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.

You don't have to look for ISIS to find a war against Christian

Its not necessary to search for ISIS, Boko Haram, atheist North Korea or Al Qaida to find a war against Christianity.  Just turn on your television, open your local newspaper, or spend a couple days sitting through public school classes with your kids.  Disparaging, belittling and insulting Christianity and Christians has become not only acceptable in the United States, it is now considered an admirable  course of action.  What makes this development all the more pathetic is that the citizens of the United States continue to be Christian by a substantial majority.  According to a July 2015 ABC News poll, 83 percent of Americans identify as Christian.  I chose the ABC poll result, but other polls available in the media offer similar results.  Why does a nation of Christians basically sit back and watch as the younger generations show no understanding of life and teachings of Jesus Christ, except as something to mock and disrespect?  I realize that there exist many exceptions to this trend.  Many Christian Churches continue to offer young adherents the opportunity to proselytize both within the United States and overseas.  But more and more we read stories of these young people being refused entry into business estsblishments and secondsry school grounds.  The targeting of Mormons, who we all recognize as they politely make their way in ties and on bicycles, has caused the Church to reconsider its intended destinations for outreach.  Its not difficult finding episodes of Christians being descriminated against and Christianity being insulted, but is it really all that bad?

I started noticing the trend a few tears ago.  The ACLU had succeeded in forcing another municipality in some midwestern state, to remove a nativity scene from its holiday display.  Christmas was a surprisngly easy target, as Christmas trees became Holiday trees and Christmas break at school became Winter break.  When approached, the municipal leaders all repeated the same comment: because of the separation of Church and State, it is uncomstitutional to mention anything religious on government property.   And for those who didn't abide by this perspective, the ACLU was ready with deep pockets to take things to court.  Frankly, most folks just didn't want to fuss with it; we'd dealt with these latter-day hippie types before, and they usually end up just going away.

That has not been the case.  The political left in the United States, with the complicit support of the Democratic Party, have turned this issue into one which they claim has caused untold damage to religious minorities and must be addressed immediately.  Not surprisingly, no one was required to back up this argument with proof.  That is the current state of affairs in our great nation these days: those on the left no longer have the obligation to support their argument with anything other than accusations of bigotry and racism.  For those who are interested, the numbers of immigrant applications to the United States who claim to be in search of religious freedom are not declining.  People want to emigrate to the United States because we protect a person's right to practise the religion of their choice.  Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists are not injured by a community expression of the majority's traditional celebration of the birth of our savior.  When I have been in traditionally Islamic or Hindu nations, I was not offended or injured in any way by public displays of religious expression.  Most people in the United States agree with my point of view; so why does the situation seem to become more absurd every day?

This last Monday, on everyone's fsvorite daytime show, "The View", panelist Michelle Collins (who?), when discussing the recent National Enquirer claim that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz had cheated on his wife at least five times, described Cruz as living by a "crazy moral code".  It was obvious that Collins was referring to Cruz being a Christian.  Collins was relishing the idea that another "Christian hypocrite" (my quotations) had been caught cheating, even though Collins herself considers the Christian code of morality to be "crazy", regardless.  Normally, televised daytime talk-shows wouldn't touch the Enquirer with a ten-foot pole.  But the media, which has gladly become the sword of this anti-Christian effort, loves any message that claims to show evidence of prominent Christians being hypocritical.  The problem is, even the National Enquirer realizes their story is false, which they are quick to declare at the beginning of the piece.  They are smart enough to play the game and not have to face a lawsuit.  The Enquirer announced the accustations on page one, as if the case was aleeady closed, then reiterated that the story was simply something provided to the Enquirer by a Trump supporter.  The glee with which this Collins person commented on the accusations of infidelity by Cruz, is something we see all the time in our press and media.  Non-Christians who behave immorally are given a pass, because, of course, they don't pretend to be ethical.  Its the hypocritical Christians that must be outed!

Forgive me for getting in the weeds just a bit, but it can be occasionally necessary.  Its past time that the Christian community in this great nation stop applogizing for itself.  The pioneers who suffered untold hardships building this country, many times were obliged to survive rough times on Faith alone.  During the dark years of slavery, many suffering Americans relied on Faith in Jesus and His love, to make it from one day to the next.  The people who built this country did not shy away from their Christian Faith, as is evidenced by its inclusion in our National Anthem, our Constitution, our songs, school books  and our literature.  It is only in the last half-century that Academia in the United States has allowed itself to become the lightening rod for the anti-Christian movement.  Do not misunderstand; a healthy application of the principle of "separation of church and state" is essential in our Republic.  But we have allowed this battle-cry to move us away from the truths by which we arrived at this particular place in time.  I am a Christian, and I am a better man for it.  I make no apologies for my Faith, and I will speak up when I see history being rewritten and the will of the majority of this country ignored.  I can only hope that I'm not alone in my sentiments.

Al-Shabab Makes A Statement.

Link: Al-Shabab Attacks University in Eastern Kenya.


On Thursday of last week, Somalian-based terror group Al-Shabab orchestrated an attack against unarmed, innocent students and teachers at Garissa University (College) in Garissa, Kenya.  To date, authorities state that 148 persons died in the attack, along with many if not all of the gunmen.  Since the attack included the taking of hostages (with Muslims and non-Muslims being separated), and some students are still listed as missing, Kenyan officials are hesitant to provide an exact number of gunmen.  I have received a bit of flack from visitors to my blog, because of the amount of attention I give to Africa.  I don't deny that I'm an Africaphile, but my focus on the continent as far as the blog is concerned, is solely related to the issue of terrorism.  To be more precise, I am concerned about the spread of the Islamic extremist message, and also the potential for recruitment of operatives.  It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to recognize that young men who have no jobs and very little hope for the future, are prime candidates for recruitment by these groups.  And young men looking for work is something that Africa, unfortunately, has way too many of.

The blog has addressed the increased presence of Al-Shabab in Kenya in numerous postings during the previous three months.  The International Media noted that Al-Shabab had taken a huge hit in their home country of Somalia, and an attitude seemed to creep in that maybe, just maybe, Al-Shabab was finished.  You can separate terrorist groups into countless sub-categories, but for the sake of this post, lets point out that there are two types of terror organizations: the ones who fight solely for the cause; and the ones that use their actions to also make a living.  Al-Shabab was never going to disappear, because they fit into the second category.  Too many members of Al-Shabab had found a way to feed themselves and their families, at a time and place where food is scarce.  Besides, Al-Shabab has too many operatives and too much equipment and too many friends to no longer be considered useful by Al-Qaeda.  Hence to move away from Somalia and into Kenya.  Analysts have been expecting a minor explosion in terrorist activity in Kenya for some time, probably because of its proximity to Somalia combined with the permanent state of economic stagnation.  I have been more concerned with the probability of recruitment in the vast townships outside Nairobi.  Whatever the vehicle, it is imperative that the Kenyan authorities realize that Al-Shabab is in the midst of relocating from Somalia to Kenya.

Many folks in Europe and the United States will automatically assume that by attacking shopping malls and college campuses, Al-Shabab is crippling its image among all the people of Kenya.  Unfortunately, that's not the case.  Forgive me if my comment appears to be ethnocentric (I don't believe it is), but sub-Saharan Africans don't automatically adopt the same perspective as westerners.  In many cases, they approach issues very differently.  By conducting the operation in Garissa, Al-Shabab was providing an example of its strength and power.  Likewise for the attack at the shopping center in Nairobi.  Where was the government?  Where were the police and the military?  Authorities in Nigeria have had a real problem dealing with the same predicament.  Some northerners (Muslims, to be sure) were beginning to support Boko Haram, because they certainly were looking like a winner.  Al-Shabab can provide a hungry, disillusioned young man with three essential things: food, a weapon, and a cause.

An important factor that should never be far from any discussion of Al-Shabab, is Al-Qaeda.  Just how close are these two groups?  I guarantee you that the analysts in Langley know.  If we take a quick look at Al-Qaeda's modus operandi regarding relations with other organizations, it would appear to be always be a one-sided relationship.  I think we will soon discover, though, that the "new" Al-Qaeda, under Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a bit more willing to be interactive with like-minded groups.  In the last few years of Osama bin-Ladin's life, the organization became very isolated and secretive, and for good reason.  I believe that Zawahiri believes in the philosophy of the struggle, just as much as he does the actions being taken.  I think we will see more instances of Al-Qaeda communicating with the Boko Harams and the Al-Shababs, and trying to lay the groundwork for a uniting message.  I believe a great deal has already been accomplished along this path, and the various groups on the ground in Syria are not nearly as separate from each other as they would lead the western media to believe.  Nothing lives forever.  Even Al-Qaeda will eventually disappear.  The key is the message.  It must resonate and be strong enough to live forever.  The message can survive long journeys across mountain ranges and oceans, when men cannot.  The message can survive the battles when all the combatants lie dead on the field.  Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda will depend upon the Boko Harams, and the Al-Qaeda in Magrebs, and the Al-Shababs, to be the caretaker and delivery system for that message.  And the message never changes.  it continues to be about domination, intolerance, hatred and bigotry.  It would behoove us to take down the caretakers before they really get a handle on the message.