The End of Turkish Delight?

Whither our firmest NATO allies, historically?

Can the United States still count on Turkey? According to a July 2005 poll, some 50 percent of respondents in Turkey expressed an “absolute negative view of the United States.” A Pew Research poll taken around the same time revealed that less than 25 percent of Turks have a favorable opinion of the United States.

Such viewpoints are increasingly commonplace, with anti-Americanism running rampant among many in the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP). The recent Turkish film, Valley of the Wolves, depicts U.S. soldiers as bloodthirsty killers and indulges in a medieval anti-Semitic blood libel. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an saw a prescreening and then sent his wife and Bulent Arinc, the speaker of the Turkish parliament, to its grand opening. Arinc called the film “absolutely magnificent” and “completely true to life.”

The fact that members of the ruling party have engaged in anti-American rhetoric and shown sympathy toward Iraqi insurgents belies the notion, expressed by Assistant Secretary State Daniel Fried, that Turkey remains “a natural partner in the world, particularly in the broader Middle East.” Natural partners do not give moral support to Iraqi terrorists. Nor do they receive Palestinian terrorists with open arms. And, given the Islamist leanings of its deputies in parliament, the AKP is clearly not akin to a Christian Democratic party, as Fried has too often maintained.

Turkey’s warming relations with Iran, the Russian Federation, and Syria should be a source of concern. Ankara and Moscow have worked together to quash Operation Active Endeavor, a multinational task force designed to combat terrorism and smuggling in the Mediterranean Sea. Erdo?an’s outreach to Baathist Syria has undercut the democracy movement in Lebanon and emboldened Syrian president Hafez al-Assad to believe that he can support terrorism without facing negative consequences.

I think Mr. Lewis is missing something in his analysis.

Kemal Ataturk founded the modern Turkish state early in the 20th century in a bold move away from Islamic law and toward secular government. He did this in large part by using the Turkish military to good effect, and the tradition soon arose that the Turkish generals were the heirs to Ataturk and protectors of the secular state. Whenever the Turkish people, who to varying degrees have always been more Islamic than their military officers, elected a government prone to rolling back Ataturk's vision, the Army would eventually intervene and depose them.

So why haven't they done so in the past decade or so?

Two reasons. First, the power players in Turkey are agreed on the need to enter the European Union. The French and Germans, the arbiters of who gets in and who doesn't, would severely frown on a coup d'etat. Second, the Turkish military is in high dudgeon over the autonomy the coalition has granted Iraqi Kurds, a number of whom have led terrorist actions within southeastern Turkey, considered by Kurds to be part of their homeland. These actions have largely targeted Turkish military personnel. The Turks therefore view Kurdish independence as a threat, with good reason.

A stable, reasonably autonomous, and peaceful northern Iraq would go a long way toward easing tensions with the Turkish military. Moreover, once the Turks realize that the French and Germans are dangling a carrot that they will never let Muslims bite into, the Islamic party ruling Turkey today will lose an enormous amount of credibility.

The Turks still have strong military ties with the United States and are heavily reliant upon us for equipment and doctrine. It is not easy to break such ties overnight, and the Turkish military simply will not willingly move to inferior weapons and tactics. Ultimately, the Turkish generals will opt to stand with us.

But you can bet they'll make us sweat for the privilege.