Where in the free world do generals harshly rebuke and suppress the press whenever they bring up legitimate questions about the military's competency, not to mention their relentless meddling with domestic politics, be it direct or indirect? (Please see recent controversy between Taraf daily and Turkish chief of general staff over excessive Turkish casualties caused by Kurdistan Workers' Party [PKK] terrorists at the Aktütün outpost near Iraqi border.)
As far as I'm concerned, nowhere -- except Turkey.
Is there any indication that NATO and its main engine, the US military, are concerned about what's going on in Turkey? Not at all, at least not as far as I can see.
Why is that so, given that NATO is supposedly "dedicated to protecting democracy, human rights and the rule of law," according to the "common values" section of its official Web site? How can a NATO military effectively fight for democracy, freedom and human rights abroad, when at least some of its influential members seem to undermine those values at home? I believe this was a legitimate question back in the Cold War. And it's still a legitimate question now.
We all know that during the Cold War pragmatic calculations caused NATO and its founding father, the US, to overlook many anti-democratic military actions in Turkey. That's why two hard military coups (in 1960 and 1980) and at least one soft coup (1971) by the Turkish military were largely tolerated.
With the motto of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," the US clandestinely provided money and tactics for the ultra-nationalist right through the Turkish military to help with their -- often violent -- quest against communism. That's mainly why the Turkish left, which currently represents the bulk of the intelligentsia, including the media, so distrusts the US. They have never forgotten how their families and friends were tortured in military prisons. As for the empowered ultra-nationalists, most of them being unaware of the role played by covert American and Turkish military and intelligence operations back then, they think the main threat today comes from the US, not Russia or China.
Although times have changed and the Soviet threat is over, Cold War customs are still quite alive in Washington when it comes to dealing with Turkey. Recall how former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz expressed dismay about their "traditional allies" -- the secular nationalist bureaucratic establishment led by the military -- in the aftermath of Ankara's rejection of US requests to let American troops invade northern Iraq by passing through Turkish borders.
In the good old days, when Turkish democracy was more primitive, the US policy makers usually didn't even bother to work with civilian politicians too much. They assigned the Pentagon and, at times, NATO to persuade their Turkish military counterparts, because they knew once Turkish generals were on board, there was no need to persuade anyone else. As for human rights violations, especially vis-à-vis the Kurds, a "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been prevalent at NATO and the Pentagon. There may even be a professional mutual consent policy, because perhaps other member armies are also not immune from controversial operations. I can assure you, if it weren't for the national security lobby's hush-hush attitude, the US administrations would have had a more serious and principled democratization policy in Turkey.
There is no doubt that the modernization of a NATO member country in all aspects should be a main goal for the US and the West. Everybody knows the road to true reformation in Turkey goes through the Turkish military. That has always been the case historically. In other words, without a modernized military, both in a professional and ideological sense, Turkey's evolution toward a Western-style democracy and eventual EU membership would be extremely problematic. Without a serious commitment to the stated common values of the Western alliance, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law, on the part of Turkish military, there is no end in sight for Turkey's domestic and international problems. That poses serious strategic and even tactical risks for not only Turkey, but also its Western allies. It should not be overlooked, as has been done so far, for the sake of short term tactical gains, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obviously, change in any country should primarily come from within. As a matter of fact, social democratic transformation in Turkish society is already having some impacts in the military, no matter how protectionist it is. Civilian governments should also come up with more proactive policies. On the other hand, it is vital for NATO and the Pentagon's leadership, the closest working partners of the Turkish military in the West, to help improve the Turkish military's democratic horizons in any way they can.
A more accountable and modernized Turkish military under full civilian control is a win-win scenario. Mutual challenges and opportunities in Turkey and its highly important region compel doing that sooner, rather than later.
