Simplifying the arrests and detentions in the Sledgehammer case by describing them as a new example of already-known “tension between institutions” may act as a trap for incorrect conclusions. Something else lies beneath, and it signifies a promise of overcoming some of the obstacles before Turkey accelerates its tiresome journey into the family of democracies.The tiny giant of a newspaper called Taraf had to stand as a target of a massive smear campaign by the so-called “mainstream press” for spreading lies and “attacking the military asymmetrically” for weeks. The efforts to discredit the paper were much more aggressive this time, in an obvious attempt to stop legal action against the officers indicted and create another stumbling block before the government and Parliament in the spirit of the notorious Şemdinli incident.
On the other hand, it seemed obvious that there was genuine evidence for this case -- as there was with the case of the Action Plan to Fight Reactionaryism and the Cage plan. The forensic units’ establishment of authenticity was sufficient for the prosecutors to go into action, and this very act without a doubt came as a high-voltage shock for the “militarist in mind and spirit” part of the media. But, obviously, the “death blow” to those editors and columnists -- who still try to manipulate domestic and international opinion with the false presumption that the country stands on the brink of chaos -- came with a report by the Sabah daily on Saturday.
It told us that even the military prosecutors had established that the entire critical section of the Sledgehammer documents were authentic. Under normal circumstances, a skeptical segment of the media with a proper IQ level would start to realize that it was facing a legal inquiry just like any other, not a “warfare” campaign or a “witch hunt” against what it sees as a sacred, untouchable institution that has to be worshipped. But, sadly, their IQ levels have failed most of them.
Furthermore, what Sabah reported on Saturday helped add more clarity to what was happening behind the scenes at the time Sledgehammer was brought to the officers’ brainstorming session and to the planning stage, in late 2003 and 2004. Until very recently, discreetly militarist columnists in the Turkish press (some of whom were also documented as “useful for the army” in the Sledgehammer plot) were attempting to target Gen. Hilmi Özkök, the top commander at that time, as ultimately responsible. Why wasn’t he being investigated as well, they asked, with the assumption that he knew what was going on. But Sabah reports that in the critical meeting that took place March 5-7, 2003, there was a “special representative” of the chief of general staff (Özkök) and that this person allegedly prepared a brief report saying that “what took place was way beyond routine.” But the report by Sabah says this note was covered up and never reached the chief of general staff. It wasn’t brought to the attention of the immediate superior officer before Özkök, then-Land Forces Commander Gen. Aytaç Yalman, either.
What we can establish, after these additional reports, is this: First, it is clear that there was an ongoing subversive (illegal) activity to weaken and unseat the elected government ever since it came to power. It puts a demand on prosecutors to get to the bottom of it all.
Secondly, the year 2003 seems to be a sharply divisive one for the top echelons of the army, and the antagonism between the legalist and interventionist generals become apparent. This is the beginning of the widening gap between those who staged the sets of events to unseat the Çiller-Erbakan government in the Feb. 28 process and those who predicted it would damage the position of the army within society. By the end of last year, it became obvious that Özkök and his followers were proven right, that Turkey would no longer obey illegitimate social and political engineering by its officers.
Third, the persistent reporting of the Nokta weekly and the Taraf daily, together with the bold stance represented by at least a flank of the judiciary (particularly the judges), has led the military’s leadership to now redefine its approach vis-à-vis the law -- and order. The more respectful it becomes of the legal processes and the more willing and cooperative its top brass become to cleanse all the traditionalist adventurism out of itself, the easier it will be to make other stiff segments of the bureaucracy accept the necessity of reforms.
