Sometimes you can learn more about a government from how it handles failure than from how it deals with success.  For this reason, I'm going to be interested to see how the Turkish government deals with the accidental killing of 35 civilians in misguided bombing raid yesterday.  The raid was supposedly targeting Kurdish extremists (aka "terrorists"); instead, the victims were civilians (probably engaged in smuggling), a good many of them reportedly in their late teens.

Despite certain misgivings, I've been impressed by Turkey's progress in recent years, and by the political sophistication of its leadership.   Turkey's economic growth has exceeded 5 percent over the past decade, and it staged a sharp recovery from the 2007-2008 financial crisis (growing roughly 11 percent in 2010).  The AKP has emphasized education, enacted significant constitutional reforms, and won nearly 50% of the vote in the 2011 parliamentary elections.  On the negative side, there are growing concerns about press independence in Turkey and the government's protracted, wide-ranging, and still-unresolved investigation of an alleged military coup plot (the so-called Ergenekon trials) has raised serious questions about the politicization of the investigation and prosecution.

In foreign policy, the AKP government has won plaudits for its energetic (some might say, hyperactive) regional diplomacy, and despite some recent setbacks, by an ability to chart a principled but flexible course consistent with its own long-term interests.  In addition to strongly backing global efforts to press the Assad government in Syria (a formerly close ally), Turkey was especially critical of Operation Cast Lead, the 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza.  It also lowered its diplomatic relations with Israel this past year when the Netanyahu government refused to apologize for the killing of several Turkish citizens during the IDF raid on the Gaza relief vessel Mavi Marmara.   Not surprisingly, these responses helped make Prime Minister Erdogan the most admired figure in the Arab world, according to some recent surveys.

Which puts the Turkish government in the hot seat now.  If you're going to be critical of other countries' over-reliance on military force (correctly, in my view), and if you're going to demand apologies and/or policy changes when these actions lead to the loss of innocent life, then you'd better be willing to live up to similar standards when the shoe is on the other foot.  To their credit, Prime Minister Erdogan has already expressed regret for the incident and President Abdullah Gul has offered his own condolences, though neither has yet offered a full-fledged apology.  An official investigation is reportedly underway, but it remains to be seen whether those responsible will be held to account.   But if Turkey doesn't respond to this event in a convincing manner,  it will lose some of the moral authority that its recent stances have earned.

More generally, this incident reminds us that air-power remains a crude policy instrument, and one that almost inevitably leads to embarrassing and/tragic results.   As we've seen repeatedly in recent years, even highly sophisticated military organizations can make big mistakes when they try to impose their will solely through bombing campaigns.  Sometimes you hit a foreign embassy by mistake.  At other times you bomb your putative allies, or even your own troops.   And as we've seen repeatedly in the Af/Pak theater, even strict rules of engagement and the most sophisticated sensors and precision weapons cannot prevent civilians from being struck by accident or becoming unavoidable "collateral damage."

It also makes me wonder we aren't seeing a further blurring of the lines between war and peace.  This isn't the first time Turkey has bombed suspected Kurdish rebels across the border in Iraq, but you wouldn't say that Turkey was actually at war with Baghdad.  Similarly, the United States is waging an expansive drone war against suspected terrorists and other suspected bad guys in several different countries--none of whom we are officially "at war" with--and ordinary Americans don't even know the full extent of what we are doing.  Why?  As Glenn Greenwald notes, it's because the Obama Administration refuses to tell us. In short, we don't "declare war" anymore: we wage it in the shadows and most of us don't really know what's going on.

As I've noted before, if more and more countries are killing people through actions that are not-quite-war-but-certainly-not peace, then we are likely to under-estimate the overall level of conflict in the world and we will fail to appreciate the underlying reasons why some groups are angry at us or our allies.  And one wonders what it might take to get different governments-including the leaders in Washington and Ankara--to ask whether the instruments they are relying on aren't the right ones. 

It couldn't be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World War I a "genocide." (The "Armenian lobby" is no slouch, but it's no match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however -- fueled primarily by Turkish anger over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians -- the ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders of Israel began switching sides, too.

Last week Jim Lobe published a terrific piece at InterPress Service, detailing how prominent neoconservatives have switched from being strong supporters (and in some cases well-paid consultants) of the Turkish government to being vehement critics. He lays out the story better than I could, but I have a few comments to add.

First, if this doesn't convince you that virtually all neoconservatives are deeply Israeli-centric, then nothing will. This affinity is hardly a secret; indeed, neocon pundit Max Boot once declared that support for Israel was a "key tenet" of neoconservatism. But the extent of their attachment to Israel is sometimes disguised by the claim that what they really care about is freedom and democracy, and therefore they support Israel simply because it is "the only democracy in the Middle East."

But now we see the neoconservatives turning on Turkey, even though it is a well-functioning democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally of the United States. Of course,Turkey's democracy isn't perfect, but show me one that is. The neocons have turned from friends of Turkey to foes for one simple reason: Israel. Specifically, the Turkish government has been openly critical of Israel's conduct toward the Palestinians, beginning with the blockade of Gaza, ramping up after the brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008-2009, and culminating in the lethal IDF attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As Lobe shows, a flock of prominent neoconservatives are now busily demonizing Turkey, and in some cases calling for its expulsion from NATO. 

Thus, whether a state is democratic or not matters little for the neocons; what matters for them is whether a state backs Israel or not.  So if you're still wondering why so many neoconservatives worked overtime to get the U.S. to invade Iraq -- even though Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- and why they are now pushing for war with Iran, well, there's your answer.

As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with any American feeling a deep attachment to a foreign country and expressing it in politics, provided that they are open and honest about it and provided that other people can raise the issue without being accused of some sort of bigotry. The neocons' recent volte-face over Turkey is important because it reveals their policy priorities with particular clarity, and Lobe deserves full points for documenting it for us.

One last comment. Neoconservatives usually portray American and Israeli interests as essentially identical: In their eyes, what is good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa. This claim makes unconditional U.S. support seem like a good idea, and it also insulates them from the charge that they are promoting Israel's interests over America's.  After all, if the interests of the two states are really one and the same, then by definition there can be no conflict of interest, which means that the "dual loyalty" issue (a term I still don't like) doesn't arise.

I hold the opposite view. I believe that the "special relationship" has become harmful to both countries, and that a more normal relationship would be better for both. Right now, the special relationship hurts the United States by fueling anti-Americanism throughout the region and making us look deeply hypocritical in the eyes of billions -- yes, billions -- of people. It also distorts our policy on a host of issues, such as non-proliferation, and makes it extremely difficult to use our influence to advance the cause of Middle East peace. President Obama's failures on this front -- despite his repeated pledges to do better--make this all-too-obvious. At the same time, this unusual relationship harms Israel by underwriting policies that have increased its isolation and that threaten its long-term future. It also makes it nearly impossible for U.S. leaders to voice even the mildest of criticisms when Israel acts foolishly, because to do so casts doubts about the merits of the special relationship and risks incurring the wrath of the various groups that exist to defend it.

Although the United States and Israel do share certain common interests, it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests are not identical. This situation puts die-hard neoconservatives in a tough spot, as it could force them to choose between promoting what is good for America or defending what they think (usually wrongly) will be good for Israel. And insofar as prominent neocons continue to beat the drums for war, it behooves us to remember both their abysmal track record and their underlying motivations.

Well, speaking of Turkey, what do I make of the surprise nuclear deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran, which was announced as I was packing up to leave Istanbul? The deal was proclaimed with great fanfare in Tehran, and it basically resurrects an earlier arrangement by which Iran agreed to give up a large part of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) stockpile in exchange for a much smaller quantity of more highly enriched (~20 percent) uranium (for use in a research reactor that produces medical isotopes).

The first thing to note is that we've seen this movie before (or at least, we've seen something rather like it), and it remains to be seen whether any uranium will actually change hands. It's possible that the whole thing is just a subterfuge designed to ward off stricter economic sanctions, and that eventually one of the signatories (most likely Iran) will find a way to wiggle out of the deal. 

But it is also possible that this is a first step towards a diplomatic resolution of the whole Iranian nuclear problem (albeit a rather small step). The crux of that issue isn't Iran's stockpile of LEU or its desire for fuel for its research reactor; the dispute is over whether Iran is ever going to be permitted to have its own indigenous enrichment capability at all. And this deal says nothing about that question; the best that can be said for it is that it might -- repeat might -- open the door to a more fruitful diplomatic process.

Here's why I think the United States should welcome the deal. The only feasible way out of the current box is via diplomacy, because military force won't solve the problem for very long, could provoke a major Middle East war, and is more likely to strengthen the clerical regime and make the United States look like a bully with an inexhaustible appetite for attacking Muslim countries. (And having Israel try to do the job wouldn't help, because we'd be blamed for it anyway). I think George Bush figured that out before he left office, and I think President Obama knows it too. So do sensible Israelis, though not the perennial hawks at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, who appear to have learned nothing from their shameful role cheerleading the debacle in Iraq back in 2002.

Read on