Turkey army group announces takeover on TV

[Padmé]

Per BBC.
Link

According to the report, "President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he would overcome what he called an uprising by a minority." The same articles metnions a European Union source stating that the military action "looks like a relatively well-orchestrated coup by a substantial body of the military, not just a few colonels".

God help the people of Turkey.

 

[Deviant]

It's scarcely been 24 hours and there are 84 people are dead in France and now an entire nation in complete disarray.
God help us all.

I can only hope this doesn't escalate even further (if that is even possible).

 

[Korvo]

It almost feels like there's a cascading domino effect hitting the world, and it's getting worse as time goes on. Or maybe there really is, I'm not particularly attuned to the state of the world, but this feels like a scary time to be alive, no matter where you are

 

[Officiant]

I mean I say good riddance to bad trash, Erdogan has tried to undermine the very democratic and secular nature of Turkey that the stupid, unknowledgeable talking heads on CNN and MSNBC are fawning over. He is an authoritarian Islamist with a chip on his shoulder who has tried to undermine the vision of one of the greatest men in the history of the middle east and the founder of a modern, secular Turkish state Kemal Ataturk.

Yes coups are bloody businesses and the military intervening like this hampers democracy but Erdogan did everything he could to undermine democracy and the values of the state so I really won't weep over his potential fall from power. The military will not remain in power for long and unlike Thailand they will institute a liberal constitution hopefully better than the last one.

 

[BLADE]

Yes coups are bloody businesses and the military intervening like this hampers democracy but Erdogan did everything he could to undermine democracy and the values of the state so I really won't weep over his potential fall from power. The military will not remain in power for long and unlike Thailand they will institute a liberal constitution hopefully better than the last one.

Based on what?

Erdogan is a theocratic vulgarian with a mean streak beefy enough to cut up into chunks for kabobs. But the Turkish Army --a funky fungal congerie of the perpetually benighted, the mediocre, deaf-idiot followers, and moral philistines-- has historically never defended "democracy" or "secularism" so much as the versions of it which tend to align with its own institutional and material interests.

I would gently remind you that the fact that coups are a "bloody business" (said red visceral matter usually extracted from those least at fault) is reason enough to at the very least be wary of them --never mind the rest I mentioned. These are... hm... interesting times and their call is strange and deep, but I would suggest some of your writing borders on a triumphalism at odds with the grim reality of the moment, or a certain geopolitics by way of méchanceté.

There are better ways and based on your time on the CA board, none so beyond your capabilities.

 

[Officiant]

Based on what?

Erdogan is a theocratic vulgarian with a mean streak beefy enough to cut up into chunks for kabobs. But the Turkish Army --a funky fungal congerie of the perpetually benighted, the mediocre, deaf-idiot followers, and moral philistines-- has historically never defended "democracy" or "secularism" so much as the versions of it which tend to align with its own institutional and material interests.

I would gently remind you that the fact that coups are a "bloody business" (said red visceral matter usually extracted from those least at fault) is reason enough to at the very least be wary of them --never mind the rest I mentioned. These are... hm... interesting times and their call is strange and deep, but I would suggest some of your writing borders on a triumphalism at odds with the grim reality of the moment, or a certain geopolitics by way of méchanceté.

There are better ways and based on your time on the CA board, none so beyond your capabilities.

The complex alignment of military forces to various political ideologies in many countries and the way those affinities develop is something one could write volumes on. I will keep mine contained to the present, pertinent situation in Turkey.

With regards to the characterization and aspersion of the military I find it betrays some ignorance to the functions, historical and modern, of the military in Turkey and many, many other countries especially developing democracies. Military officers and generals have been among the most educated members of many developing countries for many years, that, combined with a comparatively good public education in Turkey (especially before the past decade or so) makes it hard to characterize this as a modern day janissary revolt of rapacious, youthful military officers. The comparisons to waning military power are apt, but the other associations with the term would indicate a desire to disparage and belittle the coup plotters, not draw a genuine historical comparison for reference and contrast.

You make a good point that military leaders are often drunk on their own power and in places like Pakistan and Thailand, love to lord their power over sitting governments. "Do well or we'll step in". 'Well', of course being a relative term that is quite easily manipulated to service the needs of the military. Many coups, of course, do rise on the back of popular sentiment, which is sometimes used by the military to obfuscate their own agendas. The fall of the French Fourth Republic, the Chilean coup d'état, and many others were carried out in the name of the people though they of course had other ideas on their minds. Sometimes militaries even fan the flames of dissent or unrest to rise to power, which the military of Turkey did successfully in the 1980 coup by allowing things to spiral even further out of control in order to create a tipping point in their favor. Was that morally wrong? Yes, but at running the risk of making excuses and with the benefit of hindsight, the 1980 coup did eventually stabilize the state and democracy did return in short order, as was promised.

This is a rare occurrence in other parts of the world but not so in Turkey where the military, through their own designs, wishes and furtherance, is the "protector of democracy and secularism", given the mandate by the father of the Turkish state and the leader of Turkish ethnogenesis and westernization, Kemal Ataturk. Throughout Turkish history they have stopped Turkey from taking a short trip back to the 7th century that is often the end-goal of many Islamists. Last time in 1997 they deposed a man who set up Turkish freikorps and the generals demanded that the government make 8 years of public, secular education open to all.

Now should the military be the arbiter and standard barer of Ataturk's ideals? Absolutely not, but with a man who has repeatedly weakened the other, civilian organs of society not least of which the Constitutional Court and the rest of the judiciary that now acts as his yesmen, perhaps having the military act as a safeguard, codified or not, against figures that would seek to damage democracy more than the military's intervention would, isn't such a bad idea. Now of course this means going against democracy to save it (insofar as people did actually vote for Erdogan and his policies, though not a majority mind you) which will forever be the epitome of roads to hell and good intentions and Turkey itself need look no further than the 1980 coup which stopped political violence, stabilized the state but not without the incarceration of half a million people and the killings of some individuals deemed "dangerous to the stability of the state".

Such periods are often marked by intense debate in the annals of history. My own mother would line up to spit on Allende's grave and then get in line to desecrate Pinochet's tombstone, reflecting her own mixed feelings about the 73 coup. Like most governments, military ones are controversial to some degree or another, engendering mixed and complex feelings in those who lived through them or their aftereffects. However I would put it that sometimes military interventions have prevented some countries from being led on a long journey off a short cliff.

 

[Nor'baal]

The Turkish Army do this a lot, and honestly I am not surprised. Of course, it is tragic that civilians have been caught up in the crossfire here, however after the 'Edrogan Camp' was ordered to take to the streets, it is again, not that much of a shock. The Turkish Army often intervene in matters of State, in 1997, 1993, 1980, 1971 and 1960 they step in. Indeed the Constitution of the Country actually legally permits for the armed forces to 'step in' when the Government, for example in 1960 the army took over, releasing this statement:

“[the President] pushed our country into anarchy, fratricide and social and economic unrest [and thus] the Turkish armed forces, fulfilling their legal duty to protect the republic, will take power.” ​

Yes, it is sad Civilians died, but not surprising at all, as they took up arms against the attempted Coup. By Turkish Standards, this Coup is not going entirely to plan, and it seems to have been carried out by a very small faction of the Army, however, only time will tell.

 

[Clayton]

Yeah, looks like the coup solidly failed. Didn't have support of the other branches, didn't have senior officer support, and failed to contain Edrogan. So it doesn't really seem like your "classical" Turkish coup.

 

[Officiant]

Yeah, looks like the coup solidly failed. Didn't have support of the other branches, didn't have senior officer support, and failed to contain Edrogan. So it doesn't really seem like your "classical" Turkish coup.

Colonel's Coup, almost never succeeds, which some are saying is proof of a false-flag operation but I doubt it. However it remains to be seen how much of the senior officers are now stooges for Erdogan. The big conference of Turkish military leaders is coming up and if Erdogan launches a Stalin-like purge of the Army and possibly the so called "Deep State" which he has campaigned against, then they might turn on him and hit back hard, if nothing else for self-preservation.

 

[BLADE]

The complex alignment of military forces to various political ideologies in many countries and the way those affinities develop is something one could write volumes on. I will keep mine contained to the present, pertinent situation in Turkey.

Hm.

With regards to the characterization and aspersion of the military I find it betrays some ignorance to the functions, historical and modern, of the military in Turkey and many, many other countries especially developing democracies.

None at all. National armies tend to represent certain factions of the right-wing bourgeoisie. They tend to straddle some forms of nationalism (though their anti-communism usually makes them useful stooges of the United States, etc.) and very consistently enrich themselves or get economic control of the so-called commanding heights of a national economy. Call it social democracy (for some) by way of epaulette cartelism.

Military officers and generals have been among the most educated members of many developing countries for many years,

And? What does one's ability to sit through a collegiate course on Hegel's Jena Period mean for one's right to engage in bloody coups?

You make a good point that military leaders are often drunk on their own power and in places like Pakistan and Thailand, love to lord their power over sitting governments. "Do well or we'll step in". 'Well', of course being a relative term that is quite easily manipulated to service the needs of the military. Many coups, of course, do rise on the back of popular sentiment, which is sometimes used by the military to obfuscate their own agendas. The fall of the French Fourth Republic, the Chilean coup d'état, and many others were carried out in the name of the people though they of course had other ideas on their minds. Sometimes militaries even fan the flames of dissent or unrest to rise to power, which the military of Turkey did successfully in the 1980 coup by allowing things to spiral even further out of control in order to create a tipping point in their favor. Was that morally wrong? Yes, but at running the risk of making excuses and with the benefit of hindsight, the 1980 coup did eventually stabilize the state and democracy did return in short order, as was promised.

So stabilized that the state finds itself in civil war, deep crisis, massive inequality and a shearing of national forces on sectarian-religious lines less than three decades afterwards.

This is of course, assuming we accept your "utilitarianism" here, as though the military could and did calculate the benefits of cultivating (not merely passively allowing; see the links between it and paramilitaries like the Grey Wolves) of Turkey's own version of The Troubles.

This is a rare occurrence in other parts of the world but not so in Turkey where the military, through their own designs, wishes and furtherance, is the "protector of democracy and secularism",
given the mandate by the father of the Turkish state and the leader of Turkish ethnogenesis and westernization, Kemal Ataturk.

One should note that even the CHP's electoral programme has deviated considerably from ur-Kemalism. Which of course was never a particularly democratic phenomenon. Whatever the army's historical mandate it has been severely tested if not exhausted by events and material conditions.

Throughout Turkish history they have stopped Turkey from taking a short trip back to the 7th century that is often the end-goal of many Islamists.

Erdogan is a neoliberal. He's got a bug up his nose about all sorts of silly things, is a bloody authoritarian and generally no better than the army on most issues (and of course he's provided covert support to takfiri groups --though this makes him little different than the average CIA station chief) but this kind of Manichean hysteria about Turkish Islamism (a very different animal than its Gulf counterparts) says more about your particular prejudices than anything else.

Last time in 1997 they deposed a man who set up Turkish freikorps and the generals demanded that the government make 8 years of public, secular education open to all.

They also gave away free tickets to Titanic.

They're grey and rather shabby men in uniforms mang, not Ariana Grande.

Now should the military be the arbiter and standard barer of Ataturk's ideals?

No.

Absolutely not, but with a man who has repeatedly weakened the other, civilian organs of society not least of which the Constitutional Court and the rest of the judiciary that now acts as his yesmen, perhaps having the military act as a safeguard, codified or not, against figures that would seek to damage democracy more than the military's intervention would, isn't such a bad idea.

I would not trust an undemocratic hierarchical institution with a naturally authoritarian bent and no real accountability to restore democracy.

Now of course this means going against democracy to save it (insofar as people did actually vote for Erdogan and his policies, though not a majority mind you) which will forever be the epitome of roads to hell and good intentions and Turkey itself need look no further than the 1980 coup which stopped political violence, stabilized the state but not without the incarceration of half a million people and the killings of some individuals deemed "dangerous to the stability of the state".

Is it even whitewashing when the period in question is bloody enough to dye an entire class of people nel sangue?

Such periods are often marked by intense debate in the annals of history. My own mother would line up to spit on Allende's grave and then get in line to desecrate Pinochet's tombstone, reflecting her own mixed feelings about the 73 coup. Like most governments, military ones are controversial to some degree or another, engendering mixed and complex feelings in those who lived through them or their aftereffects. However I would put it that sometimes military interventions have prevented some countries from being led on a long journey off a short cliff.

You mean the same Allende that insisted on form of parliamentary road to socialism (pace Milliband), that insisted on disarmed his followers and essentially hanged himself with his own peaceful intentions? Even right-wing Historia type academics accept that Allende had folded in the face of murderous right-wing opposition (though there is a baroque insistence that he merely wot biding his time or was a secret KGB plant.)

I do not understand why you would draw an equivalence between a regime that butchered thousands, purposely decreased living standards, and actively terrorized a country for decades to a deluded if fundamentally well-meaning left Social Democrat (whatever else he claimed to be).

These thematics represent a blind-alley of historical development. State terror and violence represent as much strength as they do the socio-political exhaustion of a given class. It is clear that these generals and soldiers whatever their previous commitment to a constitution (written by them of course, and in no way some kind of magic paper) can offer nothing but repression and force in response to a crisis that is at least partly of their own making. Neither can one defend the squalid and sectarian regime of Erdogan.

I suspect that whatever else may come of these interesting times (for they affect not only Turkey but all of the planet now) the solution will not be found by either soi-dissant Ottomans or would be Bonapartists.

The work continues.