The Military’s Statement

– Last-ditch changes to military appointments at last year’s Supreme Military Council (YAS) meeting, changes which were made under heavy political pressure.

– Rifts within the military.

– The secret agenda of the recent MGK meeting, whose discussions were leaked to the media.

The General Staff characterized these news stories as efforts to damage the members and discipline of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), and so conveyed this message: ‘The military is both solid and unified. We are currently investigating these news reports and are determined to safeguard and protect our country’s republican regime.’

Very good!

This press release clearly reveals that the military is trying to preserve its two most crucial claimed grounds for legitimacy. One is public opinion, and the other and perhaps more important is the TSK’s own internal structure. In other words, the military’s reaction was meant for these two.

But why does our military need such a statement? And, why, in this country, are we so often faced with such news stories? Why don’t the French, British, US, Greek or Belgian general staffs issue such statements? And why are the public, media and politicians of these countries barely interested in military appointments, promotions and internal affairs?

Let me put this forth first: the subjection of the military authority to political power in these countries through the mechanism of defense ministries is a sine qua non for their democracies, no matter what their particular historical, political or strategic conditions. In these countries, the General Staff cannot issue such statements as if it were an independent institution. Bodies similar to our MGK only function as technical coordination boards in these countries, nothing more. Their job is not putting the military and civilian authorities at loggerheads, as if they were two distinct clashing parties. In short, in these countries the military is not involved in politics, and is not even allowed to be.

And when it comes to the issue of efforts to damage… Politics isn’t an activity for the thin-skinned. As long as the military is involved in politics, it cannot expect itself to be exempt from criticism. As a matter of fact, no one in this country criticizes the military function of the TSK, but rather its role in civilian politics.

The bulk of the problem lies in the military’s understanding of politics. Its argument goes like this: ‘Politics is limited for political parties. Political issues such as foreign policy, the Kurdish issue or education aren’t related to the political sphere but rather to the state itself. And it is our task to keep watch over these issues in line with our own concerns regarding national security in line our national establishment’s rules.’ But this rationale cannot change the fact that the military is involved in civilian politics.