Ralph Peters on Obama in Turkey

I don't always agree with Ralph Peters, but I think his latest piece has some useful observations and analyses, even though it is harsh and overstated in places, and tends to ramble. Essentially, Peters argues that the president pandered to an Islamist-oriented regime in Turkey out of general naivete, and a lack of understanding about the Turkish situation in particular.

in Turkey, he surrendered our national pride, undercut our interests and interfered in matters that aren't his business.

Conceding that Obama has good intentions, like Jimmy Carter, Peters writes

the road to embassy takeovers and strategic humiliation is paved with good intentions -- coupled with distressing naivete.

Exactly. That's my biggest fear about Obama in terms of foreign policy. Peter's argues that Obama's spineless diplomacy had the following result:

he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.

Peters blames Obama's missteps on bad advice from the State Department,

appeasement artists who understand neither Turkey, Islam nor the crises raging between the Bosporus and the Indus. State's answer is always "More love, more humility, more aid."

That sounds about right. When is the State Department ever in favor of taking a hard-line approach to any diplomatic situation? Appeasement is usually the first and favorite option.

I, for one, don't think our country has anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe

Me either. Obama's apologizing for the U.S. and bending over backward is getting old -- and he hasn't even been in office very long. But then Peters writes,

Obama omitted any mention of Turkey's wartime betrayals of our troops, its continuing oppression of its Kurd minority or the AKP's determination to turn a state with a secular constitution into a Wahhabi playground...When it came to the Armenian genocide, Obama bravely ducked: He never dared use the g-word.

Here's where I disagree with Peters. A state visit to Turkey isn't the time to publicly air grievances about how the Turks knifed us in the back during the run-up to the Iraq War. What good would that do? Issues of military cooperation should be discussed privately. Peter's argues that Turkey's quest to join the EU is none of our business and we should stay out of it. I agree. The Turks don't deserve our support. But given that position, how is Turkish oppression of minorities or their structure of government any of our business? And slamming Obama for not mentioning the Armenian genocide is ridiculous. What possible good would it do to bring up an old wound as part of the visit? Do the Ottoman Empire's actions back in 1915 really matter to U.S.-Turkish relations today? Attacking Obama for weakness is one thing, but being stupid and unnecessarily offensive wouldn't be any better.