Irrationality
A copy of a letter undersigned by the chief of General Staff addressed to select civilians, inviting them to join a clandestine patriotic organization to battle the “enemy” alongside the armed forces (Taraf, June 2, 2008), has occupied the front pages of newspapers lately. The qualities of the people selected for such a national crusade are defined as “strong in national sentiments, knowledgeable and courageous.” The reasons for selection are “closely watched exceptional qualities and abilities and admirable positive behavior and national vigor.” What this exceptional nationalist would do is laid out in the chief commander’s short letter of invitation: “In the event of enemy aggression against the integrity of our homeland and the existence of our nation, a series of top-secret preparations have been carried out during peacetime to be put into effect in the form of secretive struggle methods that will run parallel to that of the armed forces.”
The letter ends with a brief explanation stating that “the officer that I have sent [to contact] you will give you the necessary information” and the general’s confidence that the invited/contacted person will “join these activities” because “every Turk would gladly pitch in to protect our national existence.”
This draft letter appeared in the press as a supplement to news on the reorganization and activities of the Department of Irregular Warfare, affiliated with the Council of Mobilization Affairs of the General Staff. It seems that the definition (of the “enemy”), functions and structure of this secretive organization have been expanded from what it is today. The definition of the “enemy” has been altered to fit the following misdeeds expected of it: “occupation [of the country] by physical, economic, political and psychological means.” However, none of these forms of “aggression” are defined in any specific ways, leaving the interpretation of what aggression is and the nature of the “enemy” to the group/authority who defines it and is intent on fighting against it. In this case the enemy may very well be legitimate civilian individuals and institutions and long time foreign allies of Turkey. Furthermore, the already existing 12 regional directorates of this “defense force” is planned to be increased to 24 by 2010. This alone shows under how much danger we are!
What is not thought of is the democratic monitoring of how this secretive organization, the raison d’être of which is to wage war on the home front, defines the “enemy” and the methods it chooses to exterminate it. It is pretty obvious that the government, political parties and public opinion are just beginning to learn about the mentality and the planned activities of the Department of Irregular Warfare. What if some of these political parties and the government itself are part of the “usual suspects,” according to new definitions?
The functions of the department are only part of the problem if it is based on a military authority that accepts no control over its decisions and deeds. The definitions are equally problematic. What “physical occupation” means is pretty clear. What about “economic occupation”? Is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has provided economic stability to Turkey’s economy when it was in disorder, an instrument of foreign/enemy occupation? What about the foreign concern that has bought off Oyak Bank, a bank that used to be funded by the savings of military personnel? Is the European Union exclusive economic zone an enemy economic enterprise? If so (according to the rhetoric used by some of the members of the bureaucracy), how shall we fight “irregularly” with such enemies? Will this struggle be expanded to legitimate domestic authorities that collaborate with the designated foreign enemy? If so, how shall we provide a legitimate civilian authority and a democratic regime based on popular will?
Let us skip “political occupation” that may be alluding to the dangers of socialism, liberalism, social democracy or the very essence of democracy for being too tolerant to diversity and defiant of the tutelage of the bureaucracy or the state over the society. Let us dwell on “psychological occupation.” This is a scary example of both paranoia of anything that is different than what is endorsed by the security apparatus as “favorable” and the totalistic wish to control all vestiges of social life. It is not clear whether it is religion that is referred to in terms of psychological encroachment on secular life or not, but what is intended looks like the preference of secular totalitarianism over religious totalitarianism that only a few people would condone and yearn for in Turkey.
What exists in the name of religion that is becoming more visible in social life will be the subject matter of another article.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=144180
...sounds to me how to hang on to power manual though, via fascism brainwashing...
What a country?...what a nation...3rd world mentality to the max or what?...
