Academically, culturally, and extra-politically the Armenian genocide already seems to be broadly recognized; most books on 20th century genocide include it. I can't recall if the UN recognizes it, but I believe it does. (?)
Would it be politically inconvenient for the US to do this? Well, with the mess the US is in, in the Mid-East, yeah, I guess it would. Warmongers can't alienate Turkey, can they? But the genocide did happen, regardless of how fucked up US foreign policy is.
Also, domestic historical atrocities like slavery and Native American genocide -- definitely more should be done about those, but they're at least officially recognized in many capacities already, though not enough's done about them. It shouldn't be a question of doing something about those vs. the US govt. recognizing what happened to the Armenians.
Some Xtians are aware of how they could manipulate the Armenian genocide, since, overly simplified, it was Christians (Armenians) slaughtered by Turks (Muslims), though there were and are important dissident Turkish intellectuals who are on the Armenians' side, so to speak. A few white US Christians have discovered the Armenian genocide and thereupon latched onto it hoping for some mileage, much as they tried to re-conceive the Sudanese affair in Muslim vs. Christian terms. Armenian-Americans often (proudly) tell US folks theirs was the first Christian nation, which is true -- if nothing else, it throws a wrench in many peoples' preconceived idea that Middle Eastern = Muslim; then they get treated a bit better in WASP America. But in the actual genocide, so far as I'm aware (and I'm no expert on it), the religious aspect was not the salient issue. In the equation, perhaps, but not the defining aspect.
Atom Egoyan's _Ararat_ movie (2002) was supposed to be a definitive film about it, but as a movie, I found it actually not that great, though I wanted to like it.
-B.
Andy F. wrote:
"I'd think most USers are only vaguely if at all aware of the Xtian/Muslim angle, and the potential embarrassment to Reps on account of the ritual expression seems minor compared to the difficulties it could cause for the occupation. Is it popular among antiwar congressfolk? Yet it seems like such a potentially destructive (to empire) measure that I have a hard time believing it's an antiwar move."