Mediaboss Marketing

In the midst of a colossal national scandal that may eventually rival Watergate, its a painful thought exercise: Imagine if Hillary Clinton had won.

Its tempting for Clinton voters to imagine a rosy alternate universe where she and her all-woman Cabinet put on their pantsuits and make swift progress on the countrys most pressing issues. In reality though, a Clinton presidency often would have been excruciating especially for Clintons most ardent supporters.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Donald Trump surely would be crowing about voter fraud and a rigged system the guy won, and even so, this week he ordered an investigation into alleged voter fraud, still apparently smarting from the fact that his opponent won the popular vote by nearly 3 million. His supporters, who show up armed and ready to political events, no doubt would be enraged, and its not beyond the imagination to think that violence may have flared up. Clintons agenda certainly would be hamstrung by an obstructionist Congress. The right-wing media would continue its attacks on her and the more moderate mainstream media likely would carry forward its worst electoral sins pushing under-reported non-stories, buying GOP framing of the Clintons as inherently corrupt. The left would be even more fractured than it is, with Hillary-haters taking aim at the president there would be no #resistance to unify the left in opposition to a common, orange-tinted authoritarian enemy. Her agenda wouldnt be put into place fast enough or wouldnt be left-wing enough, and many of her supporters would grow frustrated and disillusioned. Public displays of sexism and unrepentant misogyny targeting the most powerful woman in the country would be the norm. Women would hear that feminism succeeded, so what do we have to complain about?

And yet it would be so, so much better for liberals, for feminists, and for America as a whole.

First, we would still be moving forward. Its easy to forget about this now but when Obama was leaving office, there was a list of progressive, feminist causes that many of us thought would be achieved in the near future affordable child care and paid parental leave chief among them. It wouldnt have been easy, with this Congress, to push those policies through. But they would have been on the table and theyre issues popular enough with American voters that GOP obstructionism could have hurt them in the midterms. Many of us who report on, write about, and advocate for womens rights slowly started letting ourselves think about paid leave and affordable child care as issues of when, not if.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Now were back to the if. Under a Clinton presidency, the list of reasonable progressive and feminist demands might not have been fully checked off, but wed at least be working on it. Under Trump, his daughter Ivanka pays lip service to the issues of affordable child care and paid family leave, but theres been no actual movement on either issue, and no one expects care and leave policies will be presidential priorities.

Americans who didnt support Clinton would have been better off too, in part because of those same progressive policies conservatives benefit from good health care and paid parental leave also but mostly because we would have a stable grown-up in the White House, surrounded by a competent, experienced team. The policy landscape President Clinton would have pushed may not have pleased every Republican but she wouldnt have been a threat to the basic stability of the country.

By contrast, the rank incompetence, blatant corruption, and dizzying ineptitude of the Trump administration have been such pervasive and universal themes of this presidency that, just over 100 days in, it can be hard to remember what a normal White House looks like. Its not that Trump has been normalized but that human beings necessarily adjust. And for anyone with even a passing interest in politics, the new normal is that every day, there are a half-dozen outrageous new things the president has done, said, or tweeted. Its impossible to keep up with it all; the best most of us can do is latch onto an overarching narrative: This is crazy. And also: This is just another day in Trumps America.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Thinking about Hillarys America is a helpful way to put the full scale of that crazy into context. Yes, it would have been aggravating and sometimes heartbreaking for her supporters watching Clinton compromise, watching the attacks on her scale up. We definitely would not have been living in a feminist utopia with a Planned Parenthood on every corner, doling out kittens and free IUDs for every American woman. A Clinton presidency wouldnt have been as progressive as the left would have wanted it to be; it surely would have been more progressive than the right would have wanted it to be. But its hard to imagine Clinton, a careful and competent politician, so blatantly interfering in an FBI investigation into her own actions, as Trump just did and admitted to, when he said he fired FBI director James Comey because he didnt believe the investigation into his campaigns potential collusion with Russia was worthwhile. Its nearly impossible to imagine Clinton asking the chief investigator to pledge loyalty to her, then firing him, then publicly threatening him, and following that up with a suggestion that she may cancel all press briefings, impeding the ability of the media to do its job.

This administration promises to be a lesson in just how much damage one unhinged authoritarian can do. Clinton wouldnt have been everything to everyone but she wouldnt have been that.

Its worth it, then, to look at how exactly we got here. There are of course many reasons Trump won, with Comeys decision to break with FBI protocol and publicly comment about the bureaus investigation into Clintons emails not being the least of them. But part of Trumps advantage was that he played to the American peoples, and American medias, lust for excitement. Throughout the campaign, Clinton was criticized as too dull and wonky, not as naturally charismatic as her husband and unable to rile up a crowd like Trump. The coverage of Trump was so wall-to-wall that it began to feel like his every speech was being broadcast live; his face and his words were given ample free airtime on every major TV network. Clintons stump speeches and rallies didnt get covered nearly as much. When she lost, many commentators said it was because shes uninspiring, she lacks charisma, shes flat-out boring (despite those 3 million extra votes). Shes broccoli and Trump is sugar cereal.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

I dont know about you but when it comes to presidential politics, Im absolutely pining for some boring broccoli right now.

And so both the American people and the American media should learn something important from the current exciting but ultimately terrifying current political reality, and the thought experiment of flipping the election results: that sometimes, the boring machinations of government and the uninspiring doings of career public servants are good for us. Clinton would have largely carried forward Obamas agenda, chugging along with moderate efficiency, trying to fix whats broken and not screw too much stuff up. As far as campaign slogans go, thats not the most exciting but then, the moderating force of balanced powers and a constitutional democracy isnt meant to be exhilarating. As far as day-to-day operations in the West Wing go, Clintons would have been the equivalent of a low-volume screening of The English Patient in contrast to Trumps shrieking Michael Bay explosion-fest.

And all the sexism, all the obstruction, all the crap Clinton would have surely faced? It would have been worth it to not have a president who compromises human rights, whos more interested in self-dealing than public service, and whose intemperance and lack of self-control put our national security at risk. The inevitable lefty in-fighting, so visible during the campaign when Hillary was branded a neoliberal sellout and those supporting Clinton over Bernie Sanders were accused of voting with our vaginas? That would have been turned up to 100 under President Clinton. And it still would have been worth it to not have a president who may be compromised by a foreign power and who is so craven that he just fired the man charged with investigating him.

Boring, yeah. A dull but highly competent technocrat is admittedly less exciting than an unpredictable and sociopathic autocrat. Journalists might be yawning through her teams too-long policy papers. Voters might not find her immediately inspiring. But she wouldnt be threatening our most sacred institutions, public trust in government, and the existence of the republic itself. Even with the inevitable sexism, the roadblocks, the rage from the right and the fights within the left doesnt that sound nice today?

Follow Jill on Twitter.

Read more:
Imagine if Hillary Clinton Were President Today - Cosmopolitan.com

Istanbul (AFP) - If there were a global contest for winning elections, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would see himself as the undisputed -- and undefeated -- heavyweight champion of the world.

In the 15 years since his ruling party came to power, Erdogan has taken part in 11 elections -- five legislative polls, two referenda, three local elections and a presidential vote -- and won them all.

On Sunday, Erdogan claimed victory in his 12t and arguably biggest ballot-box challenge since his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002: a referendum on expanding his powers.

Supporters hail the new system as a historic change that will create efficient government but critics say it is a dangerous step towards one-man rule in the NATO member and EU candidate state.

Fighting for votes in every corner of the country, Erdogan kept up a punishing schedule of daily rallies seeking to woo doubters with his indefatigable campaigning.

Prowling around the stage like a rock star, a wireless microphone in his hand, Erdogan bellows at the crowds: "Do you want a strong Turkey?"

Known to his inner circle as "beyefendi" (sir) and to admirers as "reis" (the chief), Erdogan is supreme on stage, holding the audience with near-matchless public speaking skills.

- 'Balancing act' -

While Erdogan is widely seen in Western media as a near-omnipotent sultan, there are constraints to his rule, according to Asli Aydintasbas, senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

To win Sunday's referendum, Erdogan had to perform a "delicate balancing act" of winning votes from both Kurds and nationalists, she added.

And the result was extremely tight with major cities Ankara and Istanbul voting against him.

Erdogan came to the referendum after the most turbulent year of his political life which saw a slew of terror attacks, worsening relations with Europe and above all a failed coup on July 15.

In a memorable image, he appeared on the FaceTime app on live TV to urge supporters to flood the streets and defeat the coup, saying he escaped being killed by just 15 minutes before returning in triumph to Istanbul.

The president has courted ever more controversy as authorities jailed more than 47,000 people under a state of emergency which has lasted nine months so far.

There has even been talk of fissures within the AKP and with his two other party co-founders -- former president Abdullah Gul and ex deputy prime minister Bulent Arinc -- both deafening in their silence by failing to endorse the new system.

- 'My crazy projects' -

With the new constitution likely to come into force after elections in November 2019, Erdogan could stay in power until 2029, by which time the energetic president, 63, would be 75.

He seems determined to leave a legacy at least as significant as Turkey's modern founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, whose picture hangs next to his at rallies.

He has embarked on a hugely ambitious drive to modernise Turkey's infrastructure with a new bridge and two tunnels spanning the Bosphorus, high-speed trains and the construction of a third airport for Istanbul -- schemes he affectionately refers to as "my crazy projects".

But critics worry of a creeping Islamisation of Turkey's officially secular society, with a surge in mosque-building, use of Islamic schools and the abolition of all restrictions on the headscarf in public life.

Born in Istanbul but brought up by the Black Sea, Erdogan is intensely proud of rising from humble origins to become Turkey's most powerful politician since Ataturk.

He gained prominence in the nascent Islamic political movements that were starting to challenge secular domination, becoming a popular mayor of Istanbul in 1994.

He was jailed for four months for inciting religious hatred when he recited an Islamist poem, a term which only magnified his profile.

Founding the AKP after the previous Islamic party led by his mentor Necmettin Erbakan was banned, Erdogan spearheaded its 2002 landslide election victory and became premier less than six months later.

It was in these early days that the AKP, lacking allies, forged an alliance with the movement of US-based preacher Fethullah Gulen that would end with the sides becoming sworn enemies and Gulen blamed for masterminding the coup bid.

- Return to pragmatism? -

Protests in 2013 over plans to build a shopping mall on an Istanbul park provided a rallying cause for secular Turks but Erdogan came out fighting, famously slamming the protesters as "capulcu" ("hooligans").

In 2014, Erdogan was elected president in the first-ever popular vote for the post and moved into a vast new presidential palace that opponents denounced as an extravagance.

In June 2015 elections, the AKP won the most votes but lost its overall majority for the first time. But Erdogan swatted away any proposal of a coalition and called new elections in November where the majority was restored.

Some analysts predicted the referendum result could soften the rhetoric of Erdogan, who enraged European leaders by frequently referring to "Nazis" after authorities cancelled 'Yes' camp rallies.

But the first signs suggested that yet another ballot box win had only emboldened the "chief", as he called on foreign powers to respect the result and mooted a referendum on restoring the death penalty -- which would sound the death knell for Turkey's EU bid.

Excerpt from:
Erdogan: Turkey's pugnacious 'sultan' - Yahoo

Istanbul (AFP) - Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan narrowly won a historic referendum on Sunday that will tighten his grip on power, but the knife-edge result left the country bitterly divided and the opposition crying foul.

The sweeping constitutional changes approved in the vote create a presidential system that will grant Erdogan more power than any leader since modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his successor Ismet Inonu.

The result could also have even wider implications for Turkey which joined NATO in 1952 and for the last half-century has set its sights on joining the European Union.

The 'Yes' campaign won 51.4 percent of the vote against 48.6 percent for 'No', the election commission said in figures quoted by state news agency Anadolu, in a count based on 99.5 percent of the ballot boxes. Turnout was a high 85 percent.

As huge crowds of flag-waving supporters celebrated on the streets, Erdogan praised Turkey for taking a "historic decision".

"With the people, we have realised the most important reform in our history," he added.

But opposition supporters in anti-Erdogan districts of Istanbul showed their dissatisfaction by bashing pots and pans with kitchen utensils to create a noisy protest. Hundreds also took to the streets in the areas of Besiktas and Kadikoy.

Supreme Election Board chief Sadi Guven confirmed that the 'Yes' camp had emerged victorious, but the opposition has vowed to challenge the outcome.

Related:

For more news videos visit Yahoo View, available now on iOS and Android.

- 'New page opened' -

The referendum was held under a state of emergency that has seen 47,000 people arrested in an unprecedented crackdown after a failed military putsch against Erdogan in July last year.

In a nail-biting end to a frenetic campaign, the 'No' share of the vote climbed as more ballots were counted, after lagging well behind in the early count, but failed to overtake the 'Yes' votes.

"This is a decision made by the people. In our democracy's history, a new page has opened," said Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, whose job will disappear under the constitutional changes.

In a television interview on Friday Erdogan had predicted a far clearer victory saying polls showed a 55-60 percent share of the vote.

But voting patterns showed Turkey deeply divided over the changes, with the 'No' vote victorious in the country's three biggest cities.

The 'Yes' vote held up strongly in Erdogan's Anatolian heartland but the Aegean and Mediterranean coastal regions and Kurdish-dominated southeast backed the 'No' camp.

In a major disappointment for the president, the 'No' vote was just ahead in his hometown of Istanbul and in the capital Ankara and clearly ahead in the third city of Izmir.

A statement issued by European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker and EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini said that in view of the closeness of the result, the Turkish authorities need to seek the "broadest possible national consensus" for the changes.

Erdogan made relations with the EU a key issue in his referendum campaign, lambasting Brussels for failing to make progress on Ankara's stalled accession talks and he accused Germany and the Netherlands of acting like the Nazis when they barred pro-government rallies.

- 'Totally invalid' -

Turkey's two main opposition parties said they would challenge the results over alleged violations.

The pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) said it would challenge two-thirds of the votes, saying: "There is an indication of a 3-4 percentage point manipulation of the vote."

Republican People's Party (CHP) chief Kemal Kilicdaroglu said the actions of the election authorities "caused the referendum's legitimacy to be questioned" insisting that the 'No' side had won at least 50 percent of votes cast.

"Believe me, this election is not over," deputy CHP leader Erdal Aksunger told CNN Turk, quoted by the Dogan news agency. "This is totally invalid. We are declaring this here."

The opposition had already complained that the referendum was conducted on unfair terms, with 'Yes' posters ubiquitous on the streets and opposition voices squeezed from the media.

Closely watched on Monday will be the initial assessment of the international observer mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

- 'Robust and muscular' -

Erdogan again warned Brussels he would sign any bill agreed by parliament to reinstate capital punishment, a move that would automatically end Turkey's EU bid.

If the opposition failed to support the bill, Erdogan said another referendum could be held on reinstating the death penalty.

Western reactions to the referendum will be crucial after Erdogan accused Turkey's allies of failing to show sufficient solidarity in the wake of the failed coup.

"We would like other countries and institutions to show respect to the decision of the nation," Erdogan said.

The new system would dispense with the office of prime minister and centralise the entire executive bureaucracy under the president, giving Erdogan the direct power to appoint ministers.

It is due to come into force after elections in November 2019. Erdogan, who became president in 2014 after serving as premier from 2003, could then seek two more five-year terms.

"I don't think he (Erdogan) will reverse course. I don't think Erdogan will change the robust and muscular approach to politics that he has adopted so far," said Fadi Hakura, Turkey expert at London-based Chatham House think tank.

Link:
Erdogan wins Turkey referendum as opposition cries foul

By Ilkay Guder and Fuat Kabakci

BEIJING

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described the Belt and Road initiative as against terrorism adding that Turkey will give all kinds of support for it.

Speaking at the opening ceremony of the Belt and Road Forum in China's capital Beijing on Sunday, Erdogan said the New Silk Road initiative was a very important project covering more than 60 countries and almost 4.5 billion people in the world.

The Belt and Road Initiative was proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013.

According to Chinas official Xinhua news wire, the goal of the initiative is to build a trade and infrastructure network along ancient trade routes such as the Silk Road that would connect Asia with Europe, Africa and beyond.

"This initiative, especially against the rising terrorism in the world, will be an initiative that will almost eradicate terrorism. I believe this cooperation which will benefit everyone will succeed as a model. We, as Turkey, are ready to give all kinds of support for it, Erdogan said.

I believe that this initiative, also called the New Silk Road, will mark the future in an effort to link Asia, Europe, Africa and even South America, the president added.

Pointing out that the success of the project depends on the route countries facilitating trade, co-operating in the customs field, removing non-tariffs barriers and promoting investments, Erdogan said that allowing the usage of national funds of the route countries along with the Silk Road fund would deepen the financial integration of the project.

Erdogan also highlighted the promotion of comprehensive cultural cooperation in the fields of tourism, science, technology and media along with the increase of student and personnel exchange programs to achieve the goal.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, also speaking at the opening ceremony, said the Silk Road dates back2,000 yearsand it connected many civilizations with each other and hence allowed financial and cultural communication between societies.

Xi announced that Beijing promises to provide 540 millionYuan (78 billion dollars) of financial support for the Belt and Road initiative, and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is providing a further 1.7 billion dollars worth of loans to the participant countries.

He said scholarships for 10,000 students will beprovided each year as part of the initiative.

The Chinese presidentalso said he will sign trade and economic cooperation treaties with more than 30 countries during the forum.

More than 1500 representatives from 130 countries and 70 international organizations are the Belt and Road.

Link:
Erdogan: New Silk Road to eradicate terrorism - Anadolu Agency

In September 2010 former President Barack Obama met with then-Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Toronto. It had been a difficult spring for U.S.-Turkey relations.

In mid-May the Turks and the Brazilians had announced that they had struck a deal with Iran that undercut American efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Tehran. A few weeks later Israeli commandos had boarded a Turkish-flagged vessel that intended to run Israels naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. In the melee that ensued, eight Turks and a Turkish-American were killed. The Turkish response was swift and rhetorically harsh calling the incident Turkeys 9/11 and threatening a naval confrontation with Israeli warships in the eastern Mediterranean. Then in June the Turkish government had voted against U.N. sanctions on Iran in the Security Council, once again undercutting the United States.

Obama had made one of his first foreign visits to Turkey in April 2010, when in an address to the Grand National Assembly, he spoke eloquently about the values and goals shared by the two countries. But by July 4, his advisors were wondering why Turkey was not acting like a NATO ally.

The tension eased considerably a few months later when Obama and Erdogan cleared the air in that private meeting in Toronto and agreed on a way forward for Turkish-American relations. Over the following two and a half years, relations were generally cooperative and constructive, especially in those exhilarating days of the Arab Spring, which saw the fall of leaders in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

The encounter at the G20 summit was critical in the development of the Obama administrations approach to Turkey over the next seven years. Differences between the countries would be settled privately, out of both respect for Turkish sensitivities and concern that a backlash in Ankara would complicate American foreign policy. It was a reasoned, respectful and pragmatic approach. It was also a mistake.

Erdogan, now Turkeys president since August 2014, will visit Washington on Tuesday for his first face-to-face meeting with President Donald Trump amid tension over the White Houses decision to arm the Syrian Kurds of the Peoples Protection Units (the YPG). This group has worked closely with the Pentagon in the fight against the self-declared Islamic State and will be a significant part of the ground forces poised to take Raqqa, the so-called capital of ISIS. The YPG is also directly linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (the PKK), which has been waging a war on the Turkish state since 1984.

The Trump-Erdogan meeting also comes a month after Turkeys controversial constitutional referendum, which gave the president unprecedented powers. While the Turkish opposition was howling in protest and European observers were casting doubt on the fairness of the vote, Trump placed a congratulatory call to Erdogan. The White House took a lot of heat for that call, but there was a logic to it.

Once Erdogan, the Turkish state media and Turkeys Supreme Electoral Council had announced that the amendments were narrowly approved, there was no chance the results would be reversed, no matter how much evidence of electoral chicanery the opposition could produce. Trump and his advisers no doubt sought to give Erdogan and the referendum the legitimacy it likely did not deserve, hoping it would constrain Turkish forces from attacking Washingtons YPG allies. It was all very Obama-esque, and it did not work. Erdogan pocketed the call, and a few days later Turkish forces were shelling YPG positions.

All kinds of ideas are running around Washington about how to deal with the contradictions of U.S. policy in Syria(by working with the YPG, the United States is supporting the enemy of a longtime ally) and how to deal with Turkey more generally. Authoritative voices have suggested the Trump administration insist on the resumption of the tentative peace negotiations between Turkey and the PKK that began in 2013 as a way out of this mess.

That sounds eminently reasonable, but given that Erdogan has only narrowly won his referendum if he won it at all and has sought to appropriate the political terrain inhabited by the hard-core nationalist right, it will be difficult to move the Turkish leader back toward reconciliation in time for the final push against Raqqa. Fighting the PKK and the YPG, as well as beating up the United States for its relationship with the YPG, is just good politics for the Turkish president at this point.

It seems that the Trump team may be making the same mistakes as the Obama team did, which largely means relying on private assurances and low-key, behind-the-scenes encouragement. The secretary of defense, Gen. Jim Mattis, has spoken recently of working it out with the Turks. Maybe he can, but at this point no amount of American assurances about the nature of the YPG, the level of American influence over the group, the number of actual Kurdish fighters within the Syrian Democratic Forces and the role of the YPG in liberated areas of northern Syria is going to convince the Turkish leadership that their mistrust of U.S. policy is misplaced.

For Turks, it looks as if the United States is midwifing a terrorist state on their southern border. It is worth remembering that Erdogan and his advisers apparently believed that it was acceptable to blame everyone from the commander of U.S. Central Command to the director of the CIA, the U.S. ambassador and the director of the Middle East Center at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for last Julys failed coup simply because they could.

That outrageous rhetoric was met with public silence from the Obama White House, which first dispatched the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Ankara to genuflect before Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, and when that did not work, sent Vice President Joe Biden made to express Washingtons regret and sorrow over the failed coup. None of that worked either. Erdogans dark rhetoric about the United States continued, and as the vice president arrived in Turkey, Turkish forces invaded Syria to blunt YPG gains there.

Trump has a more straightforward option: Use more vinegar than honey. When the Turks berate the United States for supporting terrorists that is, the YPG it would be worthwhile for the Trump administration to publicly remind Ankara that it has much to answer for in the development of jihadi networks in and around Syria. After all, when the Turks failed to cajole the United States into what would have been an extended military operation to bring down the Bashar Assad regime, they turned a blind eye to terrorists, who began using Turkish territory to fight in Syria. Over time, Turkish intelligence coordinated with some of these groups, though not the Islamic State.

In addition, whatever one thinks of the YPG there tends to be too much romanticizing of Kurds in general in Washington American officials have a good public case to make about military cooperation with the group, on the grounds that Turkey did not initially want to join the fight against the Islamic State. The choice the Turks made in the summer of 2014 to stay on the sidelines as the Obama administration went looking for allies against ISIS forced Washington into making common cause with the YPG. Would the United States prefer to fight alongside the second-largest military in NATO? Of course, but when Turkey dithered, deflected and declared that its priority was fighting the PKK, what choice did Washington have? Ultimately, you go to war with the allies you have.

No doubt there are risks to holding Erdogan publicly accountable. He will use tension with the United States to his political advantage at home. Yet Erdogan derives domestic political benefit from fractious ties with the United States in large part because the Obama administration has never held him accountable. There is anecdotal evidence that Erdogan worried about U.S. reaction to his various domestic and foreign policy excesses, but when those rebukes never came, or arrivedonly in private, he learned he could act with impunity.

Turkish leaders understand that Ankaras ties with Washington are the most important relationship their nation has. The best evidence of this was the meetings Turkeys chief of the general staff, the countrys intelligence director and Erdogans political adviser held with American officials last weekseeking a strategic relationship with the United States. Given the value that Turks assign U.S.-Turkey relations, if Erdogan understands there are costs associated with complicating U.S. efforts to defeat the Islamic State, he may change course. That is why publicly holding the Turkish leadership accountable for the present state of bilateral relations and Washingtons ties with the YPG is a potentially effective way of keeping the Turks on the sidelines.

An argument could be made that a more-vinegar-than-honey approach with the Turks would drive Ankara closer to Vladimir Putin and Moscow, but that relationship has limits. The Turks have strengthened their ties with Russiabecause the Obama administration removed itself from the Syrian conflict. That left Erdogan with only one potential ally to try to secure Turkeys interests in Syria. Still, the Turks are wary of the exercise of Russian power in their neighborhood. Also, Moscow does not have the economic resources to help Ankara out of its current (and accumulating) economic crisis. For all of Erdogans tough rhetoric about the United States and Europe, he will need both to help build a stable future for Turkey.

The Russians do provide an object lesson on how to deal with Turkey, however. Putin took a hard line with Erdogan after a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian warplane in November 2015. Russia imposed sanctions on Turkish fruit and vegetable exports, welcomed the opening of a YPG office in Moscow and supplied weaponry to the group. The result was an apology from Erdogan and a more solicitous Turkish approach to Russia.

At the moment, the Turks fear the Russians; they do not fear the United States. A willingness to risk some additional tension in the bilateral relationship by publicly holding Erdogan accountable on various issues Turkeys threats to complicate the operation against the Islamic State; Erdogans purge of bureaucrats, teachers, judges, prosecutors, journalists; Ankaras efforts to politicize the American judicial system over two high-profile cases involving Turks; the detention of Americans in Turkey; and the Turkish leaderships outrageous rhetoric about the United States would certainly get Ankaras attention. To do otherwise would be to signal to the Turks that they can continue to abuse their own people, undermine U.S. policy and publicly disrespect American officials.

View original post here:
Donald Trump is repeating Obama's errors in dealing with Turkey's Erdogan: But there is another way forward - Salon