I have so many problems with Charles Kupchan’s article at Foreign Policy on the U. S., Turkey, and Syria I hardly know where to begin:
Washington and Ankara need to step back from the brink before it is too late. The United States and Turkey still need each other to help stabilize a Middle East that is in turmoil. And with Turkish democracy already imperiled by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s autocratic turn, a breakup with the United States would likely prompt him to further tighten his grip and potentially end Turkey’s geopolitical alignment with the West — dealing both Turkey and the Atlantic community a decisive blow.
First, Turkey jumped off “the brink” 15 years ago. Is there any “Turkish democracy” any longer about which to be concerned? What’s Mr. Kupchan’s operative definition of democracy?
I don’t believe that the United States can have a close relationship with any Islamist country and, indeed, it’s hard for the U. S. even to have a productive relationship with today’s Turkey. Why is a NATO that includes an aggressive, irredentist, Islamist Turkey and a half dozen major European countries that refuse to pay for their own defense worth remaining a part of?
Elections still matter in Turkey, and it is every bit as much a democracy as any country in Europe, save perhaps Switzerland. The EU is notorious for its anti-democratic policies and its suppression of free speech. (So is the Anglosphere, except for us) Erdogan is an autocrat, but he has the support of a large majority of the Turkish people, and he is pushing Turkey in the direction they want to go, which is a more nearly Islamic state. This is the democratic end point desired by large majorities throughout the Muslim world. No diversity nonsense and no secularist nonsense for them.
The situation in Russia is similar, although large majorities are happy with the secular state and do not want to live in a Russian Orthodox state.
Why is a NATO ….. worth remaining a part of?
Because we got into two major wars in Europe and elsewhere after sitting on our hands “like gentlemen” during the 20th Century. And because generations of American parents have insisted to their children that we have obligations to people who are not fortunate enough to be American.
We’re finally getting rid of that last part. Feel much better?
We had no business getting into World War I; the Japanese gave us no choice about World War II and Japan’s treaty with Germany ensured we’d get into the war in Europe, too.
That doesn’t explain why every European war is our business or involving ourselves in it in our interest. It also doesn’t explain why we’ve tolerated German reunification.
@mike shupp
[…] And because generations of American parents have insisted to their children that we have obligations to people who are not fortunate enough to be American.
You are going to need to do more than declare that the Europeans are not fortunate enough to be American, and I suspect that they view it as a feature not a bug.
We’re finally getting rid of that last part. Feel much better?
Yes!
It is long past time that these hapless (white and prosperous) Europeans to leave the nest. I guess that the Europeans are the new ‘White Man’s Burden’.
Dave Schuler —
Maybe the world would look just the same or even better if Germany and Austria had prevailed in WWI. maybe not. I don’t think a century later we ought to be sure that the outcome of that war would have been negligible if the USA had stayed out. I don’t think the US President of the time and other Americans should have been so confident that they held to neutrality until the war was totally finally over.
If you want to argue that absolute perfect justice or libertarian social ethics demanded that the USA stay out for some reason, or that the tactics Woodrow Wilson employed to get the US into the conflict were immoral … that’s another issue, and you can raise it, but I think you ought to make it clear you are arguing for neutrality on ethical grounds, rather than utilitarian.
TastyBits —
Part of history, I suppose, but many middle-class Americans as they grew up used to be instructed by their parents and teachers and clergymen that we should be generous to the world’s less fortunate and share with them. And send missionaries, of course.
In a way, that’s a valuable corrective to the isolation brought about by America’s size, the oceans separating us from much of the world. and our somewhat limited cultural diversity. We’re not so cosmopolitan, IOW, but we’ve tried to keep good hearts.
You missed out on all that, huh? Okay.
There’s an alternative other than the Axis winning World War I. Austro-Hungary might not have been forced into a damaging surrender but some less injurious settlement might have been arrived at and there might not have been a Third Reich.
“Being generous” meant dropping a few coins into the “feed the world” box on the teacher’s desk. Sending missionaries meant converting the heathens.
Both are nice gestures, but when the US government shows up to help, killing the locals is usually the result – except Europeans and especially the French and British types.
The US is more diverse than anywhere else in the world, and while the ‘track record’ is not great, the US is not as bad as much of the world when discrimination occurs. There have been no ovens, no ‘Rape of Nanking’, no ghettos or progroms, and no intentional starvation.
(I am fully aware of the US’s actions against minorities, but nobody gets upset over the Gauls and Picts being tossed-off their land.)
Other than the ‘White Man’s Burden, Cosmopolitan knowledge is limited to a few select people, places, and cultures. In the salons of London and Paris, there is little discussion of the plight of the world’s poor non-white people and places.
Actually, the French tend to kill the natives and steal their resources. The British are better, but not by much.
The oceans are one of the reason that the US is willing to accept foreigners and diversity. Immigrants are expected to assimilate, but assimilation works both ways. Some of their native culture is appropriated to enhance their new culture.
Yes, I kinda missed out on all that. Going to foreign lands to kill foreigners does not seem like a nobel goal, but what do I know?
@Dave Schuler
… the Axis winning World War I. […]
There are a lot of ‘evil’ winners, and the world has survived. We have no idea of what any other outcome would be like.
Involvement in WW1 was totally a voluntary, and prior to Pearl Harbor, the US was ‘putting the squeeze’ on the Japanese Empire.
(The actions to ‘squeeze’ the Japanese Empire were not much different than today’s actions to ‘squeeze’ the Russians. You pro-squeeze people might want to consider that.)
“Squeezing” great powers is a risky affair. IMO you don’t “squeeze” Russia or China.
Our occupation of eastern and northeastern Syria means that the Syrian government will be unable to reestablish control over its territory, preparing the ground for Turkey to fill the void there. They are doing so with their taking of Afrin which they and the militias supporting them are sacking even as I write. I believe our policy of regime change in Syria is well intentioned but in practice the only alternative to Assad are radical Islamists, e.g. Al Qaeda or DAESH, or Erdogan’s irredentist and increasingly radical Islamist Turkey. My view is that however awful they may be we should always prefer secularists over religious radicals.
But, the ‘squeeze’ crowd knows better than me or you.