Impressions of Başbuğ

One group was of the opinion that the top general was constantly on the defensive, while the other group praised his declared commitment to democracy and to the supremacy of law. One camp said that Başbuğ’s defensiveness and need to declare the military’s commitment to democracy was a sign of "weakness" and of a "serious complex" within the military, while the other maintained that he was so self-confident, he even confessed the existence of some problems at military stockpiles of arms and ammunition.

How could a group of people gathered in a hall listen to the same man and produce such diverse opinions about what he said? It is a matter, of course, related to where one stands, physically as well as mentally. The same thing is often perceived differently by people with different opinions. Some journalists must have been so obsessed with flattering the top commander that they forgot that early the same morning, nine soldiers lost their lives in a mine blast. They ignored the apparent pain on Başbuğ’s face and even what the commander said right at the beginning about the fallen soldiers and attempted to congratulate the general on his birthday. Others were so fixated on the so-called Ergenekon case and the "coup memoirs" that they could not understand why the top general put such emphasis on the military’s commitment to democracy and the supremacy of law.

"The Turkish military is committed to democracy," Başbuğ said. "No one with a different opinion [on this issue] can stay in the military. We shall not allow that." Though even the tradition of Turkey’s top commanders hosting press conferences, issuing e-statements and commenting on political matters is itself an anti-democratic heritage for this country (albeit with a reduced rate), such a reassurance coming from Turkey’s top commander is indeed very important. Why? First of all, the top general who made that statement is the commander of the Turkish military, not the French, British or German military, where the armed forces are not under daily attacks by some sections of the media, as well as politicians, accused even by some foreign politicians of having "political aspirations," and where they do not face indictments claiming that they were, or that some elements within them were, planning to plot a military coup.

Was Başbuğ on the defensive?

Thus, if a top military commander feels the need to reaffirm his and the Turkish military’s commitment to democracy, and if feeling this way is something to be ashamed of or something demonstrating "weakness" or indicating a "complex," who might be responsible for this? Should we look to the military or to those who have been busy fabricating all sorts of slanders and ridiculous claims, exaggerating some wrongdoings by some retired officers or generals to portray an image of the entire military as busy plotting to overthrow the government of the country and worse, including all these baseless elements of tragicomedy in an indictment that resembles nothing but a thriller?

Yes, Başbuğ was, in a manner, on the defensive because he tried to provide answers to sets of questions, including those I asked in this column two days ago, about the arms caches found in various cities, most recently at the lot owned by Bedrettin Dalan’s foundation. None of us were expecting him to provide such extensive answers to our questions. So rather than appreciating the demonstrated transparency and the effort made by the top general to provide answers to all doubting minds regarding the allegations of a "military role" in the alleged Ergenekon crimes, how can we attack him for being on the defensive? Başbuğ’s answers might not have been fully satisfying to some of the journalists, yet he seemed to have done the most he could do, without compromising respect for justice, to demonstrate the oddities in the Ergenekon indictments and the related legends pumped up by the allegiant media.

Thus, the emphasis in Başbuğ’s words that everyone should respect the judiciary and the judicial process was not a demonstration of weakness, but a reminder particularly directed toward the prosecutors of the importance of their job and the need to put aside politics and political differences when distributing justice.