Posted on 10/19/2017 8:24:56 AM PDT by SJackson
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, faces an existential problem.
No — it’s not about getting member states to fulfill agreed-upon spending on defense projects, nor finding a role after the Soviet collapse, or standing up to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Rather, it’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Islamist, dictatorial ruler of Turkey whose policies threaten to undermine this unique alliance of 29 states, which has lasted nearly 70 years.
Created in 1949, NATO’s founding principles ambitiously set out the alliance’s goal “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of [member states’] peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” In other words, the alliance exists to defend Western civilization.
For its first 42 years, until the USSR collapsed in 1991, this meant containing and defeating the countries of the Warsaw Pact. Today, it means containing and defeating Russia and Islamism. Of these latter two, Islamism is the deeper and longer-lasting threat — because it’s based not on a single leader’s personality but on a highly potent ideology, one that effectively succeeded fascism and communism as the great radical utopian challenge to the West.
Some major figures in NATO appreciated this shift soon after the Soviet collapse. Already in 1995, Secretary-General Willy Claes noted with prescience that, “fundamentalism is at least as dangerous as communism was.” With the Cold War over, he said, “Islamic militancy has emerged as perhaps the single gravest threat to the NATO alliance and to Western security.”
In 2004, José María Aznar, Spain’s former prime minister, warned that “Islamist terrorism is a new shared threat of a global nature that places the very existence of NATO’s members at risk.” He advocated that NATO focus on combating “Islamic jihadism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” and called for “placing the war against Islamic jihadism at the center of the Allied strategy.”
But, instead of a robust NATO leading the battle against Islamism, it was internally hobbled by Erdoğan’s opposition. Rather than assert the fight against Islamism, the other 28 members of NATO dismayingly deferred to the Islamist within their ranks.
The 28 stay countries mum about the near-civil war that the Turkish regime waged in southeastern Anatolia against its own Kurdish citizens — and the emergence of a private army (called SADAT) under Erdoğan’s exclusive control seemed not to bother them.
Likewise, they also appear oblivious to Ankara’s unpredictably limiting access to the NATO base at Incirlik; obstructed relations with friendly states such as Austria, Cyprus and Israel; and the vicious anti-Americanism symbolized by the mayor of Ankara hoping for more storm damage to be inflicted on the United States.
Similarly, Turkish mistreatment of citizens in other NATO countries goes unchallenged — not the arrest of 12 Germans in Turkey, (such as Deniz Yücel and Peter Steudtner) nor the attempted assassination of Turks in Germany (such as Yüksel Koç). This also applies to the seizure of Americans in Turkey as hostages (such as Andrew Brunson and Serkan Gölge), and repeated physical violence against Americans in the United States (such as at the Brookings Institute and at Sheridan Circle).
NATO seems unfazed that Ankara helps Iran’s nuclear program, develops Iranian oil fields and transfers Iranian arms to Hezbollah. Erdoğan’s talk of joining the Moscow-Beijing dominated Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ruffles few feathers, as do joint exercises with the Russian and Chinese militaries. A Turkish purchase of a Russian missile defense system, the S-400, appears to be more an irritant than a deal-breaker. A mutual US-Turkish ban on visas fazed no one.
NATO faces a choice. It can — hoping that Erdoğan is no more than a colicky episode and that Turkey will return to the West 00 continue with the present policy. Or it can deem NATO’s utility too important to sacrifice to this speculative possibility, and take assertive steps to freeze the Republic of Turkey out of NATO activities until it again behaves like an ally. Those steps might include:
A unified stance against Erdoğan’s hostile dictatorship permits the grand NATO alliance to rediscover its noble purpose — “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization” of its peoples. By confronting Islamism, NATO will again take up the mantle that it has let down of late, which is nothing less than defending Western civilization.
A person has to ask: WTF were muslims doing in a Christian organization?
Was this due to ignorance of the political nature of islam or just stupidity?
Clearly they had no handle nor concept of the ramifications.
For a thousand years Europeans fought desperately to keep the Turks at bay. Now they can’t wait to give everything away to them. The times they are a’changing.
In 1952, a Muslim nation looked pretty good compared to the USSR driven by godless communism under Josef Stalin.
Excellent point. Everything in context.
It was a fix and a patch that needs to be fixed.
Now, its very simple and clear.
There WAS and is a fox guarding the chickens.
It’s time for review and resolution.
That only changed when Erdogan and his Islamists started embedding their tentacles into the country.
NATO isn’t a Christian organization.
Western Europe, Canada and the US is the territory of the “crusaders” NATO organization.....sure you can call exceptions...
root of it is the countries of Christendom and their offspring.... basically the free industrialized west.
Most of the people in the original NATO countries being Christian doesn’t make it a “Christian organization”, it’s doesn’t and never did have a damn thing to with religion, it was a military alliance against the commies.
wow!
thats a heck of a summary.....
The underpinnings was an alignment of countries who were historically judo christian based and not islamic.
Just like the US of A.
It’s a resurgence of those peoples that pushed President Trump over the top, they went out to vote. Notice their voices in the NFL bullshit crisis?
And Islamism was held in check by Kemalism during most of the postwar era.
Thank you .
From, what I see there is a whack of reasons why they were allowed. Why it even looked good to some, and even better to others to get technologies and wealth. Things have changed greatly since then as has the Soviet threat.
Islamism is the deeper and longer-lasting threat — because it's based not on a single leader's personality but on a highly potent ideology, one that effectively succeeded fascism and communism as the great radical utopian challenge to the West. Some major figures in NATO appreciated this shift soon after the Soviet collapse. Already in 1995, Secretary-General Willy Claes noted with prescience that, "fundamentalism is at least as dangerous as communism was." With the Cold War over, he said, "Islamic militancy has emerged as perhaps the single gravest threat to the NATO alliance and to Western security."Oh rly????
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.