American Interests in Turkey.
M. Orhan Tarhan
February 06, 2009
President Obama requested that we, the citizens, suggest ideas of change for him to consider. This is a response to that request.
Former president George W. Bush made many decisions based on religious considerations. His faith-based politics at home are a good example. These were perfectly unconstitutional decisions. His premise in foreign policy was the same. He said he invaded Iraq after consulting with God and he wanted to subdue a Middle Eastern group of countries with Turkey as a model. In this process, he wanted to convert Ataturk´s laic (Secular) Turkey to a mildly Islamic country. Arabs don´t like Turks and did not want to have any part of it. Besides they were not ready for democracy. But in Turkey he found an ally in Recep Tayyip Erdogan who under the guise of abiding by the laic laws, wanted to Islamize Turkey. Ataturk´ political philosophy in respect to religion was very close to that of our Thomas Jefferson ["Jefferson & Ataturk, Political Philosophies" G.W.Sheldon, 2000 Peter Lang Publishing] Ataturk had made a revolution, among other things, to separate State from Islam because Islam had been part of the problem in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus the U.S. was returning a westernized Turkey to where Ottoman Empire had failed. While we were fighting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it makes no sense to convert a state like us to an Islamic republic, mildly or not.
Former president Bush proved to be an irrational man. Instead of consulting with his father, his Secretary of State, with the Pentagon, and with the CIA, he decided to make war on Iraq just by himself, by appealing to a "higher Father" for strength [Bob Woodward in Washington Post, 1-18-09] We know the result. His plans for Turkey were similarly flawed, irrational decisions.
There were, and there still are, two possibilities of dealing with Turkey.
1) Support the "laic" republic founded by Ataturk, that aimed at converting Turks to Westerners, culturally, technologically, educationally, and every which way. Such a government has been a truly friendly ally, politically, and culturally, was reliable, and would cooperate in our fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and other Islamic radicals. An Ataturkist regime would be perfectly democratic, since they have practiced it for the last 89 years.
2) Support the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that would Islamize Turkey to a weaker, unreliable, in-name only ally, that would be easier for the United States to manage as a "Puppet Regime" [Remember Brave New World?]. However, in time, it would slide to full Islamic policies, that would be anti-U.S., anti-Israel, pro-Russian, and pro-Iranian. This is now happening before our eyes. Mr. Erdogan is taking sides with Hamas in the Gaza conflict and alienating Turkey´s long time ally Israel. In his fury, he is now taking it from Turkish Jews. After his very public argument with President Perez at Davos, he said that he considers anti-Semitism a crime against humanity. Thus, Mr. Erdogan incriminated himself by what he is doing at home.
Which policies are more in the basic interests of the United States and of the world? Obviously, it is the first.
President Obama made a wise decision: The U.S. will not take sides in Turkish politics which also creates domestic unrest. I hope, this means, he will no longer push for a mildly Islamic Republic. But this would mean that he walked half-way in the right direction. In my opinion, real American interest would dictate that he should walk the whole way and help Turks getting rid of the dangerous anti-U.S. Islamic regime. The U.S. should not push Turkey into the laps of Putin and the Mullahs. We should instead help Turkey restore the modern Ataturkist principles and values..
I congratulate President Obama for his election with such a high percentage of the American vote and wish him much success in his programs, especially in straightening up our relations with Turkey.
Former president George W. Bush made many decisions based on religious considerations. His faith-based politics at home are a good example. These were perfectly unconstitutional decisions. His premise in foreign policy was the same. He said he invaded Iraq after consulting with God and he wanted to subdue a Middle Eastern group of countries with Turkey as a model. In this process, he wanted to convert Ataturk´s laic (Secular) Turkey to a mildly Islamic country. Arabs don´t like Turks and did not want to have any part of it. Besides they were not ready for democracy. But in Turkey he found an ally in Recep Tayyip Erdogan who under the guise of abiding by the laic laws, wanted to Islamize Turkey. Ataturk´ political philosophy in respect to religion was very close to that of our Thomas Jefferson ["Jefferson & Ataturk, Political Philosophies" G.W.Sheldon, 2000 Peter Lang Publishing] Ataturk had made a revolution, among other things, to separate State from Islam because Islam had been part of the problem in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus the U.S. was returning a westernized Turkey to where Ottoman Empire had failed. While we were fighting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it makes no sense to convert a state like us to an Islamic republic, mildly or not.
Former president Bush proved to be an irrational man. Instead of consulting with his father, his Secretary of State, with the Pentagon, and with the CIA, he decided to make war on Iraq just by himself, by appealing to a "higher Father" for strength [Bob Woodward in Washington Post, 1-18-09] We know the result. His plans for Turkey were similarly flawed, irrational decisions.
There were, and there still are, two possibilities of dealing with Turkey.
1) Support the "laic" republic founded by Ataturk, that aimed at converting Turks to Westerners, culturally, technologically, educationally, and every which way. Such a government has been a truly friendly ally, politically, and culturally, was reliable, and would cooperate in our fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and other Islamic radicals. An Ataturkist regime would be perfectly democratic, since they have practiced it for the last 89 years.
2) Support the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that would Islamize Turkey to a weaker, unreliable, in-name only ally, that would be easier for the United States to manage as a "Puppet Regime" [Remember Brave New World?]. However, in time, it would slide to full Islamic policies, that would be anti-U.S., anti-Israel, pro-Russian, and pro-Iranian. This is now happening before our eyes. Mr. Erdogan is taking sides with Hamas in the Gaza conflict and alienating Turkey´s long time ally Israel. In his fury, he is now taking it from Turkish Jews. After his very public argument with President Perez at Davos, he said that he considers anti-Semitism a crime against humanity. Thus, Mr. Erdogan incriminated himself by what he is doing at home.
Which policies are more in the basic interests of the United States and of the world? Obviously, it is the first.
President Obama made a wise decision: The U.S. will not take sides in Turkish politics which also creates domestic unrest. I hope, this means, he will no longer push for a mildly Islamic Republic. But this would mean that he walked half-way in the right direction. In my opinion, real American interest would dictate that he should walk the whole way and help Turks getting rid of the dangerous anti-U.S. Islamic regime. The U.S. should not push Turkey into the laps of Putin and the Mullahs. We should instead help Turkey restore the modern Ataturkist principles and values..
I congratulate President Obama for his election with such a high percentage of the American vote and wish him much success in his programs, especially in straightening up our relations with Turkey.
Print
Email
