The United States absolutely acted as a bystander during the Armenian genocide. First of all, they absolutely did not have the excuse of ignorance, as they had a representative (Henry Morgenthau) who consistenly provided them with information about the atrocities, urging them to act. The logic of Woodrow Wilson to not intervene in this atrocity is highly flawed. His administration was determined not to get involved in the conflict of World War I. By "starting a fight" with Turkey, Wilson thought they were doing this. It is understandable that the United States did not want to get involved in WWI. However, this does not constitute staying silent in a time of horror such as the Armenian genocide. It is as simple as this: we cannot trade human lives. It does not matter what circumstances the United States were in during this time. We could all have been under attack from a zombie apocalypse. It is simply and absolutely unacceptable for the United States to have received this level of intelligence about the crime against humanity and still have chosen to do nothing.
Another theme from this reading that worried me was the idea that other nations shouldn't have intervened in this conflict because it was a "domestic problem". The analogy provided of his farmer and his chickens in the passage is extremely worrisome. This idea, that because Turkey's systemic slaughtering of the Armenians was taking place on their own soil other nations did not have an obligation to intervene, is also extremely worrisome. It does not matter where it takes place, who is committing it, what the relationship between countries are. Crimes against humanity such as the Armenian genocide simply cannot be dismissed. This is the notion that Raphael Lemkin, throughout his perilous journey, sought to establish. The term "genocide" had not yet been coined yet by the time of the Armenian genocide, but nonetheless, the international stage on which Turkey's crimes against humanity were put were public a broadcast for so many countries to have ignored it. The idea that this many nations knew of Turkey's plan for the systemic murder of an entire race and decided to remain neutral or not intervene still shocks me to my core.
There are very few times that I advocate for the United States military to interfere in foreign affairs; in fact, I believe that US military interventions have done far more harm than they have good in the majority of countries that they have been present in. However, this is probably one of the only instances where I believe that military intervention should be immediate and decisive. If the United States has confirmed intelligence that another nation has plans, intent, or even has begun the systemic murder of a race or people, we are morally obliged, ALWAYS, to take direct and decisive action. Once again, this circumstance is simply one that cannot be ignored. Wherever, whenever, and however we find out that there is intent or a plan to carry out a genocide, we must always take action, most likely in the form of military intervention. If the conflict has reached the point where a nation or country is attempting or planning genocide, the time for negotiations is far past. That being said, I think it is also important to make sure that the United States military does not overstay their welcome as they have in so many other countries. Once we are certain that the problem is solved, the US military must leave.
Unfortunately, I think that the United States and other countries' actions, or lack thereof, during the Armenian genocide seems to be somewhat of a trend in the course of world history. The genocides that have taken place in Africa have largely been ignored by many other countries, as well as ones that have taken place all over the world. It is an embarrassing and horrible stain on the symbol of the American identity, as I'm sure it is on so many other nations. Even as I am writing this right now, the Uyghur conflict in China that human rights experts have ruled a genocide is taking place, and many high-level US politicians have yet to condemn it. As mentioned in the chapters, the United States has an unfortunate pattern of bystanderism during the conflict of genocides. However, the one thing that sets apart the nations of the world behavior during the Armenian genocide vs the Herero genocide was publicity. The Armenian genocide was internationally published, spoke on, and denounced (though there was still a lack of action), while the Herero genocide was largely ignored by the nations of the world. Ask many people in our society today; most people will know at least the concept of the Armenian genocide, but you will be hard pressed to find someone who knows the detail of the genocide of the Herero and the Nama. The causes for this difference in publicity are beyond me, but it is important to recognize the difference in reactions. In general, the world seemed to ignore the the conflicts of colonialism and genocide in Africa a lot more readily than they did anywhere else, another troubling pattern in the course of history.