Turkey: Military and Government

I think there are important lessons to be learned from the interplay between the government of Turkey and its military.  I believe this interplay is both unique in the history of the World and phenomenal, lasting over many centuries.  I will provide only my impressions of this interplay, impressions I have gained from just about 20 years of being apprised of it; and I do not attribute these impressions to anyone else (even if he shares them), including anyone in Turkey.  However, to enable me to refresh my memory, I have referred as resource to the somewhat recent book  The New Turkey (2005) by Chris Morris. 

The military and the government have been at odds now and again, and the military generals upon occasion have seized the rule of the country for a period of time, before relinquishing control back to the civilians.  I believe that the military through the years has maintained its own governmental structure through what at times has been called The National Security Council.  To my mind, The Council is a "shadow government," with its own guiding principles.  For example, the military is committed to a secular form of government, despite the apparent fact that the civilian government hires mostly Moslems.  Moreover, the military decries corruption and favoritism whenever the ruling government has notoriously engaged in such practices.

Today, the Turkish Parliament is deemed the country's supreme authority, but it may well be that the military, by means of its own "parallel government," stilll exerts tremendous influence on the affairs of state, though not conspicuously so.  Nonetheless, over the years, the generals have spoken out emphatically on matters of education, politics, religious influences upon the country,  and of, course, foreign policy.  Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine that the country would have recently sent a flotilla of ships to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza to bring non-military aid, e.g., medicines and food, to the Palestinians without firm backing from the Turkish military.  I understand Turkey has solicited encouragement and support from other Moslem countries and is planning an even larger flotilla by year's end.

Historically, the Turkish people have rallied around the military, even when it took over rule of the land.  I look upon the intervening actions of the military as a check upon the civilian regime.  The military is a-political, at least in appearance in the eyes of the Turks. (I might be naive about this, but certainly, its power does not stem from the political realm.)  The Turks admire the military's dedication to honor and duty:  "As a nation, we love our soldiers!" admit scores of Turkish citizens.  It tries to keep the country unified through military action against those who would split it asunder, e.g., the Kurdish movement toward independence within its borders and in northern Iraq.

I think the Turks are committed to making their nation great and influential in the region.  Turkey has attempted to join the EU and would be the largest nation in that organization.  It has a large military, obviously, with many planes (supplied over the years by the US) and its soldiers are known the world-over for their organizational prowess.  But the meta-political issue that has led to the interplay of government and military I find most interesting: namely, how to control the excesses and evils inherent in a political structure due to the power and prestige any government amasses by virtue of control over the citizenry.

Consider concrete instances in the United States politics.  After 9/11, whatever the government deemed necessary to strike at the individuals and organizations deemed its perpetrators were granted by a complicit Congress.  As Commander-in-Chief of the military the US President affects military plans and dictates military strategy.  The US military is under the political arm of the US President, who commands the generals; and the President,  with consent of Congress, appoints military leaders including the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs.  In this way, the military succumbs to political pressures.  Indeed, recently on the some TV talk shows it has been stated that General Petraeus has become aligned with the policies enunciated by the "Neo-Cons," the Right Wing Conservatives of the Republican Party, and thus might deal harshly with the Taliban, possibly refusing to seek negotiations as part of a political win strategy in Afghanistan.  The point is, the US, in placing the military under political control, makes it a dependent entity, subject to political pressures, while Turkey has sought to maintain an independent role for its military in affairs of state.  So, while in Turkey the military can legitimately act as a check upon the civilian government, in the US, the military can occupy no such contravening posture.

Be it acknowledged, that in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, headed by the Pope in Rome, attempted to be an "honest broker" among the nations of the Christian World.  In the Old Testament times, the Jews, standing for the ethics and precepts of the 10 Commandments, offered their religious stance as that of an "honest broker."  To some extent, the nations of the contemporary world think of the United Nations in this capacity, too.  However, none of these entities can talk "tough" to governments, since they have no military might nor policing power to back up any of their edicts and charges.  In this regard, the Turkish interplay of government and military is unique.  The military does indeed serve as the conscience of Turkey's  political realm; and the Turks support them in this mission. It need not be beholden to the country's civilian governmental entities.

In that currently Moslem countries are peculiarly being singled out for hostile actions and strong criticism against them, I think the presence of a strong and influential Turkey military in the area is essential for the maintenance of peace.