Why do American generals exceed their authority when it comes to Turkey?

American statements on the failed coup in Turkey on Black Friday 15 July are still raising suspicion among observers more than two weeks after the attempted coup. The statements of some US generals pushed Turkish President Erdogan to condemn them on 29 July saying: “The Turkish people know who the mastermind of this coup is.”

This public and official Turkish opinion cannot be denied by the successive American statements which say that the US was not involved in the coup, because other US statements reveal the involvement of America in it, especially the military statements made by American generals in the region. And while America warns Turkey that continued statements accusing the US of being involved in the failed coup could hurt Turkish-American relations, these threats are not changing Turkish convictions, as long as the mastermind of the coup is the terrorist leader of the Parallel Entity who resides in America, and is getting protection and care from the US intelligence and as long as US generals are providing evidence towards popular suspicions in Turkey.

So, US Central Command Chief General Joseph Votel’s statement on 28 July did not change any of the Turkish people’s convictions, rather it revealed more scandals that prove the involvement of the US in the failed coup. And while US politicians, whether the US State Department spokesman or the White House spokesman, deny knowing or being involved in the failed coup in Turkey, US generals in the CIA and Pentagon do not deny it and their statements defending the coup reveal their connection to the generals who planned it.

General Votel says that a number of the US’ strongest military allies in the Turkish army have been put in jail after the coup attempt. But the only Turkish generals who were put in jail were those who were found guilty of being involved and participating in the coup, according to lists made by the coup organisers themselves and not according to Turkish accusations. It was stupid enough for the putschists to make a list of all generals participating in the coup and the nature and role of each of them, and another list of names of military people, judges and civil politicians who will take over power after the coup.

Some of the mistakes found in general Votel’s statement include saying in Aspen FSC, Colorado: “There is always a concern haunting Washington that the failed coup in Turkey, and the reaction of Ankara’s government to that coup, can possibly weaken the operations of the US Department of Defence in the region.”

“We certainly have a lot of relationships with Turkish leaders, in particular the military ones.. .I’m concerned about what might happen to those relationships.”

These US statements do not satisfy the Turkish people, government, presidency or the Turkish Chief of Staff, because they reveal a direct US intervention in the relations with Turkish generals, especially those the US is defending even after proven to have been involved in the coup against the will of the Turkish people; the ones who rebelled against the legitimately elected government using military airplanes and tanks to kill members of the government  in streets and in military and government headquarters, even in the Turkish parliament. How dare Turkish generals bomb with their military planes the Turkish parliament which was never bombed in its entire history whether during the Ottoman or Republic eras, even allied armies did not attack it during World War I.

There is no doubt that Turkey is a strategic partner for the US, and it is a strategic partner with the American military institute. This does not mean that relations between American and Turkish generals can be outside the Turkish political decision making circle, especially Turkish Ministry of Defence, which is part of the Turkish government policy. This is customary in international relations and diplomacy, where political and military communications can only take place through proper channels and not through members or generals. There shouldn’t be one general who is close to America and who is dealt with in a distinctive manner, otherwise that would be considered a breach of diplomatic relations. Communication can also be done through cooperation according to agreements between military institutes such as defence ministries and governments of the two countries.

The presence of coordination between Turkey and America for the fight against terrorism or against Daesh means that such coordination must be done between ministries of defence according to international agreements signed between the two countries and not through generals of either army in their personal entities. Also, the absence of certain generals from the Turkish or the American armies should not affect the policy of fighting terrorism because agreements are made between countries and specialised ministries, not between people, or certain generals. Even if such agreements were between certain security apparatus, it doesn’t mean that if some generals left their positions that the agreements would be affected because these generals only implement the agreements under orders of their government. Generals are not the ones who make the deals or guarantee them. They only implement them.

And the thing that proves that coup leaders were tools in the hands of outside planners is the statements of US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, at the same forum in Colorado, where he spoke of the same ideas as Votel, saying: “The military cleansing of the army in Turkey after the failed coup attempt is standing in the way of cooperation in the war led by the US against ISIL,” using another acronym for Daesh.

“The on-going cleansing of the army over there will have an impact on all the pillars of the national security services in Turkey.”

“Many of the people we were dealing with have been dismissed or arrested and there is no doubt that this will cause a setback and make cooperation with the Turks more difficult,” he said.

These American statements are harming Turkish-American relations because they interfere with Turkish affairs in the wrong way. US generals, no matter how high ranking they are, have no right to talk to the media or in political conferences in a manner that shows indifference to the Turkish government or the Turkish people and their victims who were killed or injured by the coup attempt when there were 242 military and civilian martyrs and thousands others injured. These statements should be made by concerned ministers and through diplomatic channels between countries. Therefore, these statements either express a state of despair and frustration among American generals who participated in the coup and failed, or that they are inciting statements against the Turkish government in retaliation for the failure of the coup, and therefore they are hostile statements against Turkey. Either way, the American government must put an end to such talk that harms American-Turkish relations. Their failure in planning a successful coup or their despair regarding what is going on should not harm Turkish-American relations, but rather the Pentagon should question these generals regarding their responsibility for the failed coup and hold them accountable for it if they are proven to have been involved.

The Turkish government must officially protest these remarks which harm strategic relations between Turkey and the US and it should demand the US government form a committee to investigate the charges the Turkish people are accusing US generals of and hold them accountable for the statements that are harming the reputation of the US army and the Turkish-American relations. These relations too strong to be damaged by some loser generals and their attempts to divert attention from the truth through irresponsible statements, which go beyond limits of diplomatic courtesy in speech and illegitimate actions against one of America’s friends: Turkey.

Translated from AlKhaleejOnline, 30 July 2016.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.