Return to Primary Index
Middle East Struggle Index
National/International Index
US environmentalists called "Terrorists"
Even The Nation covers for Israel
Israel holds hostages
Double standard in NPR coverage of Middle East struggle
Jewish art, Palestinian land
US vetoes UN observers in Palestine
Israeli propaganda creates obstacles to peace over Jerusalem
The Question "Why do militant Muslims hate us?" yields more spin than answers
Sound byte news minimizes reports of "collateral damage" including innocent Afgans killed
Ahud Barak visits Portland: compares 9/11 WTC massacre of 6000 to the 200 Jews killed in 34 years by Palestinians
Jews Claim Islam demands Israel's destruction
US targeted Iraq's education system in Gulf War
March 2002: Bush Regime unilaterally targets Iraq
Bush Regime's Lies about Iraq listed
Former CIA expert on Iraq says Iran gassed the Kurds

The Bush regime promises democracy in post-war Iraq, but may sacrifice democracy in Turkey along the way

March 4, 2003

President Bush talks about his love for democracy but, talk is cheap. Does he walk the walk? The current situation in Turkey strongly illustrates the high degree of disrespect for democracy that the Bush regime actually puts into its foreign policies.

Two NY Times stories over the past week, "Turkey Will Seek a Second Decision on a G.I. Presence" (March 3, 2003 and "Turkey's Military Signals Support for Aiding U.S. Troops" (3/5/03 ), both by Dexter Filkins, describe the extreme pressure which the US has focused on the Turkish government to reverse the rejection by their Parliment of the proposal to allow US forces into Turkey as a staging ground to mount a "northern front" assault on Iraq.

Although the author acknowledges "Turkish public opinion...adamantly opposed the the nation's involvement in another war with Iraq," the story claims that this opposition is mainly out of economic concerns. This spin makes it appear less crass for the US to be offering $32 billion in exchange for the compromise of Turkey's constitution -- which forbids foreign troops except under treaty. "Treaty" means NATO, of which Turkey is a treaty member, must get involved if the access the US seeks is to be constitutional. But NATO recently voted against involvment.

The second article describes the effects of the US pressure on the fragile democratic process in Turkey:

In a rare public statement, Hilmi Ozkok, the chief of the Turkish general staff, appeared to support efforts by the country's political leaders ..."The Turkish armed forces' view is the same as the government's and is reflected in the motion that our government sent to Parliament," General Ozkok said. "The war will be short if a second front is opened from the north."

Today's events set the stage for an extraordinary political struggle, pitting the country's senior political and military leaders against the country's elected Parliament. The measure authorizing American troops had been endorsed by both Mr. Erdogan and the nation's prime minister, Abdullah Gul, and both men had predicted its passage. But nearly 100 members of the ruling party defied their leaders and voted against it."

Many of those who voted against the resolution cited the opinions of Turkey's voters, whom polls show oppose their country's involvement in an Iraqi war by an overwhelming margin.

Today's events suggested that Turkey's leaders, and particularly Mr. Erdogan, were prepared to defy public opinion to approve the American plan.

"It's a good statement," Mr. Gul said of the general's remarks today.

Turkey's leaders have been under intense American pressure since Saturday's vote to ask the Parliament again to allow American troops into the country. On Sunday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell telephoned Mr. Gul to talk about the issue.

The articles do not cite the recent polling data indicating 90-95% of the Turkish public is against the war. Following the parliment's rejection, in an attempt to subvert the will of the people as well as the constitution, the Bush regime is now appealing to the generals. But subverting Turkey's new democracy and pushing it back into the hands of the military directly contradicts the Bush regime's recently stated goal of bringing democracy to the Middle East by overthrowing Saddam Hussain.

The following essay (emphasis added) excerpted from the Boston Globe distills the essence of a most hopeful week for peace - and a very bad time for the Bush regime's plans for war in Iraq:

A war policy in collapse


By James Carroll

WHAT A DIFFERENCE a month makes. On Feb. 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the Bush administration's case against Iraq with a show of authority that moved many officials and pundits out of ambivalence and into acceptance. The war came to seem inevitable, which then prompted millions of people to express their opposition in streets around the globe. Over subsequent weeks, the debate between hawks and doves took on the strident character of ideologues beating each other with fixed positions. The sputtering rage of war opponents and the grandiose abstractions of war advocates both seemed disconnected from the relentless marshaling of troops. War was coming. Further argument was fruitless. The time seemed to have arrived, finally, for a columnist to change the subject.

And then the events of last week. Within a period of a few days, the war policy of the Bush administration suddenly showed signs of incipient collapse. No one of these developments by itself marks the ultimate reversal of fortune for Bush, but taken together, they indicate that the law of ''unintended consequences,'' which famously unravels the best-laid plans of warriors, may apply this time before the war formally begins. Unraveling is underway. Consider what happened as February rolled into March:

Tony Blair forcefully criticized George W. Bush for his obstinacy on global environmental issues, a truly odd piece of timing for such criticism from a key ally yet a clear effort to get some distance from Washington. Why now?

The president's father chose to give a speech affirming the importance both of multinational cooperation and of realism in dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein. To say, as the elder Bush did, that getting rid of Hussein in 1991 was not the most important thing is to raise the question of why it has become the absolute now.

For the first time since the crisis began, Iraq actually began to disarm, destroying Al Samoud 2 missiles and apparently preparing to bring weapons inspectors into the secret world of anthrax and nerve agents. The Bush administration could have claimed this as a victory on which to mount further pressure toward disarmament.

Instead, the confirmed destruction of Iraqi arms prompted Washington to couple its call for disarmament with the old, diplomatically discredited demand for regime change. Even an Iraq purged of weapons of mass destruction would not be enough to avoid war. Predictably, Iraq then asked, in effect, why Hussein should take steps to disarm if his government is doomed in any case? Bush's inconsistency on this point -- disarmament or regime change? -- undermined the early case for war. That it reappears now, obliterating Powell's argument of a month ago, is fatal to the moral integrity of the prowar position.

The Russian foreign minister declared his nation's readiness to use its veto in the Security Council to thwart American hopes for a UN ratification of an invasion.

Despite Washington's offer of many billions in aid, the Turkish Parliament refused to approve US requests to mount offensive operations from bases in Turkey -- the single largest blow against US war plans yet. This failure of Bush diplomacy, eliminating a second front, might be paid for in American lives.

The capture in Pakistan of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior Al Qaeda operative, should have been only good news to the Bush administration, but it highlighted the difference between the pursuit of Sept. 11 culprits and the unrelated war against Iraq. Osama bin Laden, yes. Saddam Hussein, no.

Administration officials, contradicting military projections and then refusing in testimony before Congress to estimate costs and postwar troop levels, put on display either the administration's inadequate preparation or its determination, through secrecy, to thwart democratic procedures -- choose one.

In other developments, all highlighting Washington's panicky ineptness, the Philippines rejected the help of arriving US combat forces, North Korea apparently prepared to start up plutonium production, and Rumsfeld ordered the actual deployment of missile defense units in California and Alaska, making the absurd (and as of now illegal) claim that further tests are unnecessary.

All of this points to an administration whose policies are confused and whose implementations are incompetent. The efficiency with which the US military is moving into position for attack is impressive; thousands of uniformed Americans are preparing to carry out the orders of their civilian superiors with diligence and courage. But the hollowness of that civilian leadership, laid bare in the disarray of last week's news, is breathtaking.

That the United States of America should be on the brink of such an ill-conceived, unnecessary war is itself a crime. The hope now is that -- even before the war has officially begun -- its true character is already manifesting itself, which could be enough, at last, to stop it.


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.