Analysis: Turkey's democratic dilemma

CNN ^ | February 20, 2003 | Bill Schneider

[Mortimer Snavely]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- See if this makes sense: Turkey is Islamic. But not Arab. So it has good relations with Israel.

It has a secular, democratic tradition. But it's currently governed by an Islamic party that supports the United States against Iraq. Wow!

[Bonaparte]

PsyOp: "The Islamists are gaining ground. Sooner or later they are going to turn turkey into an Islamic state or the military, if it remains secular, is going to have to stage a coup."

The military has already ousted Turkish governments in bloodless coups. It's an accepted part of Turkish political life.

[PsyOp]

First, when France blocked a vote on giving aid to Turkey, and said they would continue to do so in spite of Turkey's invoking of article 4, what did we do? We told France, Germany and Belgium that we would go ahead and provide that protection ourselves, if need be, including giving Patriot missile batteries to Turkey. That sounds like going to bat for Turkey to me.

Second, when you have an agreement with someone and then they change the terms to get more from you because they know you need them, that qualifies as extortion in my book. Is that or is that not what happened? They said they would, then they said they wouldn't unless we sweetened the deal for them. Someone does that to me and I stop calling them a friend.


Now, what part of my interpretive skills are defective?

[Bonaparte]

In the main, I agree. But let us not forget that such notables as Isoroku Yamamoto and OBL were educated in the West.

[Bonaparte]

"...and then they change the terms..."

Turkey didn't "change terms," they merely called for re-negotiation in response to changed conditions. Nations all have to do this. Our assurances to them during the Gulf War fell through, so who has changed terms? This is why the Turks now want everything in writing. I don't blame them.

[PsyOp]

Turkey didn't "change terms," they merely called for re-negotiation in response to changed conditions.

Nice spin! Really! Would you mind defining the word "is" for me?

[Bonaparte]

Show me the formal "agreement" that Turkey violated, its terms and the date it was concluded.

Put up or shut up.

[PsyOp]

Show me the formal "agreement" that Turkey violated, its terms and the date it was concluded.

I see. A person's, or a country's word counts for nothing if there is nothing in writing to back it up? Is that how you operate in your personal affairs with individuals? Screw-em if they didn't get it in writing?

The only "changed circumstance" was "oportunity."

You better never take anyone's word again... unless you get it in writing first.

[FreeCanuckistan]

I understand that the Iraki people are your friends. But I also thought that America is supposed to be your friend too. The USA is your friend by virtue of countless acts that have benefit Turkey. You cannot deny the obligation of billions in arms, loans....and cash grants. Nor can you deny obligations to NATO and a member State that has come to you for some help in return. And based on some of Ataturk's doctrine....why is Turkey having so much trouble adhering to his adopted pro-Western leanings at this time?

You ask:

"Why should my nation be convinced that the US is now resolved to actually help them?"

If your nation is asking such questions, it must also be questioning its relationship with America. Can you put a more positive spin on the fact that 95% of your population is against the war on Iraq?

You understandably lament that Turkey "lost a lot of dough thanks to GW1".

There are several countries in the area that will lose money from tourism. I haven't heard of them claiming potential loses, or the potential of re-couping said losses from the USA. I also believe that Irak is in your neighbourhood and that perhaps it is Turkey, and some the surrounding countries that should have muted Saddam awhile ago.....and if not, are they not happy to see him removed now, by other than their own militaries? Sanctions against are Irak have also cost your nation....the ouster of Saddam also removes those costly sanctions. It is my contention that Turkey will do very well once Saddam is gone, and that bearing the costs should be mutual between yourselves, your neighbours and the USA.

You also say:

"The opposition to war in Turkey has nothing to do with religion, nor anti-Americanism".

I've heard you claim that our media mislead us on the money issue for Turkey. Half your argument to me in your post, is about money, despite your denials of its importance. The American public was flashed by 30plus billion dollar demands by Turkey in the last week. We are also seeing a 95% public dissension rate in Turkey, regarding the USA's focus on Iraq. These are the type of conflicts that the public must sort out here......as you deny them. With the reported rise in Islamist doctrine in Turkey.....and with a plethora of anti-Americanism in the mideast, it is by no means a stretch to doubt your claims that none of this has to do with anti-Americanism or religion.

On a personal note. I am becoming convinced of your belief in Ataturk doctrine regarding secularism and Turkey's "westernization". Spending the number of years you have in the USA is not only reflected in your writing but probably in your personal convictions too. Therefore it would not be difficult for you not to adopt many 'western' convictions. I just don't know or think, that enough people in your homeland feel as you may. A little focus on modernizing those attitudes might also be warranted.

[Bonaparte]

Keep tap-dancing, PsyOp.

What specific terms of the so-called "agreement" did Turkey violate?

Document your claim or stand down.

[Beck_isright]

The Turkish military does not want a repeat of 91-92. They will fight and die for our cause if we convince them and back them up that this time we'll finish the job. That means Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. No more pussyfooting around, nor more games, and let's take care of business. We should have done in 12 years ago. Hindsight is 20/20 so I'm not going to totally fault Bush Sr., but he did get a lot of bad advice. Just stay safe and enjoy the show. It will get tough at home for us and for the Turks, but we will prevail. History is on our side if we fight to the finish.

[Beck_isright]

"Is that or is that not what happened?"

This is NOT what happened. It was not an "agreement" it was a discussion made public by the socialist weenies in the U.S. State Department. Do not worry, the Turks did not stab us like we did them in 91-92.

[Beck_isright]

AS were Lenin, etc... I am not worried about the Turkish military. They envision hopefully what the Pentagon and NSA do; a barrier between Russia and the Middle East and South Asia. They still have to have their colonialist influences contained and quickly.

[Bonaparte]

We're on the same page.

[Beck_isright]

Just a side not to your post to a_Turk, and believe me, not to speak for this excellent poster who I would like to now call a friend. 95% you say? You mean like those numbers created by the US media that Klintoon had 62% approval numbers? Polls are bs and you know it. The Turks do not want a war unless this time we do the job right. Hell, I do not want another half assed effort. Having been less than 100 miles from Baghdad myself in 91, if we bail out this time, we deserve everything bad that happens to us. We must destroy the nations which support and create, the "enablers" as I call them, the terrorist infrastructure because they will never fight us one on one. This means the destruction and rebuilding of the regimes in Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq and yes, Saudi Arabia. Until this is done we will not be secure domestically. Put that one in stone. It's the 101st undeniable truth of life.

[Beck_isright]

"We're on the same page."

Amen my friend. This hopefully will start next weekend to begin the final garbage disposal of the rest of the mess the Soviets and demorats left. Then the world can advance peacefully and dramatically forward, at least until China finally feels the pinch of the new group of democratic nations.

[Bonaparte]

Yes, and one thing we will never have to worry about is running out of international crises, flashpoints and back-stabbing "allies."

[FreeCanuckistan]

The interpretation of polls can be BS. The wording of an individual poll question, can be formulated to lead a respondent to reach a desired result. But when countless polls appear regarding the same issue.....and the results don't vary much, you can rest assurred that the poll is pretty warm alright. Almost everything from what you eat, wear and drive has been scrutinized by market research and or a poll. It helps 'cut to the chase'. So....a blanket statement about polls and connecting it to Klintoon, is far from sound.

"Polls are bs and you know it"

Don't be so arrogant as to tell me what I know, despite your delusional 'screen name'.

As far as doing "the job right" in Iraq this time. I think we can expect that.

Bush Sr. didn't have the mandate to march on Baghdad in 91'. Nor did the US have as a compelling a case against Iraq at that time. And as you may know, some rumours have it that Saddam threatened the use of WMD's. And if it wasn't that...the USA listened to the misguided outcry of the Liberals and the UN. Whatever.....that was then. Now we are talking regime change. No one said that in 91', so saddling the US with blame for not finishing Iraq in GW1, is done largely in hindsight.

I will agree with you though, on the "destruction" of the "enablers". You can add a few more to that list.

[PsyOp]

Well then... I'll give them the benefit of the doubt--for now.

Now, please explain how it is we "stabbed" them in the back? Did we break some written and signed agreement we had with them?

Unless we broke some signed agreement, then neither you nor anyone else can say we stabbed them in the back since that is the burden of proof that everyone on this thread says is what counts.

Which signed agreement with the Turkish government did we break after the Gulf War?

Show me that contractual breach and I will gladly admit my error.

[Beck_isright]

"Don't be so arrogant as to tell me what I know, despite your delusional 'screen name'."

Never was trying to be "arrogant" and I'm just a fan.

My point about the polls was missed. It was done by the same "Western" media which knows about zilch of the Turks or their nation. Their ignorance has been well demonstrated by the coverage thus far.

" Bush Sr. didn't have the mandate to march on Baghdad in 91'."

That really wasn't my point throughout a zillion threads thus far (ok maybe 10). My point is that Bush Sr. and Klintoon failed to follow through on the 1990 agreements to agree to protect Turkey from the military and economic fallout of the Persian Gulf War (GW1). Senior was too absorbed with re-election and we know that Klintoon thought the definition of an ally was a dating service.

The liberals and the EU fear a strong, democratic Middle East as do the dictators, shieks, Russia and China. It has the one natural resource and the manpower to shift the balance of economic power quickly, especially if we use our brains and ditch the Chicoms for a "friendly" Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, etc. I would rather deal with a democratically elected US friendly Islamic Republic like Turkey than the frogs. And I'm sure American big business has to be licking it's chops at the thought of divesting their interests in a communist China and putting it into a democratically elected group of nations in Central Asia and the Middle East.

[FreeCanuckistan]

Bingo.