Perhaps the “proof” the military leaders have in their hands includes the recently intensified criticism of the military. The chief group that criticizes the military’s role in civilian politics is liberal intellectuals. The two key arguments that the liberals have developed is first that military expenditures should be investigated by civilians, in line with the requirements of the European Union, and second that the chief of general staff should report to the minister of defense. In response, perhaps with a mentality that boggles the mind, military leaders try to relate this criticism with the homemade military rhetoric of “asymmetric psychological war.”While outlining the major points of confrontation between the liberals and the military, one should admit that the relationship between liberal intellectuals and the Turkish military has never been a good one. Yet one should also note that the liberals have intensified their criticism in recent years. The main reason why they have intensified this criticism is because on the verge of EU membership, they want to normalize military-civilian relations. Yet the military does not want to be controlled by civilian politicians. As the liberals criticize the military, in response, they have to face accusations and false allegations of conducting an “asymmetric psychological war.” The military’s warlike rhetoric disappoints the liberals and makes finding a medium between the liberals and the military impossible.
Figuratively, I consider the relationship between the liberals and the military as though they were in the same railway car, which is made of glasses, and sit in compartments that are located on opposite sides of the car. They see each other but cannot hear what the other side is saying. This car is disconnected from the locomotive, going in the wrong direction and has to be stopped. What liberal intellectuals are trying to do is to tell the military generals in the front of the car to turn their faces forward and try to stop the car before it crashes. Because the generals cannot hear the liberals, they think the liberals are holding them responsible for disconnecting the car from the train and turn their faces to the back of the car and try to explain they are not the ones who disconnected the car from the train. When the liberals try to tell the generals not to point at them and to turn their faces toward the other direction and stop the car, the generals think that they are being pointed out and held responsible for what is happening to the car.
This miscommunication between the liberals and the military leaders has continued for the last five years. It seems that it neither helps the liberals nor the generals to point at each other because when the car crashes, both sides will be injured.
Since the military has developed an argument to relate every criticism to the assumed “asymmetric psychological war” and the liberals have tried to relate every wrongdoing to the military, the situation is entering a deadlock.
To avoid further confrontations, what military leaders need to do is either prove their arguments or bring those who conduct psychological war against the military before the court or stop finger-pointing at the liberals and accusing them of being part of a conspiracy against the military.
To end the confrontation, the judicial system should step in and objectively investigate every accusation that they make against each other and punish those who commit wrongdoings and those who falsely accuse the other side without providing any evidence.
Then the question is what is justice in Turkey when a judge who sits in an influential position in the judicial system requests an end to an investigation of the archives of the Special Forces Command, which is accused of involvement in criminal activities against the government?
