Mideast maven Daniel Pipes explains superbly how Turkey jettisoned the secular state for an Islamist one, but also why opportunity knocks for the West, as what he calls "Islamism 2.0" inevitably turns towards thuggishness and undermines its leaders' efforts to masquerade as moderates:
If Ankara’s irresponsible behavior has worrisome implications for the Middle East and Islam, it also has a mitigating aspect. Turks have been at the forefront of developing what I call Islamism 2.0, the popular, legitimate, and non-violent version of what Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden tried to achieve forcefully via Islamism 1.0. I have predicted that Erdogan’s insidious form of Islamism “may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0’s brutality.”
But his abandonment of earlier modesty and caution suggests that Islamists cannot help themselves, that the thuggishness inherent to Islamism must eventually emerge, that the 2.0 variant must revert to its 1.0 origins. As Martin Kramer posits, “the further Islamists are from power, the more restrained they are, as well as the reverse.” This means it might be the case that Islamism presents a less formidable opponent, for two reasons.
First, Turkey hosts the most sophisticated Islamist movement in the world, one that includes not just the AKP but the Fethullah Gulen mass movement, the Adnan Oktar propaganda machine, and more. AKP’s new bellicosity has caused dissension; Gulen, for example, publicly condemned the “Free Gaza” farce, which suggests that a debilitating internal battle over tactics could take place.
Second, if once only a small band of analysts recognized Erdogan’s Islamist outlook, this fact has now become obvious for the whole world to see. Erdogan has gratuitously discarded his carefully crafted image of a pro-Western “Muslim democrat,” making it far easier to treat him as the Tehran-Damascus ally that he is.
As Davutoglu wished, Turkey has returned to the center of the Middle East and the umma. But it no longer deserves full NATO membership and its opposition parties deserve support.
Now read this astonishing letter from a top American lawyer to the rulers of Islamist Turkey, warning of the lethal consequences of becoming a player in the war against Israel & America in the region. (Added 9:15 AM, 6/9)
In the Weekly Standard politics maven Matthew Continetti sees Turkey's behavior & Israel's isolation as a direct product of President Obama's policies. With a Bush 43 or McCain backing Israel 100 percent, the world would not be aggressively moving against Israel after an obvious setup. Even Hollywood's Jewish celebs are sitting on the sidelines as Israel is bashed because, writes Michelle Oddis in Human Events, they are leftists first and foremost.
SO: WHITHER US POLICY?
(1) Kick Turkey out of NATO, as it no longer acts as a true ally of ours; (2) consider supporting Kurdish separatism in Turkey, especially if the new Iraqi government double-crosses us after all the blood & treasure we expended to win them their freedom and decides not to act as an ally--the Kurds, if they split, would be (after Israel) our new best friends in the region; (3) sponsor one last resolution condemning the Armenian genocides of 1894 - 1915, to get the issue off the table once & for all, now that Turkey is spurning us & acting like it wants to restore the Ottoman Turkey that brutalized the Armenians (as did the Young Turks who seized power in 1908).
Bottom Line. America should respond to Turkey's hardball by playing hardball. Alas, Team Obama is least likely of all to play anything but softball with Turkey. So look for more & more strategic opportunities to be squandered, as American prestige sinks lower & lower.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, 9/11, National Security, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, UN, Conservative Politics
Comments