F-35 production question...

Well, perhaps the massive purge of pro-Western personnel in Turkeys Armed forces was perhaps, 'a tad negative’ in my view...
So you keep telling us.

Has Erdogan brought a significant shift in Turkish politics? Yes. Are there tensions in NATO over their relationships and behaviour? Yes, although there always was as there has been with many members over the years.

However, you are incorrect to state that ‘...anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced.’ Many Turkish personnel in NATO appointments remain unchanged and are as engaged as ever.

A far greater concern in NATO HQs is quite frankly the increasing barriers towards NATO activity and isolationism displayed by the Trump administration.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
So you keep telling us.

Has Erdogan brought a significant shift in Turkish politics? Yes. Are there tensions in NATO over their relationships and behaviour? Yes, although there always was as there has been with many members over the years.

However, you are incorrect to state that ‘...anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced.’ Many Turkish personnel in NATO appointments remain unchanged and are as engaged as ever.

A far greater concern in NATO HQs is quite frankly the increasing barriers towards NATO activity and isolationism displayed by the Trump administration.

Regards,
MM
Trump will be gone in a couple of years, whereas Erdogan and/or his legacy wont.
 
Trump will be gone in a couple of years, whereas Erdogan and/or his legacy wont.
True. However, the impact that Trump is having on the wider Alliance, and the legacy he will leave may arguably prove far greater. It’s quite surprising how the whole ‘America First’ mindset Is permeating down through our interaction with the US.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
True. However, the impact that Trump is having on the wider Alliance, and the legacy he will leave may arguably prove far greater. It’s quite surprising how the whole ‘America Firdt’ mindset Is permeating down through our interaction with the US.

Regards,
MM
In regards to working with US Military personal? Is that the general attitude they display in your opinion?
 
Ive been on a US base for 5 years....there was actually a bit of a disapointment when Trump won. There is one thing that i learnt that when dealing with US mil, they "trust" someone more when they are serving/has served. A few of the officers i spoke to were wary of whilst he may talk about bolstering the mil, he is a business man at heart and it would be this mindset that could effect things. Now that is not to say previous Presidents were any better in their eyes but Trump....well he isnt exactly a veteran & career politician. But they are also aware working with other allies and not just the Brits, that they cannot do everything on their own and yes they agree with him that others should contribute more but his rhetoric may not be helpful....i go back to my business man comment.
 
Ive been on a US base for 5 years....there was actually a bit of a disapointment when Trump won. There is one thing that i learnt that when dealing with US mil, they "trust" someone more when they are serving/has served. A few of the officers i spoke to were wary of whilst he may talk about bolstering the mil, he is a business man at heart and it would be this mindset that could effect things. Now that is not to say previous Presidents were any better in their eyes but Trump....well he isnt exactly a veteran & career politician. But they are also aware working with other allies and not just the Brits, that they cannot do everything on their own and yes they agree with him that others should contribute more but his rhetoric may not be helpful....i go back to my business man comment.
Thank you for your insight.
 
True. However, the impact that Trump is having on the wider Alliance, and the legacy he will leave may arguably prove far greater. It’s quite surprising how the whole ‘America Firdt’ mindset Is permeating down through our interaction with the US.

Regards,
MM
At the same time, he's also shining a light on the slackers in NATO who, like Germany are demonstrably failing to live up to their commitments, which is, IMO a good thing.
 
At the same time, he's also shining a light on the slackers in NATO who, like Germany are demonstrably failing to live up to their commitments, which is, IMO a good thing.
Being the world’s most hated asshole
can be a mixed bag. But his status has been elevated to Orange twat after the SOTU.
 
In regards to working with US Military personal? Is that the general attitude they display in your opinion?
Not just US military who tend to be better than the average from what I’ve seen.

The biggest problem in my experience lies in the DoS, Homeland Security, industry and contractors from things as varied as visas, health-care and other aspects, particularly for those UK servicemen and their families in the States.

Ive been on a US base for 5 years....there was actually a bit of a disapointment when Trump won...
Many US servicemen I’ve discussed it with appeared to have voted for Trump only because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary. However, as you say, the US military now increasingly have to acknowledge that they need allies more than ever before.

At the same time, he's also shining a light on the slackers in NATO who, like Germany are demonstrably failing to live up to their commitments, which is, IMO a good thing.
I think it is a good thing but not in the way Trump is going about it. That sows dischord and is manna from heaven for Putin’s fake-news divisions. There’s also a fair amount of hypocrisy when he fails to address the profligate waste in the US’ own armed forces.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
...But... that, does not make my reservations...or that of many others, far more informed and involved, any less valid.
Agreed. Equally, I believe that I am entitled to offer my own perspectives derived from working with the Turkish military in recent years. Ultimately, I merely wish to see some objectivity and balance to what I believe can sometimes be your overly-negative comments.

Regards,
MM
 
Well maybe they shouldn’t have joined NATO
Turkey are the cork in two bottles that matter a lot, the Black Sea to Mediterranean sea route, and the Trans-Caucasian land route from Russia to the Middle East. Those are the advantages that Turkey brought to NATO during the Cold War.

Today, they still offer those same strategic advantages, as well as being adjacent to the major regional powers in the Middle East. They have direct borders with Syria, Iraq, and Iran. They are in a key position with respect to any future gas pipelines from the Middle East or Central Asia to Europe.

As well as the above, they have cultural ties to Central Asia and an interest in pursuing closer links with that resource rich region which also happens to border on China. Having an ally who is willing to put the effort into gaining influence in that region is of great advantage.

They are in themselves a fast developing economy with a large population and will over the long term become an important country in their own right.

People talk about how the Russians and the Chinese are so successful in foreign affairs because they take the long view and look several steps ahead in the geopolitical chess match while Western countries struggle to look beyond the current move while playing checkers. Turkey are an important piece on the chess board and having them as a member was something that NATO got right in the early days. Kicking them out in a fit of pique and then wondering why our Russian, Middle Eastern, and Central Asian policies have suddenly gone down the crapper is the sort of thinking which has gotten us into trouble elsewhere in the world.
 
Well maybe they shouldn’t have joined NATO
The World was a very different place in 1952 when they joined the Alliance.

However, as I mentioned, I still believe that Turkey’s unique position means they need NATO as much as we need them...despite the sometimes fractious relationship. Remember that after the US, they are the major land power in the Alliance and they secure us good access to both the Black Sea and Middle East as suggested in @terminal’s excellent post above.

Regards,
MM
 
they secure us good access to both the Black Sea and Middle East
Access that was denied to the US in the 1st Gulf War.

A NATO ally???

(Reproduced in full due inability to post link.)

Turkey Rejects U.S. Troop Deployment
Parliament votes against granting access to combat forces. The strategy of advancing on Baghdad from the north suffers a major blow.
March 02, 2003|Richard Boudreaux and Amberin Zaman | Special to The Times


ANKARA, Turkey — In a stunning rejection that appeared to kill U.S. plans for a "northern front" in any war against Iraq, Turkey's parliament refused Saturday to authorize the deployment of 62,000 U.S. troops on Turkish soil.
As antiwar protesters staged a tumultuous protest outside the legislature, Turkish lawmakers weighed appeals by their government to join the U.S. war effort -- with the offer of a $15-billion U.S. aid package in return -- during a dramatic five-hour debate that ended in a cliffhanger vote in closed session. The tally was 264 votes in favor of the deployment, just short of the majority required by Turkish law. There were 250 "no" votes, 19 abstentions and 17 absences. Parliament then adjourned until Tuesday.
Even as the measure was going down in defeat, about 80 American ships carrying equipment for the 4th U.S. Infantry Division floated off the Turkish coast in an indication of U.S. officials' expectation that its NATO ally would pass the proposal.
The Bush administration did not immediately say whether it would redirect those vessels -- along with the troops they would supply -- south to Kuwait, the primary staging area for an assault on Iraq, or press for a reversal of Turkey's decision.


"We're seeking clarification," State Department spokeswoman Tara Rigler said.
Although Turkey's government could seek a new vote, Prime Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters the government must respect Saturday's outcome. Turkish commentators said the decision seemed final.
"President Bush has no chance now of carrying out his war plans," said Sedat Ergin, a columnist for the Hurriyet newspaper.
The vote was just one setback for the Bush administration Saturday as it attempts to build international support for its position that Iraq has refused to give up banned weapons and must be disarmed by force. Iraq used bulldozers to crush four of its Al-Samoud 2 missiles, meeting the U.N.'s deadline to begin eliminating the medium-range rocket from its arsenal.
Iraq also destroyed a casting chamber for solid-fuel rockets and offered more scientists for private interviews with inspectors. The steps seemed aimed at getting a positive report this week from chief inspector Hans Blix. He is to offer his latest assessment of Iraqi compliance with U.N. demands Friday.
Pentagon officials have said they can wage war against Iraq without Turkey's participation. But deployment in Turkey would allow U.S. forces to attack Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, from the north as well as from the south, dividing Hussein's army. Such a strategy, U.S. officials say, would make a war end sooner and result in fewer American casualties.
"I don't think [that strategy] is salvageable beyond this point because the timelines are very tight," said a Western diplomat here. "From a planning point of view, the Americans needed an answer yesterday."
A number of Turkish analysts said that if the vote stands, it could upset Turkey's long-term relations with its principal benefactor. But U.S. Ambassador W. Robert Pearson tried late Saturday to play down such pessimism, saying the Bush administration was respectful of Turkey's democratic decision.
For months, the Bush administration has exerted unrelenting effort trying to persuade Turkey to permit U.S. forces to move through its ports to bases near the country's 220-mile border with Iraq. The American campaign has thrown Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party into a crisis, forcing its leaders to choose between the country's most powerful ally and the will of voters who elected them in November.
Before Saturday's vote, about 50,000 people staged a noisy antiwar rally near parliament as 4,000 riot police stood guard. The protesters chanted, "No to war" and "We don't want to be America's soldiers."


Thousands of people remained in the streets after the evening vote was announced, celebrating and chanting anti-American slogans.
Polls show that more than 80% of the Turkish public, which is mostly Muslim, opposes the country's involvement in a war with Iraq. Turks are historically resistant to the idea of foreign troops on their soil and fear that war would damage the country's recovery from its deepest economic crisis in decades. Many Turks contend that much of the U.S. aid promised Turkey for its help in the 1991 Persian Gulf War did not materialize.
But the ruling party, an Islamist-rooted movement that swept to power on a pledge to revive the economy, argued that Turkey had an obligation to protect its interests in a war that seemed inevitable. They said Turkey needed to support the war effort to avoid a damaging rupture with the U.S. and to have some influence in a postwar Iraq.

Los Angeles Times - Page unavailable in your region

If I appear negative MM it is for valid reasons.


However, you are incorrect to state that ‘...anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced. Many Turkish personnel in NATO appointments remain unchanged and are as engaged as ever.
I would be happy to see where I stated 'anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced ‘.

I did not ‘state’ any such thing!! I merely gave two links which gave details of over 400 who were recalled from NATO positions.

Happy to see any links you can provide showing how many actually stayed and were not replaced.
 
Last edited:
Access that was denied to the US in the 1st Gulf War.
I think you mean Second Gulf War.

This is little different in principle to the refusal of France, Canada, Germany and many other nations to partake in the invasion of Iraq; I wish the UK had done the same.

However, Turkey still allowed the transit of numerous Coalition aircraft through their airspace. This facilitated the airborne deployment of US forces including 10 Mountain Div in late March.

I would be happy to see where I stated 'anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced ‘...I did not ‘state’ any such thing!!...
As follows at the bottom of Paragrah 3 of your post #260 which you submitted on Saturday at 0612 and edited at 0708:

...Anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced...

Happy to see any links you can provide showing how many actually stayed and were not replaced.
I suspect that you’d be hard pressed to find any. However, rather than using links, I prefer to base my assertions on recent personal experience of Defence Engagement, working in Coalition HQs, and contributing to ongoing ops in other ways.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
I think you mean Second Gulf War.
Apologies, yes I do. Still, access denied.
As follows at the bottom of Paragrah 3 of your post #260 which you submitted on Saturday at 0612 and edited at 0708:
Slightly disingenuous. Yes, and edited/removed because I did not feel it reflected the case...before you quoted it in the present discussion.

Both you and the Turkish officers you have met may have the most harmonious and cordial relationships, with common ground and ideas on NATO and co-operation...but, both you and they, will do, and act, as ordered by your superiors, and ultimately the top Fred.

Under the present two it has not been harmonious, nor has the Turkish relationship with NATO been without reservations in recent times.

Yes, it would still seem in both parties interests to maintain that contact. And yes I hold the view that it is a fractious and difficult relationship, with serious adverse implications in relation to the F-35 deal, as do others who are a great deal more involved and informed. My views are completely immaterial, simply expressed here along with your, and others.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top