Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

April 12, 2005

Bush Thinks in Black and White

Bush can't get support for his boondoggle in Iraq from one of the countries who saw they had a lot to lose in the change of governments, and Dubya wants to take his football and go home. His tantrum upset our alliance with most of NATO but even more importantly with Turkey, its reliable NATO ally in the Middle East. Instead he enhances beyond all previous administrations the strategic alliance with Israel. Our support for Israel cost us the loss of the twice towers, hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit, and a new generation of jihadis itching for an opportunity for another strike at the US anytime in the rest of their life time.
I can't believe how badly this man has botched our world position. He has kick started the decline of super power USA.
Don't Write Off the Turks
Who lost Turkey? That's the theme of a rash of articles in the U.S. press over the last two months. Apparently, there's a growing consensus in Washington that our old ally has been gradually becoming more anti-American.


In 2003, Turkey denied Washington the use of Turkish bases only months before the war on Iraq began. Just recently, Vice President Dick Cheney blamed Turkey's noncooperation for many of the problems today with Iraqi insurgents.

That is so asinine. The administration botched all of the preparation for Iraq, botched the actual invasion causing many more casualties on both sides than was necessary, and then simply assumed the Iraqis would stand up and take over their country. And Rummie blames Turkey? He's the turkey.
A number of critics have pointed to the rise of anti-American public sentiment in Turkey over the last two years: The Marshall Fund found that 82% of the Turkish public was hostile to the U.S., one of the highest figures anywhere, especially for a NATO ally. A recent bestselling Turkish fictional thriller, "Metal Storm," portrays a U.S. war against Turkey. The Islam-oriented government in Ankara has harshly criticized close U.S. ally Israel for its occupation policies in the West Bank. And Turkey does not concur with Washington's efforts to pressure Iran and Syria.

Anyone in their right mind would criticize Israel for its armored assault on a civilian population and then stealing the land they drive the owners off because its "unoccupied".
Although these events indeed represent a new Turkish reality, it would be erroneous — indeed dangerous — to assume that Turkey's widespread opposition to many of the Bush administration's policies are symptomatic of a broader strategic hostility. And it would be exceptionally shortsighted for U.S.

The only thing Bush is planning for is the rapture. He wants the Middle East to blow up into a World War, just like Robertson and Falwell. Yet the only leader in the world who remotely resembles the anti-Christ is Bush himself. Or maybe Cheney.


Complete Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-fuller11apr11.story
COMMENTARY
Don't Write Off the Turks
Ankara isn't anti-American; it's independent.
By Graham E. Fuller
April 11, 2005
Who lost Turkey? That's the theme of a rash of articles in the U.S. press over the last two months. Apparently, there's a growing consensus in Washington that our old ally has been gradually becoming more anti-American.
In 2003, Turkey denied Washington the use of Turkish bases only months before the war on Iraq began. Just recently, Vice President Dick Cheney blamed Turkey's noncooperation for many of the problems today with Iraqi insurgents.
A number of critics have pointed to the rise of anti-American public sentiment in Turkey over the last two years: The Marshall Fund found that 82% of the Turkish public was hostile to the U.S., one of the highest figures anywhere, especially for a NATO ally. A recent bestselling Turkish fictional thriller, "Metal Storm," portrays a U.S. war against Turkey. The Islam-oriented government in Ankara has harshly criticized close U.S. ally Israel for its occupation policies in the West Bank. And Turkey does not concur with Washington's efforts to pressure Iran and Syria.
Although these events indeed represent a new Turkish reality, it would be erroneous — indeed dangerous — to assume that Turkey's widespread opposition to many of the Bush administration's policies are symptomatic of a broader strategic hostility. And it would be exceptionally shortsighted for U.S. policymakers to argue that the democratically elected moderate Islamist government in Turkey is not sufficiently pro-American or that it should be pressured to change its leadership.
In reality, U.S. interests — in the broader scheme of things — have been exceptionally well-served by this Turkish government, which has brought broad democratic reforms to the country as part of its explicit commitment to gain European Union membership. Turkey has taken positive steps toward relieving Kurdish dissatisfaction and has moved to improve relations with all of its neighbors, including longtime opponent Armenia. The economy is moving forward, and inflation is way down.
The Turkish public, including those with no special desire for Islamist policies, find the performance of this government to be generally on the right track; politics have been more stable than any other time in the last decade. Most interesting, several of Turkey's Arab neighbors are paying attention to its experience in producing a competent Islam-oriented government — one that can be proudly independent yet democratic, reformist and a candidate for EU membership. Nothing could be a more positive model for the rest of the region.
It is true that since the end of the Cold War, Turkey's reliance on U.S. leadership in foreign policy has declined sharply — as it has in most of the rest of the world, including Western Europe. Ankara is no longer automatically acquiescent to following the U.S. lead, especially when it believes that U.S. policies run counter to Turkish national interests. U.S. policy in Iraq, Iran and Syria is seen by Turkey as adventuristic and needlessly destabilizing to Turkish interests.
Right now, opposition to U.S. policies is the nearest thing to a national consensus in Turkey. Major elements across the political spectrum — Turkey's strong secularists, nationalists, Kemalists and leftists — are even more harshly critical of Washington than the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Efforts by Washington to intimidate a popular, representative Turkish government or to bring it in line with U.S. government policies will almost surely backfire. In the new world order, unilateralism has its limits. Turkey is not lost to us; we just need to take a more realistic view of the limits of our own power, be sensitive to the risks of ignoring other states' nationalist feelings and interests, and adopt a longer-term, more enlightened view of our own interests. Turkey is doing fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham E. Fuller is a former chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA. His latest book is "The Future of Political Islam" (Palgrave 2003).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

No comments: