This is what surprised me most about the dismissal of the lieutenants

On this past November 10th, at the Tuzla Infantry School,following an incident where a lieutenant did not wear an Atatürk photograph on his lapel during the Atatürk commemoration ceremony, the Ministry of National Defense reached its decision and announced that both the 4 lieutenants who reacted to the failure to wear the photograph, and the lieutenant who did not wear it along with the 2 lieutenants who supported him, have been dismissed from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).

There is a peculiarity in the statement:

It was stated that a “decision for separation from the TSK” was made by the Land Forces High Disciplinary Board, but there was no mention of whether Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler had approved this decision.

These expressions were interpreted by the lawyers of the lieutenants, who are alleged to be members of a religious sect, as, “The decision has not been approved.” To understand what is correct, we must wait for the decision to be officially served to the lieutenants and their lawyers at the beginning of the week.

THE PROCESS LEADING FROM “DISINFORMATION” TO DISMISSAL

Let us first summarize the process followed by the Ministry of National Defense in the lieutenants' incident.

When the incident was first heard, Ministry of National Defense sources both

characterized it as a “clear example of disinformation” and announced that judicial and administrative processes regarding the matter had been initiated. Approximately one month later, it was announced that as a result of the administrative investigation,

“the personnel who caused the incident were temporarily suspended from duty,” while emphasizing that the actions of the 7 lieutenants constituted “indiscipline.” In the meantime, when Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler said, “One of our student officers did not wear the photograph he was supposed to wear,”

it sparked reactions, and the following was written and drawn in the pro-government media, which rushed to defend Güler: “In a structure built on discipline, the organization of structures under various names like ‘this-ist or that-ist’ should never be allowed. The Turkish Armed Forces is not a platform for spreading ideas or organizing.” “We look at the issue of not wearing Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s photograph on the lapel more emotionally, but soldiers, even though they have sensitivities regarding Atatürk, are at a different point. For them, the primary problem here is the failure to comply with the given order. It is of course important that the photograph ordered to be worn on the lapel belongs to the founder of our country. But when the order to wear a photograph on the lapel is not followed, it makes no difference in terms of rule violation whether that photograph is of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk or a martyr. For soldiers, the problem is that discipline has been disrupted.”

Ultimately, on January 18, the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board (YDK) convened to decide on the fate of the 7 lieutenants.

The 3 lieutenants stated to be members of a religious sect

and their lawyers, claiming that “an objective investigation was not conducted and an objective decision would not be taken,” did not attend the YDK and sent a short written defense, while the 4 lieutenants who reacted to the failure to wear the Atatürk photograph and their lawyers were present at the meeting and made their defense. The YDK members, for their part, listened without asking the lieutenants or their lawyers any questions. In the end, we learned that the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board had decided to dismiss all 7 lieutenants from the TSK and that the Ministry of National Defense had approved this. WHY DID IT BECOME SO COMPLICATED?

However, as the lawyers for the 4 lieutenants stated, the highest penalty that could be given to the lieutenants under the TSK Disciplinary Law could only be a “reprimand.”

The following emphasis in the latest statement made by the lawyers was also important:

“Imposing a dismissal penalty means accepting that there is a polarization within the TSK regarding Atatürk and that this polarization hinders service. According to the Constitution and the Military Academy Law, accepting that there is a polarization within the TSK regarding Atatürk, who is a supra-political value of the Turkish Nation and reflects the founding ideals and basic philosophy of the state, is a great injustice done to our clients and the TSK.”

And that is exactly what happened. For example,

CHP Chairman Özgür Özel

stated, “The justification for giving the same punishment to those who show disrespect to Atatürk and to the lieutenants who react to this can never be explained.”This is the situation. I am waiting to see what happens next. he said.

Was it intended for things to be exactly like this, for Atatürk to become a subject of debate within the TSK as well?

WAS THE MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AWARE OF THAT REPORT?

As is known, the issue escalated following the December 14 headline in the Yeni Şafak newspaper, “Lieutenant junta” which caused quite a stir.

Following this, pro-government media and certain NGOs demanded the dismissal from the TSK of the lieutenants who had reacted to the failure to wear Atatürk pins.

Let us share a claim circulating in the corridors right here.

The claim is that the Ministry of National Defense was aware of that report in Yeni Şafak before it was published.

Could it have been prevented if they had wanted to? Certainly; but, “Let it be published if it is to be published.” was the word given!..

SIGNIFICANT TIMING

As for the astonishment caused by the dismissal decision;

On the 100th anniversary of the Republic, the Navy saluted Erdoğan from the Vahdettin Pavilion, and Erdoğan described those who reacted to this situation as, “market-style Atatürkists” ...

Again, Erdoğan, without using the name Atatürk, stated, “Mustafa Kemal is our common value,” and “This nation has no issue, trouble, concern, or problem with the republic, nor with the founder of our republic, Gazi Mustafa Kemal,” before declaring, “Hostility toward Sharia is, in essence, hostility toward religion itself.” ...

At Palestine rallies, at Anıtkabir, and finally at the Istanbul Courthouse, “Sharia” slogans began to be chanted...

An AKP figure wrote the following regarding Alper Gezeravcı, who went to space, and his reminder of Atatürk’s words, “The future is in the skies” saying, “He is appealing to 1-2 percent of the country and alienating the 90 percent. After such a successful struggle against the Kemalist status quo that divides Turkey, narrows its horizons, and acts as a shackle on the country, to return and anchor back to that status quo... It is tragic, very tragic...” ...

Teacher Emine, who explained how the gains of the Republic were being destroyed one by one during the October 29 Republic Day ceremony, “for inciting the public to hatred and enmity” was detained and an investigation was launched against her; furthermore, upon the order of the Ministry of National Education, her contract was terminated by the school that uses the name of TED, which was founded by Atatürk himself...

And even the phrase used by the Ministry of National Defense when defining its duties, “Guided by Atatürk’s Principles and Reforms, and by reason and science” began to evolve into, “In the second century of our Republic, under the leadership of our President and in line with the goals of the Century of Turkey” ...

Now, we are surprised by the dismissal of lieutenants who are stated to be Atatürkists, is that so?!

WAS THE DISMISSAL DECISION UNANIMOUS?

Do you know what I am actually surprised by?

As far as I have learned, the High Disciplinary Board of the Land Forces Command decided on the dismissal of the lieutenants unanimously.

If it is true, the reason for my surprise is this:

There are two names on the board who were subjected to the Balyoz (Sledgehammer) conspiracy and spent years in prison.

They should know best what kind of danger cult and sect structures pose within the Turkish Armed Forces, shouldn't they?

They surely must know. Wouldn't it be expected, at the very least, for them to dissent against this dismissal decision?

It seems the 'order' came from above!..