What conclusions to draw regarding the recent events in Turkey, and how those events impact U.S. policy in the region.

Link: Attempted Coup In Turkey- NY Times

When I first saw the televised announcements last weekend regarding what appeared to be a coup attempt in Turkey, it didn't take long for me to realize that whoever was attempting to take control of the government in Turkey had absolutely no idea what they were doing.  There is good reason for my surprise; coups are not uncommon in recent world history, with Turkey having already experienced a few in the last half-century.  As I tried to make sense from what little information was available, I kept expecting to hear that the government had been taking into custody, the airport secured, and heavy armor rumbling down every major thoroughfare.  The plotters were able to gain control of the radio for a limited time, during which they announced that the coup was necessary to protect against further erosion of civil liberties.  The plotters announced a governing council and promised to adhere to all existing treaties.  This message should have continued playing, or at least a blackout should have gone in affect.  Instead, almost immediately after the attempted coup was announced in the western press, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was on FaceTime and Skype, instructing the people to stand up to the coup by occupying the town squares and taking to the city streets, which they did, en force.  Within an hour or two, Erdogan was holding a press conference at Ataturk International Airport (I'm still not sure why he was on a plane to begin with), announcing that the coup had failed, and that the plotters would be treated harshly.

In order to understand what occurred in Turkey, a bit of background information is necessary.  For centuries, Turkey existed as the Ottoman Empire.  In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, the Ottoman Empire was an international superpower, at times occupying European territory up to the gates of Vienna.  The Empire was ruled by a Sultan, who was also recognized as Caliph, the religious leader of Muslims.  As history demonstrates time and time again, all Empires seem to have an expiration date.  The Ottomans, in an attempt to rejuvenate a crippled economy and recapture international respect, made the mistake of joining the losing side in World War One (Austria-Hungary and Germany).  For most folks, the war ended in 1918, but Turkey suffered through both a civil war and a war of independence simultaneously.  A leader emerged from the struggle who was destined to transform Turkey.  Kemal Ataturk was a former highly-decorated Ottoman Army Officer, and he ushered in what we know today as modern Turkey.  Ataturk was determined to create a secular Turkey.  He abolished the Sultanate and the Caliphate, and required that Turkish be taught in public schools.  Women were encouraged to abandon the headscarf and men stopped wearing the fez.  During the Second World War, Turkey remained neutral until the very end, with Ataturk in firm control of the government.  When Ataturk finally died, he left behind a democracy backed by a very strong military.  Over the years, when the military has grown concerned about corruption, or the rise in religious extremism, or what it perceived as a threat to secular Turkey, it has called out the troops and tanks and removed certain governments.  At times, the military has kept control of the government much longer than anticipated, but democratic elections would eventually take place.  Turkey has had a thriving democracy in part because of the military's willingness to protect its secular traditions. 

In the last five years, Erdogan has moved Turkey further and further away from this tradition.  Most recently, he has boldly moved against the media, not hesitating to arrest any journalist who speaks against his Administration.  Erdogan has always governed in coalition with Islamist parties, and has already taken steps to remove military officers who might oppose his future intentions.  The idea that the Turkish military would attempt a coup was not a surprise.  The surprise was that this coup never had a chance of succeeding.  Erdogan blames the coup on disgruntled military officers and Turks in exile who he considers enemies.  But nothing he says makes any sense, and I'm not alone in my suspicion.  I believe that Erdogan either planned or encouraged the coup himself.  The plotters never took the necessary actions to give their efforts any hope of success.  Where was the Air Force, the military branch which has been traditionally the most hostile to Erdogan?  Why wasn't the airport occupied and Erdogan's plane shot down when it approached for landing?  Why wasn't the government arrested or at least detained?

Regardless of who was behind the coup attempt, the result is particularly frightening.  Erdogan is purging everything short of elementary schools.  Anyone who had ever acknowledged any type of opposition to Erdogan has been arrested or fired.  The Turks who came out into the streets, shouting their support for Erdogan and waving Turkish flags, now have the dictator they deserve.  The first to suffer will be the Academic community, then the economy will grind to a halt.  Erdogan will blame the West, in particular the United States.  As far as I'm concerned, removing our military presence from Turkey is overdue.  I'm fed up hearing stories of our servicemen and their families being harassed by Erdogan's nationalist thugs.  If the Turks don't want us in Turkey, then we should leave.  Let Erdogan negotiate his way out of NATO.  He's already guaranteed that Turkey will never be a member of the European Union.  I think Erdogan has visions of resurrecting the Ottoman Empire, but those days of grandeur are long gone.  Turkey does not have the economy or the infrastructure to be a superpower.  Don't be surprised, though, if Ankara starts to resemble Caracas.

Kurdish politics, and other confusing headaches.

Links: A. Kurdish political parties trying to resolve presidential debate.
           B. Wikipedia entry for Peshmerga.
           C. Wikipedia entry for PKK.


During my career, I was fortunate enough to work closely with representatives of both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP).  In 2003 and 2004, the opposing Kurdish political parties had set aside much of their differences, at least in Baghdad, for the best interests of the greater Iraqi Kurdish community.  Both groups were represented by well-educated, deferential, hard-working people, who were tremendously supportive of the United States and our military forces in particular.  I remember that the PUK had taken possession of two large, adjoining compounds in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad, which they utilized for a variety of purposes, including regular meetings with representatives of U.S. government agencies.  Jalal Talabani, founder and leader of the PUK, maintained a much more elaborate residence in Baghdad, closer to the Karada neighborhood.  My initial visit to the PUK compound brought me into contact with Peshmerga (Kurdish for "one who confronts death") for the first, but certainly not the last time.  The Peshmerga are the military forces for the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan; they attempt to maintain a non-aligned posture with regards to the PUK and KDP, who have, at times, really had a go at each other.  Although I've never seen a female Peshmerga, I've been told that they exist.  This group represents the type of self-reliant, hardy, low-maintenance soldier that we don't see much anymore.  They are brave, well-trained, and move together flawlessly when operational.  That being said, I wouldn't invite them to a candlelight dinner party.  From my experience (forgive the stereotyping), they stink, and although not rude, normally haven't picked up much in the way of manners.  I wrote in my book about a meeting I had once at the PUK house, where we discovered two Peshmerga asleep under the table because of the volume and frequency of their farts.  Aside from the U.S. Armed Forces, I can't think of any group that I would want fighting by my side more than the Peshmerga.

I have at times been accused of being biased towards the Kurds.  I am guilty as charged.  I have no qualms about admitting that I support the Kurdish struggle for an independent homeland.  As a people, they are kind, generous, welcoming, hard-working and very family-oriented.  They can also hold a grudge for a very long, long time.  The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but the manner of worship in the Kurdish community, regardless of affiliation, is much different than what is normally observed in the Arab world.  Kurds are private about their religious observations, although most Kurds are very observant of Islamic obligations.  They go about their business in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves.  This is a true example of a community that values the private nature of its religious identity.  Sure, the majority are Sunni Muslim, but they don't advocate the use of shura to settle every issue, nor do they feel this automatic disconnect with Christians and Jews.  I understand the reasoning behind keeping Iraq united.  If the Kurds were granted a homeland in northern Iraq, the rest of the country would be in danger of disintegration.  Maybe its time for that disintegration to take place, given that the area that was once known as Babylon, then Mesopotamia, and now Iraq, has not made a great success of ethnic integration.  It might happen with or without the Kurds, especially if the majority Shi'a continue to assert themselves and the Sunni start to consider life inside the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

Turkey's recent decision to end the de-facto cease fire with the quasi-military organization the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK), has been a reminder that the ISIS crisis is one of a number of unresolved conflicts in this part of the world, that sit just under the skin, waiting to erupt again.  Northern Syria is home to a substantial number of ethnic Kurds, and the anti-ISIS coalition has benefitted tremendously from their willingness to stand up and defend their own communities.  Even the Turks have benefitted, as Ankara is not keen about having ISIS as a direct neighbor.  But the Turks are experts at separating one group of Kurds from another.  According to Ankara, the Syrian Kurds who fight ISIS tooth-and-nail are not connected to the "terrorist" PKK.  Turkey's decision to conduct bombing sorties against suspected PKK locations was a naked political move on the part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to energize anti-Kurd elements in Turkey before pivotal fall elections.  Not surprisingly, many in the Turkish electorate will scream for vengeance regarding three Turkish soldiers killed in a PKK attack, and not think twice about the Kurds whose murder precipitated the retaliatory ambush.  All the while, the Kurdistan Parliament, which sits in Arbil, is struggling with the never-ending debate over the office of President. The current office-holder, President Masoud Barzani, is the head of the KDP.  In 2009, Barzani was elected with 69.9 % of the vote, and in 2013, the parliament decided to extend his term until 2015.  The five major Kurdish political parties were attempting to resolve the issue of succession, but failed before Barzani's term expired on August 20.  Believe me, Kurdish politics can get very complicated. Its imperative that Kurdistan present a united front, given the renewed trouble with Turkey and the continuing war against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.  The PDK will argue for another extension for Barzani, which, for political expediency, will be supported by the PUK.  The remaining parties do not represent enough votes to budge a joint KDP/PUK effort.  Expect the Kurdistan Parliament to extend Barzani's term to 2017, when it meets to debate the issue on August 23.