Wolfowitz And The Us’ ‘ Democratic ’ Side

Wolfowitz also laid down the ‘red lines’ that will characterize future Turkish-US relations. To wit: Northern Iraq isn’t Turkey’s backyard, Ankara shouldn’t question US plans and it shouldn’t be overly concerned about the Kurds. Moreover, Turkey is now supposed to follow the US’ lead in its relations with Syria and Iran.

Wolfowitz’s statements, which showed a marked lack of respect for Turkey’s democratic will and process, are another unfortunate reflection of the US’ double standards: “[The military] didn’t play the strong leadership role … that we had expected… They could have said firmly that it was in Turkey’s interests to support the United States.’ This is the true face of American democracy.

If Parliament had passed the proposal, there would have been no problem. Was the US yeaning for a ‘military rule’ to ignore our Parliament’s ‘democratic will’ so as to end the Iraqi dictatorship? Such an approach suggests the spectre of the US Pentagon favoring Turkey’s history of periodic military coups.

So why weren’t our Western allies who complain about the military’s influence on politics satisfied with Parliament’s decision? For Wolfowitz, Turkey should have taken part in the ‘bombing’ — oops, I mean, ‘salvation’ of Iraq in the name of ‘Muslim solidarity.’

My final thoughts are for my journalistic colleagues … The interview with Wolfowitz was very wide-ranging, but there are several good questions that went unasked: Where are these ‘weapons of mass destruction’ which the US claimed necessitated war? Where is Saddam? Finally, why should Turkey apologize for its ‘mistake’? Because it refused to take part in a war for oil?