Turkey: what is going on?

[wm]

A pretty notable piece written for the Brookings Institute here. While posted in November 2005, it has a lot of explantory power IMO.

Today, more than two years after the invasion of Iraq, Turkey has yet to lose its potential to disappoint Washington. As the second Bush administration is stepping up its profreedom rhetoric in the Middle East, it is quite disconcerting that the most democratic Muslim country in the region shows no signs of solidarity with the United States. Quite the opposite, Turkey is often in the news for its rampant anti-Americanism and solidarity with Bashar's Syria. Polls after polls confirm that growing numbers of Turks perceive their NATO ally more as a national security threat, rather than a strategic partner. One of the flashiest symptoms of Turkish distrust towards the United States is the best-selling novel in the country, which depicts a Turkish-American war over Kirkuk in northern Iraq.

What went wrong? Why has Turkey become the most anti-American country in the West? One needs to go beyond the generic and global phenomenon of Bush-bashing in order to fully grasp the dynamics behind Turkish anti-Americanism. In many ways, Turkey is a sui-generis case. Recent polls illustrate that while anti-Americanism is in relative decline in Europe, the trend in Turkey is in the opposite direction. Moreover, unlike past domestic trends, the current wave of anti-Americanism in Turkey seems to be embraced by all segments of Turkish society. For all these reasons, the Turkish case needs to be analyzed in a historical and comparative perspective. This essay is an attempt to do so.

[goesh]

If the Turks want Islam to be a cornerstone of their strategic thinking, fine, so be it. It's a hell of alot easier to tighten our bond with the Kurds than it is to put up with their BS. Turkey has yet to be punished for their refusal to allow the 3rd ID to roll South out of Turkey during the invasion after so much logistical energy and money was expended on said plan. That cost us some lives and treasure and they need to look closer at Afghan and truly see what comes across the Paki border to wreak havoc and see the same dynamic on their Southern flank waiting to explode up their Turkish a**es.

[tequila]

If the Turks want Islam to be a cornerstone of their strategic thinking, fine, so be it.

Actually it is the secular nationalist parties and the avowedly secular military which are most eager to smash the Kurds. The Turkish Islamists are generally seen by the secularists as far too pro-Kurdish and pro-American, as seen in this editorial.

It's a hell of alot easier to tighten our bond with the Kurds than it is to put up with their BS. Turkey has yet to be punished for their refusal to allow the 3rd ID to roll South out of Turkey during the invasion after so much logistical energy and money was expended on said plan. That cost us some lives and treasure and they need to look closer at Afghan and truly see what comes across the Paki border to wreak havoc and see the same dynamic on their Southern flank waiting to explode up their Turkish a**es.

As far as value as allies go, I think throwing over the Turks for the KRG has about as much strategic value as jettisoning Britain in return for Ireland.

[Ken White]

What am I missing?

[tequila]

The second quote is from Goesh, not the editorial.

The linked editorial, to clarify, is from a secularist/Kemalist newspaper, where the writer basically says that Turks can't get too upset about the Armenian genocide vote in Congress or the PKK terrorists because they elected the AKP, the Islamist party, which is soft on Armenians, Americans, and Kurds. If they really wanted to be respected on either issue, they should have elected the secularists.

[Ken White]

but I was obviously operating in the disconnected mode...

[goesh]

I am only suggesting they be shown some serious disrespect. This Armenian debate business is a polite slap with a glove on. They are much like dogs in the proverbial manger. Their old animosity towards the Kurds appears to have blinded them and they could not see much beyond the inevitable Kurdish gain they knew would accompany the toppling of Saddam Hussein, so they sat smug and complacent forbidding the 3rd ID their Northern egress after assurances had been given. They will sit smug and complacent when the sparks fly in Iran, and they will fly there, in part because they share Kurdish animosity with the Persians. This to me is the Islamic imprint on strategic thinking that is creeping in on them, nothing more. When the 'all seeing eye' casting its rays from DC focuses on Iran and necessarily must exploit what the Kurds can provide against Iran, we can hardly then expect the Kurds to stay on a leash when it comes to settling old scores with Turkey.