad must go.’
The genocide label is also a pretext to correctly label President Erdogan and his cronies as both supporters of ISIS and the acts of genocide. The accusation is the opening act for the end of the Erdogan government. When the State Department does what Kerry indicated it will do by mid March, label ISIS actions as genocide, the sentence will be served and the survival of Erdogan’s government will become an affront to the world, the European Union, and NATO. How on earth can we have a nation, an international partner, that supports a group committing genocide will be the question asked again and again.
U.S., British, and French supporters of the attack on Syria will be able to hide their complicity in this abomination of a policy behind the more sensational demands that something be done to end the genocide. Since Turkey is the hands-on culprit as ISIS enabler and ally, there will be no possibility of distancing from the charge. (Emphasis added)
The deeper context here, of course, is the recent joint declaration of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, and Pope Francis of Rome, a declaration which devoted a great deal of time and space to the subject. And Francis' own previous statements, that Christians have the right of self defense, should also be born in mind. In effect, the two hierarchs drew created an international moral context in which to examine Washington's policies in the region, and their results, and the light shown was not good. In short, it wasn't ultimately Washington that issued the memo to Mr. Erdogan, it was Moscow, and Rome.
Hence, one may indeed be looking at a policy shift under the guise of a condemnation of the genocide, as Mr. Collins suggests.
But there is another player here, one curiously absent from Mr. Collin's otherwise considered article, and that is, of course, Saudi Arabia, that odious regime of medieval barbarity that survives only because of its wealth and brutality. And that may be the ultimate point of the "pivot on Turkey," for any messages sent to the Sultan in Ankara will be heard loud and clear in Riyadh, which is just insane and loony enough to use its newly found nuclear capability. And Israel now apparently has an effective radiation signess treatment.
Whether Mr. Erdogan "gets the memo" remains to be seen. But, if one looks back at the news relayed in this past week's blogs, it definitely seems there's a lot of memos going around. So what's my point here? Watch Turkey, for if Mr. Collins is correct, it may be a testbed for a huge policy shift in the Middle East, and if that shift is successful, then it will be applied elsewhere, and other people may be on the menu.
See you on the flip side...