Tweet
CounterPunch.org
June 11 2010
Will Erdogan Blink?
By FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
A recent article by Patrick Cockburn, one of the ablest reporters
covering the Middle East, provides an excellent character portrait of
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. It is certainly consistent with
what little I have been able to learn about this fascinating
politician. Regardless of what you may think of Erdogan, and he has
many detractors (I am not one), he is certainly establishing himself
as an influential world leader who must be reckoned with in an
emerging multi-polar world.
Cockburn's report is must reading, because Erdogan has maneuvered
himself onto the moral high ground in a very serious crisis he did not
create. Consider please the following:
By standing tall against Israel's murderous commando attack on the
unarmed ship in international waters that was carrying aid to the
besieged inhabitants of Gaza, and by promising to be on another ship
trying to break the blockade, Erdogan has set an example that
contrasts sharply with the latest generation of pusillanimous leaders
in the United States. They have refused to condemn Israel's attack,
even though a US citizen was among those murdered -- thus continuing
the pattern of unprincipled moral weakness that began when President
Johnson refused to act decisively after the Israelis deliberately
attacked the USS Liberty in international waters in June 1967,
murdering over 30 American sailors.
Not surprisingly, Erdogan has become the newest bête noire of the
neocons. They have embarked on a concerted effort in their media
outlets to smear him as well as to trash our relations with Turkey,
starting with screeds in the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard.
Their hypocrisy is stunning. Many of these same neocons assiduously
cultivated the so-called strategic Israeli-Turkish alliance in the
1990s and, in fact, lobbied Congress on the behalf of Turkey. AIPAC is
lobbying Congress for a resolution of support for Israel's attack, or
failing that, is pressuring congressmen to not criticize Israel. AIPAC
and the neocons are also stoking up the Armenian lobby to criticize
the modern Turkish Republic for the genocidal crimes which occurred
during the waning days of a decrepit Ottoman Empire. This is logically
equivalent to criticizing German Chancellor Angela Merkel for Adolf
Hitler's crimes. Some congressmen have already made strong public
statements of support for Israel, and by extension a condemnation for
Turkey, while the majority -- like the good Germans of the 1930s --
have done likewise by remaining silent. Israel just hoisted Obama on
his petard (again) by requesting increased arms aid from the United
States which, of course, will be rubber stamped by a compliant
Congress. Meanwhile, according to the Jerusalem Post, the Deputy Chief
of Staff of the Israeli Army, just threatened to sink any Turkish
warships carrying Erdogan, if it was escorting another flotilla of aid
ships trying to break the blockade of Gaza. The threat is serious,
because it was made on Israeli Army Radio, an outlet for policy
pronouncements intended to lather up the Israeli citizens for battle.
To add final insult to this march of folly, Sheera Fenkle just
reported that the blockade of Gaza is not about stopping arms
shipments to Hamas, because in her words, 'McClatchy obtained an
Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a
security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group
Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.' Put another way,
Israel's own documents suggest that the Israeli government understands
the blockade is about an illegal collective punishment of the Gazan
people for having the temerity to elect Hamas to govern Gaza in a free
election. Ironically, it was the short-sighted Israelis who promoted
Hamas in its early years during the late 1980s as a tactical means to
divide and weaken Palestinian allegiances to the PLO.
So Turkey and Israel are maneuvering themselves and the United States
into a trap between the moral high ground and the moral low ground for
very different reasons. In the eyes of most of the world, Turkey is
playing a constructive grand strategic card, while Israel is playing a
destructive strategic card. One holds out hope for peace and justice
while the other continues its warlike business as usual. But there is
more. An Israeli attack on Turkey would be also an attack on the NATO
Alliance. Under the terms of the NATO Treaty, such an attack should
trigger what is known as an Article 5 response -- an attack on a NATO
ally is an attack on all. This is what the US used to justify a NATO
response to 9-11 in Afghanistan, even though the Afghan case was far
less clear than the Turkish-Israeli imbroglio, because the Taliban was
at most an accomplice to the 9-11 crime and may not have known about
it in advance. If Israel carries through on its threat to attack a
NATO warship, it would be a clear act of war. If the US (and the rest
of NATO) does not respond, you can kiss NATO and Turkey goodbye, and
the US would lose moral standing in the world to a greater degree than
that engineered by George Bush and his fellow neocon travelers --
which is no small achievement. Nobody could ever trust the United
States to live up to its formal treaty obligations. Our relations with
Russia and China would be weakened dangerously, and Iran's position in
the Middle East would be strengthened. The fall of dominoes would go
on in all sorts of directions.
To borrow the unforgettable words of British Foreign Minister Edward
Grey in the fateful summer of 1914, "the lights are going out all
over" the Middle East, in NATO headquarters, and in the White House
(assuming they were turned on). If Erdogan presses forward with his
public promise to be on another Gaza aid ship or an escorting Turkish
warship and if Israel acts on its threat to sink the ship carrying
him, then like the chain of events of August 1914, the march to war
could very well take on a life of its own.
We know what Israel will do if, as is likely, the US stands passively
on the sidelines again, so the questions of the hour seem to be: Will
Erdogan blink? Will the US force him to blink?
Study Cockburn's report and judge for yourself if blinking is a part
of Erdogan's character, particularly, when he has maneuvered himself
onto the moral high ground, and it is obvious to all but a few that
the low grounders, like PM Netanyau, are playing the hapless Mr. Obama
for a moral dupe -- again.
Franklin `Chuck' Spinney is a former military analyst for the
Pentagon. He currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean and
can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney06112010.html
From: A. Papazian
June 11 2010
Will Erdogan Blink?
By FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
A recent article by Patrick Cockburn, one of the ablest reporters
covering the Middle East, provides an excellent character portrait of
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. It is certainly consistent with
what little I have been able to learn about this fascinating
politician. Regardless of what you may think of Erdogan, and he has
many detractors (I am not one), he is certainly establishing himself
as an influential world leader who must be reckoned with in an
emerging multi-polar world.
Cockburn's report is must reading, because Erdogan has maneuvered
himself onto the moral high ground in a very serious crisis he did not
create. Consider please the following:
By standing tall against Israel's murderous commando attack on the
unarmed ship in international waters that was carrying aid to the
besieged inhabitants of Gaza, and by promising to be on another ship
trying to break the blockade, Erdogan has set an example that
contrasts sharply with the latest generation of pusillanimous leaders
in the United States. They have refused to condemn Israel's attack,
even though a US citizen was among those murdered -- thus continuing
the pattern of unprincipled moral weakness that began when President
Johnson refused to act decisively after the Israelis deliberately
attacked the USS Liberty in international waters in June 1967,
murdering over 30 American sailors.
Not surprisingly, Erdogan has become the newest bête noire of the
neocons. They have embarked on a concerted effort in their media
outlets to smear him as well as to trash our relations with Turkey,
starting with screeds in the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard.
Their hypocrisy is stunning. Many of these same neocons assiduously
cultivated the so-called strategic Israeli-Turkish alliance in the
1990s and, in fact, lobbied Congress on the behalf of Turkey. AIPAC is
lobbying Congress for a resolution of support for Israel's attack, or
failing that, is pressuring congressmen to not criticize Israel. AIPAC
and the neocons are also stoking up the Armenian lobby to criticize
the modern Turkish Republic for the genocidal crimes which occurred
during the waning days of a decrepit Ottoman Empire. This is logically
equivalent to criticizing German Chancellor Angela Merkel for Adolf
Hitler's crimes. Some congressmen have already made strong public
statements of support for Israel, and by extension a condemnation for
Turkey, while the majority -- like the good Germans of the 1930s --
have done likewise by remaining silent. Israel just hoisted Obama on
his petard (again) by requesting increased arms aid from the United
States which, of course, will be rubber stamped by a compliant
Congress. Meanwhile, according to the Jerusalem Post, the Deputy Chief
of Staff of the Israeli Army, just threatened to sink any Turkish
warships carrying Erdogan, if it was escorting another flotilla of aid
ships trying to break the blockade of Gaza. The threat is serious,
because it was made on Israeli Army Radio, an outlet for policy
pronouncements intended to lather up the Israeli citizens for battle.
To add final insult to this march of folly, Sheera Fenkle just
reported that the blockade of Gaza is not about stopping arms
shipments to Hamas, because in her words, 'McClatchy obtained an
Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a
security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group
Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.' Put another way,
Israel's own documents suggest that the Israeli government understands
the blockade is about an illegal collective punishment of the Gazan
people for having the temerity to elect Hamas to govern Gaza in a free
election. Ironically, it was the short-sighted Israelis who promoted
Hamas in its early years during the late 1980s as a tactical means to
divide and weaken Palestinian allegiances to the PLO.
So Turkey and Israel are maneuvering themselves and the United States
into a trap between the moral high ground and the moral low ground for
very different reasons. In the eyes of most of the world, Turkey is
playing a constructive grand strategic card, while Israel is playing a
destructive strategic card. One holds out hope for peace and justice
while the other continues its warlike business as usual. But there is
more. An Israeli attack on Turkey would be also an attack on the NATO
Alliance. Under the terms of the NATO Treaty, such an attack should
trigger what is known as an Article 5 response -- an attack on a NATO
ally is an attack on all. This is what the US used to justify a NATO
response to 9-11 in Afghanistan, even though the Afghan case was far
less clear than the Turkish-Israeli imbroglio, because the Taliban was
at most an accomplice to the 9-11 crime and may not have known about
it in advance. If Israel carries through on its threat to attack a
NATO warship, it would be a clear act of war. If the US (and the rest
of NATO) does not respond, you can kiss NATO and Turkey goodbye, and
the US would lose moral standing in the world to a greater degree than
that engineered by George Bush and his fellow neocon travelers --
which is no small achievement. Nobody could ever trust the United
States to live up to its formal treaty obligations. Our relations with
Russia and China would be weakened dangerously, and Iran's position in
the Middle East would be strengthened. The fall of dominoes would go
on in all sorts of directions.
To borrow the unforgettable words of British Foreign Minister Edward
Grey in the fateful summer of 1914, "the lights are going out all
over" the Middle East, in NATO headquarters, and in the White House
(assuming they were turned on). If Erdogan presses forward with his
public promise to be on another Gaza aid ship or an escorting Turkish
warship and if Israel acts on its threat to sink the ship carrying
him, then like the chain of events of August 1914, the march to war
could very well take on a life of its own.
We know what Israel will do if, as is likely, the US stands passively
on the sidelines again, so the questions of the hour seem to be: Will
Erdogan blink? Will the US force him to blink?
Study Cockburn's report and judge for yourself if blinking is a part
of Erdogan's character, particularly, when he has maneuvered himself
onto the moral high ground, and it is obvious to all but a few that
the low grounders, like PM Netanyau, are playing the hapless Mr. Obama
for a moral dupe -- again.
Franklin `Chuck' Spinney is a former military analyst for the
Pentagon. He currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean and
can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney06112010.html
From: A. Papazian