Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

They're not "putting their ass on the line for Israel", they'd be doing it to seize power for themselves. A military coup, taking over the country.

Yes and no. The Turkish Army is a rare beast. They pulled off three military coups in the last half of the 20th century alone, yet they actually lived up to their promises each time and transitioned back to civil government. They honestly see themselves (and it's been inculcated in Army officer culture since Ataturk) as the protectors of the people against bad government. That when the government gets too far from the people's wishes (as interpreted by the Army, of course) or too corrupt, it's the Army's job to hit the reset button and start over with a new government. And their periods of junta rule have generally been less corrupt and feckless than the civilian rule, albeit they were also stained with extrajudicial violence against the Turkish Left.

Yet nothing in there contradicts me

[mainiac]

But how is a war with Israel a threat?  Worst Case scenario, they lose a few fighter planes and ships.  Turkey isn't a nation that Israel can push around.  The Turkish military doesn't need to coup to save the nation here.  The nation isn't under any threat.

Yes, (most) secularists in America opposed the war with Iraq.  But they didn't advocate for extraordinary measures to avoid such a war.  They never tried to filibuster and they never tried to cut off funding.

They're not "putting their ass on the line for Israel", they'd be doing it to seize power for themselves. A military coup, taking over the country.

Yes and no. The Turkish Army is a rare beast. They pulled off three military coups in the last half of the 20th century alone, yet they actually lived up to their promises each time and transitioned back to civil government. They honestly see themselves (and it's been inculcated in Army officer culture since Ataturk) as the protectors of the people against bad government. That when the government gets too far from the people's wishes (as interpreted by the Army, of course) or too corrupt, it's the Army's job to hit the reset button and start over with a new government. And their periods of junta rule have generally been less corrupt and feckless than the civilian rule, albeit they were also stained with extrajudicial violence against the Turkish Left.

Yet nothing in there contradicts me

Yes it does.  This isn't about a military juanta taking over the country.  Turkish politics doesn't work that way.  That would be like saying Bush vs. Gore was about Rehnquist making himself president.

[scriver]

Dude, I know. Yet I did not say they wouldn't be "giving it back" (as much as you can call it that when they're just letting people play democracy as long as they play it their way). They would still be taking over, though, either directly or indirectly. As they have done before.

As for your example.. I have no idea who Rhenquist is, I have never heard the name before. Even so, I can't see how you think it would fit.

[RedKing]

But how is a war with Israel a threat?  Worst Case scenario, they lose a few fighter planes and ships.  Turkey isn't a nation that Israel can push around.  The Turkish military doesn't need to coup to save the nation here.  The nation isn't under any threat.

It's turning a former ally into an enemy, it's casting their lot in with the likes of Syria and Iran, it's moving them further away from Europe and closer to the Middle East, and it's getting into a war with a nuclear-armed state.

I'm not arguing this from a neutral 3rd-party observer POV, I'm trying to convey what I think (based on past research on Turkish politics) the military/secularist POV would be. Because frankly, that's the POV that matters.

Yes, (most) secularists in America opposed the war with Iraq.  But they didn't advocate for extraordinary measures to avoid such a war.  They never tried to filibuster and they never tried to cut off funding.

And more's the pity. A political grouping with more balls would have.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Israel has nuclear weapons, Turkey does not. No matter what else is going on military-wise, that means that Israel automatically has the upper hand here. The only caveat is that Israel, for some absurd reason, refuses to admit to having nukes despite everyone already knowing that they do.

[olemars]

Turkey's got 90 nukes at Incirlik actually, as part of NATO forward deployment.

[Virex]

Turkey's got 90 nukes at Incirlik actually, as part of NATO forward deployment.

They would not seize those to use them against Israel. Not that it matters, because it's unlikely that a conflict like this would escalate beyond skirmishes.

[RedKing]

Turkey's got 90 nukes at Incirlik actually, as part of NATO forward deployment.

I highly doubt those are under Turkish operational command, though. And NATO's not going to authorize their use. I highly doubt Israel would use theirs either, but when the level of rhetoric gets ramped up and people starting dying, you just never know how crazy a motherfucker is going to get.

Nah, this would be a conventional conflict, mostly IAF against Turkish Navy and Air Force. I don't see boots on the ground in either direction. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be costly to both.

[mainiac]

Dude, I know. Yet I did not say they wouldn't be "giving it back" (as much as you can call it that when they're just letting people play democracy as long as they play it their way). They would still be taking over, though, either directly or indirectly. As they have done before.

As for your example.. I have no idea who Rhenquist is, I have never heard the name before. Even so, I can't see how you think it would fit.

Chief Justice of the supreme court for the Bush vs. Gore Case.

The point is that the Turkish military does not launch coups because they enjoy ruling the country as you said.  They return the country to civilian rule.  It is not the case that "they'd be doing it to seize power for themselves. A military coup, taking over the country." That is simply wrong when you know turkish history.  If they wanted power, they never would have given it back in the past.

It's turning a former ally into an enemy, it's casting their lot in with the likes of Syria and Iran, it's moving them further away from Europe and closer to the Middle East, and it's getting into a war with a nuclear-armed state.

I'm not arguing this from a neutral 3rd-party observer POV, I'm trying to convey what I think (based on past research on Turkish politics) the military/secularist POV would be. Because frankly, that's the POV that matters.

I'm having a hard time seeing how this alienates Europe.  Europe hasn't exactly been shouting praise for Israel from the rooftops.  The regimes actions up until this point have been basically withing the range of acceptable behaviors and it's not like they are backing Israel into a corner with no way out.  If the regime starts delivering ultimatums, maybe, but there have been no indications of that.

I'm also just having a hard time seeing how a foreign policy coup can take place that isn't being backed by external forces.  This isn't about social policies.  The last time I can think of a country having a domestically sponsored coup purely over foreign policy was back in the 19th century.

Plus there's the thing we haven't been mentioning now which is that Israel has started advocating for Kurdish separatism.  By doing so, they are gunning for not just turkish conservatives but the secularists as well, specifically the military leadership.