A Turkish flag (R) flies among others flags of NATO members during the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, July 28, 2015. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir.
Posted on 02/25/2017 4:59:42 AM PST by Texas Fossil
It has become a staple of diplomatic rhetoric that, whatever problems the United States has with the current government in Turkey, diplomats must ameliorate President Recep Tayyip Erdogan because Turkey is too important to NATO and also a staging ground in any operations against the Islamic State.
A Turkish flag (R) flies among others flags of NATO members during the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, July 28, 2015. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir.
Certainly, that is the position of the new administration. Vice President Mike Pence has said he foresees a “new day” in U.S.-Turkey relations. Trump himself stressed the close U.S.-Turkey relationship during his first phone call with the Turkish leader. Ted Malloch, a businessman and Trump ally who is a leading candidate to become US ambassador to the European Union, argued that the United States should bite the bullet and give into Erdogan’s political demands in order to reset U.S.-Turkish relations.
Alas, what the Trump team appears not to realize is that Erdogan’s problem with the United States and the West more generally is ideological and not based on grievance. In particular, Erdogan hates NATO. That may sound counterintuitive given that Turkey contributes the second-largest troop component to NATO and participates with NATO countries in Afghanistan. But Erdogan’s upbringing was against the backdrop of Cold War diplomacy blessing Turkish dictatorships. So why doesn’t Erdogan just pull Turkey out of NATO? Here, the sad truth is that Erdogan can do far more damage from inside NATO because the defensive alliance is governed by consensus. By remaining inside NATO, Erdogan can paralyze the organization with a de facto veto.
But, Erdogan’s game is deeper. His party is now demonizing NATO as a terror organization. Here is what AKP Gaziantep parliamentarian Şamil Tayyar had to say:
Turkey has been subjected to coups since it joined NATO. NATO has always been in charge of the dirty and bloody deeds in the country. The 1960 military coup was staged by the British, the 1971 coup was staged by the CIA, and the 1980 coup was staged by NATO. In NATO’s new plan, a Turkey with [President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan should not exist… NATO has become a threat and is spreading terror organizations across the region. You can designate NATO along with DEASH [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – ISIL], the PKK [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] and FETÖ [Fethullahist Terror Organization].
In a country where saying or thinking the wrong thing can lead years in prison—even for members of parliamentary—it simply isn’t possible that Tayyar was speaking absent Erdogan’s approval.
Turkish state media, meanwhile, has sent reporters to Ramstein Air Base in Germany to broadcast programs accusing NATO of involvement in terrorism.
So what is Erdogan’s game here? He believes he is engaged in a win-win strategy. If the United States and European officials refuse his demands, his incitement will transform NATO into an enemy in the eyes of most Turks. Such actions would also feed Russian propaganda and anti-American forces worldwide. It will also allow him to play the nationalist card against the NATO bogey in the run-up to the April 2017 referendum on a new constitution which would formalize Erdogan’s dictatorial powers.
On the other hand, if Trump caves into Erdogan’s demands, he will justify his purge of officers and civil servants whose only crime was having been posted to NATO offices and legitimize his broader crackdown. This, too, would play into Erdogan’s hands ahead of the April referendum.
So what is NATO to do? Turkey poses a problem the defensive alliance hasn’t experienced in its nearly seven decade existence: What to do when the enemy is internal rather than external. Appeasing Erdogan only kicks the can down the road, but it is not a sustainable strategy. It is time for NATO to get serious about the Trojan horse which Turkey has become.
The premise of this article is clearly visible in the division we face in NATO over supporting Kurds in Syria.
The real conflict is the recurring problem in the Middle East of Islamist ambitions and incompatibility with democratic society.
Lord Acton: "Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely"
ISIS illustrates the cruelty that follows when Islamists gain power in countries. Is this what Turkey faces? Do the Turkish people understand what is ahead for them if Erdogan is made Dictator?
NATO without the Turks will still be NATO.
I agree but many don’t.
I think it is already accomplished, but no one wants to talk about it. It’s likely that under Erdogan, Turkey will leave NATO. Now that is a problem for him too. Almost all of his military equipment is US.
Turkey no longer belongs in NATO and hasn’t belonged for some time. Under Erdogan, Turkey is far down the road to Islamist — too far gone to be brought back into Western Civilization. The sooner we wake up to that fact, the better off we will be.
You have it in nutshell. The idea that Turkey, at least under Erdogan, will ever really support the elimination of ISIS and the protection and promotion of the Kurds is ludicrous at best. Not going to happen.
Personally, I expect Trump-Erodgan Fireworks at some point. Where will the NATO nations stand? Who will blink?
“Do the Turkish people understand what is ahead for them if Erdogan is made Dictator? “
The Middle Eastern mindset does not conform to western reasoning or logic. Even when talking to people from the region who came to the US as teenagers they say things that rock me back on my heels. To describe one of their many flaws they compartmentalize. Dictators are good, (except when they aren’t) but they only see them enforcing things the speaker wants. They don’t see dictators as sending troops after them. People from the region are full of contradictory thoughts and they accept mutually exclusive reasoning, saying one thing at the beginning of a sentence and then the opposite at the end. So, no, they don’t see how bad a dictator can be, except when they finally do. Then, it’s too late.
Thanks for that perspective. I’ve never been around that thought process (or lack of reasoning).
In my opinion, Erdogan will remove Turkey from NATO.
That may be somewhat dependent on the upcoming Referendum. If he wins that, by hook or crook, he will move from NATO.
The Syrian Kurds are a lot more reliable ally than Turkey has been under Erdogan. Question is, what will be the re-organization of Syria after this is over?
It would be nice if Egypt could persuade Erdogan to back away, but I doubt that is possible. Sisi is the most effective leader in the Arab Middle East. (Egypt is not really Arab)
I think you and I are pretty much on the same page vis a vis Turkey and Erdogn. I like the Kurds. I like Sisi. Obama was more trustworthy than Erodogan.
OK, I exaggerate. Maybe it's an Obama-Erdogan tie for that "Prize".
“Egypt is not really Arab”
Please explain that to the Copts & their smoldering churches. They are the only authentic non-Arabs in Egypt.
I agree that Pres. Al-Sisi is the best we can hope for in the ME, where secular dictatorship has proven to be moderately successful.
Look at a map and imagine that territory allied w/Russia. Therein lies part of the dilemma. US doesn’t want to lose Incirlik. Never underestimate the importance of geography.
I’ve had doubts about Turkey for quite awhile and always ask myself why we don’t kick them out, but always fall back to the above.
But I also always thought, since we’re always going back to kick ass in the middle east anyway, we should just annex some territory out there that includes oil fields so we can fund a base and stage operations from there. It would also infuriate terrorists and we can pick them off as they crawl out of the woodwork to attack the base.
This is not a palatable idea to many other than myself, however, doing so would ameliorate losing Incirlik.
Still don’t like them going to Russia though.
Tough call.
Yes, tough call.
But at some point it should be reduced to “what is the right thing” to do.
You work with allies. If you work with those who will never be allies, it is worse than being absent.
Egyptians are not Arab:
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs
Past that there is other evidence that existed before Nassar that supported my statement.
Looks like one foot on the platform and one foot on the train for Turkey.
Not good for NATO, however.
In other words, Egyptians are mainly descended from the ancient Egyptians, though they speak Arabic language and have some Arab blood?
Egypt was conquered by Arabs.
Kurds have some Greek ancestry from what I have read.
I had family DNA test run this year. Am still trying to understand that. The jump theoretically comes very far back. most people from Africa. I’m not yet buying all the things they pretend to know back past 2,000 years.
As far as I am concerned, it’s sudo science that far back.
It is good for no one. Not Turkey, Not NATO, Not US, Not Kurds, Not Iraq and Not even good for Russia. Iran? Not sure, they are a riddle.
Does the study you linked to differentiate between Arabs, and non-Arab Semitic peoples?
I don’t know the answer to that. I think it is simply DNA.
So...Egyptians are actually Maghrebis. That’s better?
Tell it to the Maghrebi-overrun French.
;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.