The problems with Turkey is that the people who want to support "Ataturks" ideas, inhabit the densely populated population centers, but they are being "outbred" if you will by the population from the sparsely populated agricultural areas, who never really did support Ataturks ideals (non-secular schooling, western approaches, etc.).

But why EXACTLY does America NEED Turkey AT ALL?

Since the removal of the NIKES, the only real reason the US needed Turkey was Incirlik Airforce Base (which the US Built).

The US has built two airstrips essentially the same size in Northern Iraq (Autonomous Province of Kurdistan), which Turkey is attacking in conjunction with their Ally Iran (with no regard for civilian casualties).

Erdogan, the man was arrested for Unconstitutional conduct, has decided, that given Turkey's refusal (in its attempt to enter the EU due to its appalling human rights record) that he is going to try and take back control of the "Empire"...

The fact the UN let Turkey "Take" the enriched material from its ally Iran, is scary as hell. That material will be back in Iran in no time.

Turkey, Iran & Syria are now openly working together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA, the actors do look right don't they? Ahbanejiad looks like slimy and Assad has the correct stiff, stupid stance), so I ask again, why does the USA "NEED" Turkey AT ALL?

The US has a very good ally in the Region (an oil rich one too) in Kurdistan, which it has held off recognising as an independent Country in order not to offend the Turks...

Please, let the US wake up in time and realise that its former ally is playing games with its worst enemy in the region, and then let the US drop them like the rather heavy weight around their neck that they represent (Turkey will struggle to keep their war fighting machines in working order, the spares are sourced from Israel).

Custard,

I don't think the US "needs" Turkey. Nor does it need "Kurdistan", Iraq or any other country in the region.

What the US needs to do is free itself from reliance on oil imported from really awful countries. It certainly has the technological capability to do it.

When people tell me that all alternatives are too expensive compared to Middle-Eastern or Venezuelan oil I reply:

--Have you factored in the cost of the Iraq war?

--Have you factored in the factored in the risk posed by those long supply lines. Strategically they are your Achilles heel? All those tankers are a plum target for China's rapidly growing submarine force in the event of conflict.

--Have you factored in the cost of the navy that is required to keep those long supply lines secure?

--Have you taken account of the fact that you are financing some of the worst most aggressive regimes in the world?

--Have you taken into account that Iran probably could not afford nukes if it weren't for your oil-guzzling ways keeping the price so high?

Once you take those costs into account, alternatives look cheap.

Ironically on the note of US intervention csteele, if ever a conflict divided Turkey into the kemalist and Islamist camps, guess which side the US would actually support?
(hint- slogans may include 'militant atheist dictators suppressing the moderate "Moslem" people who want freedom).
The deal is, the secular side is the one with the giant army, educated professional middle-class citizens, money, prime real-estate, higher-level industry etc that Europe would be eyeing, the other side however would woo the Islamic world that the Americans want so bad- so screwing Europe and getting a browny point from their oil buddies is a pure win situation!

Turkey would ultimately do fairly well on its own- it would share the predicament of a European country exporting to the middle east, but a unique position of also exporting to Europe (and doing a lot of importing).

On the issue of secularism, it's not looking so hot for the secular people- who seem to be getting displaced by the 'bible belt' of Anatolia in all ways (including getting outvoted).
My only hope is that they DO separate and the US stays out of it (or, alternatively, the EU steps in and stops the US).
As it is, it's a union where secularism must be enforced by undemocratic law to protect the secular peoples from the rest- at the expense of religious expression of the majority- not to mention an aggressive Kurdish separatist movement- it would probably be practically better for all three to split, and no longer have to worry about the interference of the other.

A hint of where Erdogan’s ambitions lie may be found by going to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages

“The Turkic languages constitute a language family of some thirty languages, spoken by Turkic peoples across a vast area from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean to Siberia and Western China, and are considered to be part of the proposed Altaic language family.[1][2]
Turkic languages are spoken by some 165 [3] up to 180 million people as a native language;[4] and the total number of Turkic speakers is over 200 million, including speakers as a second language. The Turkic language with the greatest number of speakers is Turkish proper, or Anatolian [and Balkan] Turkish, the speakers of which account for about 40% of all Turkic speakers.[2] Characteristic features of Turkish, such as vowel harmony, agglutination, and lack of grammatical gender, are universal within the Turkic family and the Altaic languages.[2] There is also a high degree of mutual intelligibility between the various Oghuz languages, which include Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Qashqai, Gagauz, and Balkan Gagauz Turkish.”

Go to that site and look at the map. The region is in ferment. An expanding, prosperous Turkey can compete with the US, China and Russia for influence in the region. It has an ethnic and religious connection with those peoples that the US, China and Russia don’t have.

Here is a link to a piece in he Guardian newspaper on Turkey:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/21/turkey-zero-problems-policy?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments

I don't think anyone would call the Guardian a "pro-Israel" or "pro-American" publication.

QUOTES

Erdogan's fierce condemnation of the killing on Saturday of 11 soldiers by Kurdistan Workers party (PKK) fighters possibly reflected frustration that Ankara's pursuit of non-military solutions has produced little that is concrete in the eight years since his Justice and Development party (AKP) first came to power.

"Today we will not make the traitors happy," Erdogan said during a visit to Van. "We will defend this ground heroically ...

"I say here very clearly, they will not win. They will gain nothing. They will melt away in their own darkness ... they will drown in their own blood."

END QUOTES

"They will drown in their own blood!"

That's pretty bloodthirsty language for someone setting out to be an "honest broker"

Here's how the Guardian piece concludes:

"...the problem is not that Erdogan and Davutoglu want a bigger role for Turkey and are increasingly ready to go it alone. The problem, more often than not, is that when they do, they mess up."

Clearly Turkey has been oppressing its Kurdish minority for decades. Is Turkey an "Apartheid State"?

Here is what one poster on the Guardian website had to say:

"Anyone looking for Erdogan's sudden concern for the Palestinians and his links to the IHH will find them in this article.

"Its the old, old trick - distract attention from problems in your own country by creating an external enemy.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

Your topic is Turkey and I was loath to divert it any further but some of your statements deserve a reply.

I would like to hear from you why you see Singapore as “more like a very well run multinational company that a country.” while Iran is a “pathetic little dictatorship”. During the time I lived in Singapore there remained incarceration one Chia Thye Poh, widely regarded as “the longest-serving prisoner of conscience of the 20th century”. You need to show me why you think there is less democracy in Iran than Singapore.

It is probably pertinent to the RPST to remember one of the first acts of the Shah on gaining power was to sign the Consortium Agreement of 1954, which effectively gave 80% of the profits of Iranian oil to the UK and the US. I think Australia currently retains one dollar in seven.

But to in anyway balance the Shah's assistance to the entrepreneur class above what Amnesty International described in 1976 as the worst human rights record in the world is just plain wrong.

It is his abuses through his secret police, aided and abetted by the US that pushed Iranians to a lesser evil.

Just imagine the country that could have been built if it had been allowed to retain a democratic government and a fair share of its oil revenue.

You would appear through your posts to be putting economics above political freedoms in your assessment of the success of a country.

Dear King Hazza,

You make some valid points but I suppose Israel has managed to hold together its nation complete with the ultra-orthodox and its belligerent West Bank settlers, why should it be beyond Turkey to achieve stability?

As to what side the US would fall on, obviously the one that would best serve its interests.