Burak Bekdil

"Going to Athens?!!" screamed a friend. "You must be joking!" Fortunately I was not going to cover the riots for this newspaper and the venue for the conference I would participate in was in quite a secluded area. All the same, my friend advised that I should squeeze a gas-mask and a helmet into my luggage. Another suggested I dress up like an "anarchist," just to be on the safe side. I did none, relying on my fluency in shouting the famous slogan from the anti-junta riots 35 years earlier: "Anathema tin periergia sou re Kolombe!" (Damn your curiosity Colombus!) That failing to help, I could always fake like a foreign comrade who had come to help. "Den mpirazi re pedia!" (The revolutionaries in my country always put on a suit and a necktie!) Which would be trueÉ Most men who have been trying to "counter-revolutionize" Turkey do wear suits and neckties.

After giving orders to my bank to buy generous quantities of stocks in Greek glass makers and getting the last updates on the Athens riots, I thought how lucky the Turks and Greeks were. The Greek rioters would have had to face the Turkish police if they lived on this side of the Aegean, and the Turkish police would have had to face the Greek rioters if they lived on the other side, with strict orders not to harm a single rioter, a probability close to nil.

The criticism that Costas Karamanlis, the Greek prime minister, has mismanaged the riots is probably accurate. Instead of turning to Israel and Germany to replenish depleted reserves of gas to contain demonstrators, Mr Karamanlis could simply have borrowed divisions of the Turkish riot police. I am confident that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan would have given a helping hand to "his good friend Costas," and with the Turkish police in charge, the Greek rioters would probably have repented never to riot again for another half a century. Alternatively, Mr Karamanlis, copying Mr Erdogan’s recent rhetoric, could always advise Athenian shop-owners to defend themselves by shooting at the rioters.

Unsurprisingly, according to a public opinion poll in the Greek daily Kathimerini, 60 percent of Greeks think the riots constitute social uprising. But why? A friend from across the Atlantic rang me to ask the same question, "Why do they not just sip their ouzos and enjoy the finer moments of life?"

The simple answer could have been, "Why, but this is an ouzo revolution for more democracy," had Mr Karamanlis been on unfriendly terms with the capital where my friend resides. If they have their "oranges" and "cloves" around the Black Sea, we have our "ouzo" around the Aegean. But no, Mr Karamanlis is not a pro-Russian former Soviet leader.

Could it be hopelessness, as many analyses suggest? Well, it cannot be measured, but empirical evidence tells us that per capita happiness in Greece must be one of the highest in the world. Joblessness? At 7.4 percent as opposed to 10 percent in Turkey? Why then do the Turkish youths not riot?

Rioting for economic mismanagement with a per capita income three times more than Turkey’s officially "upgraded" income? And the minimum wage twice as much? With no young man recently dying under torture like Engin Ceber, yet not a single official resigning? What, really, would the rioting Greek youth do if they learned the number of voters suddenly rose by 15 percent within a year, or by 6 million people as in the Turkish case, just ahead of an election?

Corruption and nepotism? Well, Greece can only play in the third division compared to the Superleague team Turkey. What, really, would the Greek rioters have done if a company run by Mr Karamanlis’s son-in-law appeared as the sole bidder in a government tender, purchased Greece’s second biggest media group, and if that deal was financed by loans from two state banks?

All that reminded me of an opinion poll in September which revealed that 80 percent of Turks said they were indifferent to corruption when voting. Ironically, the findings of that poll had fallen into the public domain when Giorgos Voulgarakis, then Greek Minister for merchant marine had to resign over a matter that was not "illegal," but was "unethical." Poor Mr Voulgarakis, he was just a victim of being a politician on the wrong side of the Aegean!

But why are the Turks and Greeks, who have many things in common, just too different in respecting/standing up against the state authority?

The answer is perhaps hidden in the personality of one man, Greek poet and politician, and later an MP, Alexandros Panagoulis, who in his torture cell during the junta wrote some of his poems on the walls literally with his blood because he had been deprived of a pen and a piece of paper. When Panagoulis died in a suspicious car accident which many people believed was a murder, nearly 2 million Greeks attended his funeral, shouting "Zi, zi, zi!" (He lives, he lives, he lives!) The year was 1976, and Greece’s population was less than 10 million.

The Israeli-made unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or as they are publicly known, ’spy’ planes, have eventually arrived at the Turkish barracks after delays longer than a year. But there is a minor problem: They are not the aircraft the Israelis had promised to deliver. During the two-way competition for the UAV contract, Turkish defense procurement authorities had insisted that (a) a Turkish defense company, Aselsan, should produce the critical pod for the UAVs, (b) the aircraft should be able to fly at an altitude of 30,000 feet, (c) they should be able to fly for 24 hours without having to land, and (d) the foreign contractor should provide warranties for the successful integration of the Turkish-made pod.

One of the competitors, U.S. General Atomics, withdrew, warning that it was practically impossible for any sensible bidder to agree to and meet the contract specifications. The other contender, a team of Israeli Aircraft Industries and Elbit, another Israeli company, won the contract after it gave full assurances to comply with all contract specifications.

Unfortunately, the Turkish engineering failed, and Aselsan’s pod was too big and heavy to fly on the Israeli aircraft, the Heron. Aselsan’s pod did not fit well into the Heron, so the Heron had to be modified, especially its engine. Eventually, two Herons which are not Herons arrived in Turkey, were stationed in a military base in Batman, but neither the air force, their end-user, nor the procurement quality control team has cleared their performance: They do not fly at the desired altitude, nor can they fly long enough.

What happens when the supplier fails to supply a product at the quality specified in the contract? The buyer rejects it. According to the General Staff, "acceptance tests are continuing." What does that mean? If the acceptance tests are continuing why have the aircraft been "received" before these tests have been completed with a seal of approval? Why have the aircraft been "received" by the other Turkish sub-contractor, TAI, oddly, instead of by the procurement office, or the air force?

We can always ignore the delays. Murad Bayar, Turkey’s chief defense procurement official, said in January that the Herons would arrive in the weeks ahead. He was right. The Herons arrived about 40 weeks after Mr Bayar said "weeks." True, there is going to be $8 million penalty for the delays. That could have been relieving, if an unknown part of the penalty would not have to be accrued to the Turkish sub-contractors, Aselsan and TAI.

Complicated? Yes, most defense contracts are complicated in this country of complications. But what will happen now? In a country where things are much less "complicated" and transparent, the Herons would have been returned to sender, the manufacturer would have been given a deterrent penalty and banned from future contracts. In Turkey, the chances that all or some of these will happen are just too slim.

"Strange" things about defense contracts can always happen. And both IAI and Elbit have extremely "talented" local agents in Turkey. So I have every confidence that the Herons will suddenly upgrade themselves while being kept in a hangar. They might soon start to fly at an altitude of 45,000 feet and for 72 hours non-stop. And they will probably pass the acceptance tests.

The only trouble is, the "Heron affair" has become too public, and any civilian or military official who might give the final go-ahead without the Herons miraculously upgrading themselves may end up facing trial and has to explain what patriotic motives had urged them to tolerate a clear breach of contract specifications. But readers are advised to ignore this paragraph as it was written on a moment of illusion that we all were living in another country.

No one will face trial for "accepting" the three other Israeli-made UAVs, the Aerostars, leased to the Turkish military for $17 million because the Herons were delayed. The Aerostars, like the Herons, were intended to be used against Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, targets. They arrived on time, but with a small problem: Their engines were too noisy that the PKK teams were able to hear them from a distance of 20 kilometers and run, or rather stroll, away into their hideouts possibly while puffing their cigarettes and whistling songs.

A perfectly suitable ending to the "Heron affair" could be scrapping the present contract and awarding a new contract to the same Israeli team which, this time, should promise to deliver new UAVs which can also be used as fighter jets, submarines and tanks. But of course, the price tag will be much higher this time and it will take longer to manufacture.

Turkey’s generals should better change their social habits at once, or find the moles at the barracks. The visual material on their hobbies, now regularly leaked to the media, do not make good ammunition in psychological warfare, especially during days of mourning dead soldiers. The Turks got to know the image of their air force commander, Aydogan Babaoglu, when his pictures were "leaked" to the press, showing him during a shot on a golf course - and on the same day the military headquarters was telling Turkey the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, had attacked a military outpost and killed 17 soldiers. The General Staff defended the commander with a statement that caused not-so-shy smiles: during the golf party the commander had not learned of the attack, when the rest of Turkey had.

More recently pictures of the deputy chief of staff, Hasan Igsiz, were seen splashed on the front page, featuring the commander and his family and friends going to a nice little picnic aboard a military helicopter, enjoying the beautiful landscape and escorted by military personnel. Ironically, more or less the same days, the military court of appeals overturned a lower court’s verdict which had acquitted a naval officer for "taking a civilian friend on a submarine ride all the way from the Mediterranean to Marmara." The military supreme court ruled that the submarine ride for the friend constituted abuse of authority.

Now, if an officer’s friend’s cruise aboard a submarine on duty constitutes abuse of authority what is another’s private travel aboard a military helicopter? Could the difference be that one is a junior officer and the other is number from the top? Do we have different military laws and regulations regarding different ranks? If the navy commander had taken a friend for a cruise aboard a frigate would the admiral not have abused authority? Would he be prosecuted? Are the military do’s and don’t’s valid only until an officer becomes a general?

How will the naval officer feel when he is -- naturally -- found guilty of abuse of power but a top general takes his family and friends for a helicopter tour and enjoys a pleasant picnic accompanied by military personnel? Can we expect him to be faithful to "the system?" That reminds me of a junior officer who, a few years earlier, knocked on my door, a total stranger with a weird proposal. He possessed highly classified military documents and wanted to "sell" them. The officer was "authentic." And so were the documents in his possession.

I turned down his offer and advised him not to knock on other doors because he was committing a very serious offense. He looked at me apologetically, and said, "Everyday I see my seniors making illegal gains and not being punished for that. I know what I am trying to do is wrong. But would it not be wrong if I am punished for this and the others are not?"

The system is not perfect at the bottom level either. Many people think that the average Turkish conscript is the poor village boy who has to endure and survive the bloody war fought against terrorists. Yes, thousands of them have died fighting the PKK. But they are the unfortunate minority, although some of the mourning relatives and friends tend to call them the fortunate martyrs. But hundreds of thousands of conscripts are engaged with other tasks. Once you are a conscript you can end up doing all sorts of non-military things, depending on your civilian profession. You can be a hairdresser for officers’ wives, teach English to officers’ children, cook or serve drinks at the officers’ club, peel potatoes in the kitchen, clean the toilets, do the accounts for the canteen or do plumbing for the officers’ residences. The options are endless.

If the conscript is luckier, he can always be tasked with collecting balls on a military golf base at the heart of Ankara, driving the commander’s kids to school, being a body guard for Mrs Commander, or escorting the commander and his family to a fancy picnic. But whatever the task is, in many cases it is not soldiering. The fact is disturbingly visible: the senior military personnel’s habit of keeping up with bad habits plus the headquarters’s now regular failure to keep its private parts private equals a loss of credibility of the "Turkish military myth." The indecent solution is to better keep private things private. A more decent solution would be not to have private things at all.

Turkey’s Islamists should be privately feeling awfully grateful to their archenemy, the secularist military. If the men in uniform had not existed, who else could they have blamed their or their comrades’ own sins on, or construct cunning conspiracy theories? It could be disappointing for many foreigners, but Turkey’s evil "Invincible Armada" is not the evil Invincible Armada it is described as. Take, for instance, the unprecedented anti-Americanism in Turkey. According to the Islamists, anti-Americanism measured most recently at nearly 80 percent, possibly the highest in the world, because of the Kemalists.

It is true that anti-Americanism is widespread among Turkey’s secularists (not secular Turks), but one has to be as naive as a six-year-old not to see that the Islamists often invent a linkage between Kemalism and anti-Americanism not necessarily because it is a fact, but because of their rather childish efforts to highlight their face value across the Atlantic: Not them, we are your friends; please support us!

With an elementary knowledge of mathematics, and a little bit of statistics, we can simply find out to which ideology most of Turkey’s anti-American majority should belong to:

Step 1: What is the percentage of Turks who are sensitive about secularism? July 2007 told us that ratio is at around 20 percent.

Step 2: What is the percentage of Turks who are sympathetic to any scale of political Islam? Again, July 2007 told us that ratio is at a minimal 50 percent.

Step 3: What is the level of anti-Americanism in Turkey? According to the last PEW survey, it is nearly 80 percent.

Step 4: Can it be mathematically/ statistically/ scientifically significant to assume that the 20 percent secular-minded Turks can make the 80 percent anti-American Turks? Even if we assume all secular Turks are anti-American, which Turks would make the remaining 60 percentage points who are also anti-American?

Amusingly, we are living at times when we should not be surprised if we read in a newspaper column that the terrorist attacks on Mumbai targets were in fact the work of a secret Kemalist organization. I personally suspect the Mumbai attacks could have been masterminded by the Ergenekon gang, if they are not secretly related to a special section of the Turkish General Staff.

Why do I think so? Well, it is because Islam is a "religion of peace" and therefore no one would kill in the name of Islam. Therefore, the terrorists can only be the Kemalists disguised as Islamist militants.

I also suspect that the coal sacks distributed by the Justice and Development Party, or AKP’s central and/or municipal teams to the poor, but were eventually found at a brothel should be a plot by the Turkish military to undermine "democracy" in Turkey.

As I have started revealing military secrets, let me reveal more. We know that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when recently asked in Washington for his view about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, retorted that, "those who possess nuclear weapons do not have the right to tell others to not acquire them too."

Why did he make that odd statement, despite his pragmatic sympathy for America? I reveal: Shortly before he made that speech he had been drugged by a Kemalist team in Washington led by the Turkish military attache and some of his senior aides who secretly work for a Kemalist underground cell, tasked with taking over the "cause" if Ergenekon comrades were eliminated.

And why has Turkey’s champion reformist Mr Erdogan adopted an increasingly strident nationalist line? Well, I have learned the answer from the Economist:

"There is talk of Mr Erdogan’s having struck a deal with Turkey's new, hard-line chief of staff, Ilker Basbug, according to which Mr Erdogan has promised to freeze reforms that dilute the army's power in exchange for his party's not being attacked in court again."

Ah, without the military telling him to do so, the champion reformist, Mr Erdogan, would not have sued a record number of writers, columnists and cartoonists, and, a few years earlier, demanded a prison sentence for a lady who had merely held out a placard that read, "Whose prime minister are you?" Similarly, it was terribly undemocratic of General Basbug to convince Mr Erdogan that torture should visibly increase under his governance, and, most recently, that the champion reformist should demand a prison sentence for a cartoonist depicting him as a donkey.

But it was probably the army commander, General Isik Kosaner, who whispered into Mr Erdogan’s ears that the Turks should defend themselves with guns if Kurdish demonstrators went astray. And it was probably some other top brass who told Mr Erdogan to invite unhappy Kurds "to go wherever they please."

No doubt, without the generals on his neck, Mr Erdogan would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in addition to the World Liberalism Trophy and the Most Reformist Islamist Award along with the Most American-Friendly Islamist Medal.

How about Turkey’s power-gang-conspiracy-everything emporium’s now systematic failure to keep its private parts private? That should come in another article.

Fortunately, not all readers’ letters are full of (sometimes never heard of) curses, insults and threats almost each time after I impersonate this paper’s ’religion editor.’ This week, a reader reminded me there is another world beyond our narrower disputes These days the main opposition leader, Deniz Baykal, is playing the tolerant secular who can even embrace women in chadors, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is playing the secular Muslim who embraces women without the Islamic turban and see eye-to-eye with the generals, a man who no longer wakes up to a day with fresh Islamic ideas in his mind. Both men are probably aiming to overcome the local elections with minimal scratches and bruises.

Mr Baykal’s emotional speech in Parliament on Wednesday was impressive, but also a confession. When the leader of the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, said that "not everyone wearing the turban (or the chador) were enemies of our secular constitution," he admitted that his loud and big "No" to the Islamic headwear on campus was just being unfair. If, as Mr Baykal claims, most girls wear the turban for tradition or honest belief while "some" do so to fight our secular regime, is he not punishing an innocent majority to battle a harmful minority?

And Mr Erdoğan has tackled his opponent’s "overture" for conservative Turks very smartly when he encouraged the secular Mr Baykal to welcome more women in chador/ turban/ headscarf. Too bad, all that "normalization" along Turkey’s political fault line can only be misleading, that is, until after the elections in March. Then the warring armies will probably take up more arms and ammunition and fight an even worse battle. Religion in politics is like nuclear weapons in warfare.

Here I wish to leave the floor to the reader who shall remain anonymous. S/he begins with a quote from Al Seckel, in preface to Bertrand Russell on God and Religion:

"In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell’s 90th birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist.

"’What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you are wrong?’ she asked. ’I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?’ Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say,’God, you gave us insufficient evidence.’"

Then, after a well-structured section devoted to definitions of atheism, agnosticism and theism, the reader writes these (my excerpts from a longer text):

"...Now how do we get the maximum pleasure by believing in God or not believing? I don’t know... But I know seculars and atheists do not have much in common, except for the fact that public display of religious icons might be disturbing to both groups at times. There are very devout people who can be secular in their attitudes. Try belonging to a minority religion, you would want secular attitudes where your beliefs would be respected, not dominated.

"When we accept differences, we can actually benefit from them, (as we would see) diversity and its benefits for the whole society. When we tolerate differences, it is much like an unwanted guest, we have to keep (the guest) there, but we cannot wait for him to leave our house, alas tolerance no longer is sufficient. We must learn to accept and enjoy (differences)... In a country where people still get persecuted solely because of their words, their thoughts, their writings, dreams get circumvented... We should be able to discuss about ideas without necessarily believing in them wholeheartedly. Ideas are the lubricants of our minds, we should be able to say, maybe God has alzheimers and he just forgot about us? We might be hardwired for God, for religion, for the will to believe... But I would also cherish the argument that some of us can break over the genetic code, and people change... former atheist may become a born-again Christian, a devout Catholic might convert to Islam...

"...One can have many responsibilities, and spiritual bonds without God or religion. A society might be excruciatingly detail-oriented in organizing its members’ lives, one can lead a fulfilling life without religious codes, there are many paths to happiness and meaning, and not all atheists are irresponsible people... Stating (that) faith is more comforting than skepticism can be likened to the state of drunkenness (that) is more pleasant than soberness.

"As Bernard Shaw has succinctly stated: ’The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.’ We should ask more questions not less, otherwise we will all be alike, and what can be more scary than bland?"

A small army of Turkish theologians are working day and night to ’reform’ Islam. They should start with highlighting Islam’s call for honesty and cleansing Mohammed’s religion from politics About a couple of months ago, I opened this page, read with delight my column neighbor, Mustafa Akyol’s article, cut it out and put it in a dossier with the tag "Diyanet," or the Religious Affair’s Directorate, thinking I might need to revisit it. I was right.

In that article in the Hürriyet Daily News on Sept. 30, 2008, Mr Akyol was, with all his good intentions, detailing and praising Diyanet’s efforts to cleanse the Islamic tradition from misogyny, which is undoubtedly a project to praise.

My sparring partner may be disappointed, but I agreed with his commentary, almost line by line, word by word. I still do. "Diyanet is not just open-minded but also brave," Mr Akyol wrote. "[Diyanet officials] should be welcomed and encouraged." Two months later, I am a little bit confused about those two words of praise; open-minded and brave.

Perhaps Diyanet should begin its reform campaign by educating its own Ulema on some of the fundamental teachings of Islam. How about, for instance, an elementary course on honesty, justice, equality for all and abstinence from worshiping mortals?

I have always been curious about a pious lady’s perseverance over a type of head-wear which is not a Koranic commandment, along with her interest in makeup and jewelry which the Koran explicitly bans. The relevant commandment for Muslim women is to, "cover their private parts and bosom and to abstain from exposing their beauty and ornaments."

Recently, I decided to ask Diyanet’s Ulema about the proper behavior for observant ladies. I sent an e-mail message, asking Diyanet whether it was a sin to put on makeup and wear jewelry. Let us call this query Q1. Diyanet’s reply came in confirmation of the Koranic verses, "Changing God-given [facial] features in order to lure attention and look more beautiful is banned in Islam." Fair enough. And let us call this answer A1.

Out of curiosity, I then rephrased my query (thanks, Harry, for the idea!) which I shall call Q2. The new question to Diyanet’s inbox read, "We often see the pious wives and daughters of prominent people, like our president and prime minister, in generous quantities of makeup and wearing (presumably) expensive jewelry and ornaments. Is that behavior compatible with Islam?"

And A2 from Diyanet fell into our inbox a few days later, "...Women can put on ornaments as long as they do not expose their private parts... Since women are allowed to expose their hands and faces, any ornamentation [makeup and jewelry] on hands and faces can be seen as [religiously] permissible."

NowÉ I am afraid Diyanet has a hard task ahead. I am not going to remind us again of the disturbingly divergent fatwas on socially/politically explosive issues like the Islamic turban. The fact that the present and former presidents of Diyanet have opposing thoughts on whether the turban is God’s commandment is enough to tell us how difficult a Mosque reform would be. The correspondence/consultation with Diyanet has just added to my pessimism.

Q2 is in fact nothing but Q1 plus a mention of our first ladies in the same context. Why, then, A2 was fundamentally different from A1? Can it be that Islam forbids certain behavior to all women except for the wives of the political elite? Can, then, the political elite be exempt from certain forbidden behavior? I am convinced that if I asked Diyanet for a fatwa on extravagant, Ottoman Palace-like weddings and circumcision ceremonies I would get a few disapproving lines in reply. But, if I asked the same question by giving examples of the merry moments of our Muslim elite, the answer will be different; at least as different as A1 and A2.

Why, really, was A1 fundamentally different from A2? Because there is probably no one at Diyanet who is brave enough to tell a query-maker, "That behavior is not permissible in Islam and it is not permissible for any women, including our first ladies," and that, "All is equal before the Holy Koran."

Perhaps my next query should be something like this, "How compatible is it with the substance of Islam if your esteemed Ulema issued opposite fatwas for ordinary women and prominent women? How compatible is that with honesty, justice, equality for all and abstinence from worshiping mortals?"

A final reminder to dear Mr Akyol who I am sure has good friends within the higher echelons of the Holy Diyanet. Please Mr Akyol, tell your friends to teach some elementary grammar to Diyanet’s personnel, as the five sentences that made A2 contained five typos and errors. Can Diyanet "reform" hypocrisy, Mr Akyol?

I must confess, when I heard there was going to be a celebration at Turkey’s aerospace powerhouse, TAI, in the presence of Air Force Commander Aydogan Babaoglu, I thought the company would either be launching a golf course on its premises, or a manufacturing line for golf equipment. Well, knowing a few things about the Turkish defense industry, its companies and the general’s love affair with golf, I even thought TAI would now boast a complete golf course made of composite grass. I was wrong. The event was to celebrate the launch of a production line for composite fuselage for the multinational, next-generation, fighter jet, the F-35, otherwise known by its project tag, the Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF. TAI’s merry celebration and the merry press coverage of it sparked a series of other celebrations by different Turkish companies, for similar reasons. The headlines following each celebration would tell readers about the marvels of our defense industry’s production capabilities, each a success story of its own.

A few days after the big TAI show-off, Kale Havacilik, another Turkish subcontractor in the JSF program, showed the press its own goodies for the F-35. The company claims it produces "critical" parts for the future fighter and it has an ambition to manufacture a "Made in Turkey" aircraft; although it has not said whether it will be a military aircraft, a civilian aircraft or a model aircraft. Hurriyet’s headline for the story read, "Turkish flag on F-35, excitement for locally-made aircraft."

But the facts are slightly different. Yes, there is a Turkish flag on the JSF group’s masthead and stationary and probably on the prototype aircraft too, as Turkey is one of the shareholder states. You pay for the fighter’s development, you commit to buying a certain quantity of the final product and you can have your flag anywhere you want, next to the flags of other participant nations.

But calling any ’Made in Turkey’ part for the F-35 "critical" must be another joke. "Critical" parts in weapons systems are the parts that only a few manufacturers in the world could supply and/or would be vitally important for a system’s operation. An aircraft cannot fly safely without a reliable door latch, but that does not make a door latch a "critical" part of the aircraft.

But the best way to judge is often hidden in figures. Kale says its 2009 sales will amount to $25 million, including contracts other than the JSF contract, while the JSF program is worth $400 billion. Assuming Kale will earn $20 million from the JSF, we can always calculate how "critical" that work will be. Your calculator will probably not give you a percentage if you divided 20 by 400,000.

Most recently it was a privately-owned aviation company, Alp Havacilik, in the news. Alp delivered the first batch of $40,000-a-piece parts, fan rotor rear hub, for the F135, the engine that will power the F-35. Needless to say, that is another "critical" part of the fighter. We also learned from the Hürriyet story that Alp aimed to generate $2 billion "from this business in which it had invested $4 million."

I know only one business in which you invest $4 million and make $2 billion, and that is narcotics. If any Turkish aviation company achieves that unusual return on their investment from a legal business, hats off to its executives! But again, the story goes back to how these proud contracts were won. Through international competition? Not really.

Turkish companies were awarded the JSF subcontracts not because they are the sole suppliers of the parts they will supply to the consortium, or because they produce the best quality parts at the lowest cost, but simply because Turkey committed itself to buy over $11 billion worth of F-35 aircraft and naturally wanted its share of the production business. When Turkey and the JSF consortium agreed on a work-share, the rest was relatively easy; fuselage to TAI, "critical" parts to Kale, rear hub to Alp, some software to Havelsan, some to Aselsan and moreÉ

Turkish defense companies are a thriving lot. Some of them have been highly successful, including Kale and Alp. There are others which create small engineering miracles to help reduce Turkey’s dependency on really critical systems. It is just that they are not what they claim they are. Again, facts and figures will best explain. Aselsan is the biggest defense company in this country of 70 million. Its 2007 defense revenue was $458 million. In comparison, ST Engineering, the defense powerhouse of Singapore, a country of 4.5 million people, reported $1.153 billion defense revenue in the same year.

"Weird Turkey" can pop up anytime: while you read newspapers, stroll down the road, talk to strangers, talk to friends, listen to the politicians, listen to missionaries of this or that faith, or even when you lock yourself at home. "Turkish affairs" are always entertaining, but sometimes they can be unnervingly entertaining. The Crescent and Star increasingly borders on various degrees of schizophrenia, paranoia, otherness and polarization.

Sadly, Turkey looks lost in a tiring soul-search; it looks like an enigma that still chases its lost identity 85 years on. But its demographic and cultural zigzags never cease to amaze; its social contrasts never fade.

"Weird Turkey" can pop up anytime: while you read newspapers, stroll down the road, talk to strangers, talk to friends, listen to the politicians, listen to missionaries of this or that faith, or even when you lock yourself at home but suddenly get a call reminding you of where you live. This was "Turkey" in the last couple of weeks:

1. In Turkey, there isn’t torture but people may die under torture: When the 29-year-old Engin Çeber who was arrested for distributing a leftist newspaper died in detention, Istanbul police launched an investigation and proudly announced that the deceased had not been tortured. A few days later, Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Şahin publicly apologized to Mr Çeber’s relatives for the torture that had killed their son. Most recently, a full forensic report confirmed he had died under torture.

But will any authority investigate why the initial police report firmly stated that Mr Çeber had not been tortured? Will anyone tell us what action will be taken against the officials who denied torture in Mr Çeber’s case? Or will those police officers continue to "protect our security?" And by the way, will anyone explain if distributing a leftist newspaper is a reason to be arrested in EU-candidate Turkey?

2. Tayyip Erdoğan is a reformist, his good friend Silvio is an "advocate" of Turkey: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s "good friend Silvio" was in Turkey last week. Apart from being Mr Erdogan’s good friend, Silvio is also Italy’s prime minister. And yes, that’s the man who described President-elect Barack Obama as "tanned" and boasts of himself as an "advocate" of Turkey.

No doubt, the Italian impolitic has an interesting sense of humor. But assuming he was not "joking" when he commented on Turkish politics, Silvio Berlusconi thinks that (a) his good friend Tayyip is a true reformist, and (b) Turkey’s secular system has been strengthened under Mr Erdoğan’s rule.

I am confident that Silvio "Silviocchio" Berlusconi’s love affair with Turkey has nothing to do with the love affair his dear friend Tayyip has for Italian-made military helicopters and other weapons systems. But talking about Italian-made weapons systems and Silvio "the advocate of Turkey" Berlusconi, allows me to remind him of the growing disquiet in the corridors of security offices in Ankara about a suspected systematic delivery of Italian-made arms to the PKK.

3. Our orphans are well looked after as long as a duchess does not mingle: Former Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, and her TV crew secretly filmed orphans in special care houses in Turkey (and Romania) and exposed the horrifying conditions in which the children were being kept.

According to Nimet Çubukcu, the minister whose portfolio includes orphan care, the images were part of a premeditated campaign to smear Turkey’s image and block its EU accession. But what about Romania? Were the unpleasant images of Romanian child care houses part of a premeditated campaign to oust Romania from the EU?

Ms Çubukcu need not worry. The Crescent and Star produces more than enough material on a daily basis to smear its own image. The minister can always look at a randomly chosen opinion poll that would tell her what percentage of the EU populace thinks Turkey is a decent democracy that deserves full membership.

According to Ali Babacan, Turkey's foreign minister, the poor orphans whose images appeared on a British TV station were not upset by the conditions they had to endure, but by the methods they were filmed. I bet they were! By the same logic, we can always think that Mr Çeber was not upset by the torture he had to undergo, but that his soul was terribly upset by the news coverage of his torture.

4. Barack Obama is a Kurdish villager - by soul: Residents of a Kurdish village in eastern Turkey sacrificed 44 sheep to celebrate the election of Barack Obama as America’s 44th president. What an original thoughtfulness: 44 sheep for the 44th president of the United States of America! The surviving sheep in the village must have prayed and thanked God that the United States does not have a history of six centuries and has not had 156 presidents.

Meanwhile, the placards the villagers held out during the celebrations read "You are a real hero" and "You are one of us." Perhaps someone in the White House should remind President-elect Obama that he is now Kurdish, in addition to Hawaian, Kenyan, Indonesian, American, French, German, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Arabic, Jewish, Armenian and probably Nepalese and Peruvian too.

5. Mr Erdoğan’s government has improved gender equality - to ranking 123rd !: The prime minister has often been praised, in addition to his liberal reformism, for his commitment to gender equality. The seal of approval for the Turkish men whose wives habitually marry at child age, must not let their hair be seen by others, and are almost always housewives, came in the form of a World Economic Forum, or WEU, report. The WEU’s Global Gender Gap study put Turkey into the 123rd place among 130 countries.