CB: Yes, like all terms, it is impossible to avoid contradictions and inconsistencies arising in its usage ( See, even, the history of mathematics). Nonetheless, "I gotta use words when I talk to you" ...
..Once we have the idea, we can apply it to the other historical examples, such as the genocide against indigenous American peoples, and then apply it currently. Lemkin let the cat out of the bag. Now some people spend time trying to put it back in, narrow the ideas scope of applicability. CB
-----------
I suppose I am trying to narrow the idea, but just a little by sharpening distinctions, that I can't quite articulate. For example, when Jackson marched into Florida or South Carolina and began to exterminate the Semioles, that was clearly a genocide. On the other hand, were Pershing's border actions against a mix of Mexican nationals and indigenious people of the southwest, also a genocide? It's gets a little blurry, IMHO.
The current US actions in the Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Northern Africa, and its indiscriminant support for Israelis actions against the Lebonese, Syrians, Palestinians seems more like another border line case. The US hasn't quite reached the genocidal stage yet, but it seems well on the way toward a policy of exterminating Muslims as Muslims with few other distinctions. The implicit understanding that all the war on terror implementing legislation will only be directed at Muslim Americans certainly smacks of a preamble to genocidal potential.
I am pretty sure the individual soldiers (and domestic police forces) caught up in these conflicts are probably very indiscriminant about who they are killing, as in `any raghead will do.' This is a case of de facto genocide in the field
The Vietnam case is another ambigous context. Before about 1965 when the regular army took over the so-called counter-insurgency, there was probably not an genocidal intention to kill Vietnamese as Vietnamese. But once the regular US army arrived, they were much less discriminanting about who was killed and who wasn't. Essentially every dead body was a Viet Cong in prinicple---and that is a marker for a policy of genocide.
I think the problem is that we (or I) don't want to over use the term, and so it needs to be buttressed with further elaboration. But elaboration to sharpen distinctions, not make it impossible to apply.
At the moment, I feel like I know a genocide when I see one. But that is clearly not sufficient in law. And I don't think the `as such' phrase is sufficient. I certainly believe that genocide is probably the highest crime that a state or organized political group can commit on another group, defined as such.
Lunch time thoughts. More later...
CG