Lieutenants who said 'We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers' dismissed from the TSK

The disciplinary process initiated after lieutenants drew their swords and chanted 'We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers' has been concluded. The Ministry of National Defense announced that a "Separation from the Armed Forces" penalty was imposed on 3 disciplinary supervisors and 5 lieutenants.

MSB ANNOUNCES THE DECISION

The MSB announced the decision regarding the lieutenants with the following statement: 'Within the scope of the administrative and disciplinary investigations initiated following the images reflected to the public after the Military Academy Flag Handover and Graduation Ceremony; a "Separation from the Armed Forces" penalty was imposed by the Ministry of National Defense High Disciplinary Board on 3 ranking disciplinary supervisors, and by the Land Forces High Disciplinary Board on 5 lieutenants, in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Turkish Armed Forces Disciplinary Law and the Turkish Armed Forces High Disciplinary Boards Regulation, as well as other aforementioned legislation.'

The statement included the following expressions:

Within the scope of the administrative and disciplinary investigations initiated following the images reflected to the public after the Military Academy Flag Handover and Graduation Ceremony; a "Separation from the Armed Forces" penalty was imposed by the Ministry of National Defense High Disciplinary Board on 3 ranking disciplinary supervisors, and by the Land Forces High Disciplinary Board on 5 lieutenants, in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Turkish Armed Forces Disciplinary Law and the Turkish Armed Forces High Disciplinary Boards Regulation, as well as other aforementioned legislation.

In our Turkish Armed Forces, where the priority is the preservation and maintenance of established discipline, there should not be the slightest doubt that no act, incident, or situation contrary to discipline will be tolerated.

On the other hand, answers regarding why such a decision was made have emerged in 12 questions.

1. Why were the lieutenants so insistent on reading the repealed oath text at the ceremony? What was the purpose of going to their commanders seven times? Was there any other way to try to get the text put back into the directive?

The removal of the aforementioned oath text from the directive is at the discretion of the administration.

It is also an act of indiscipline for students to question this decision and want to read it at an official ceremony despite it being removed from the directive. While questioning the decisions made by superiors even once is a serious act of indiscipline in the military profession, which is based on absolute obedience, repeating this seven times is not an acceptable situation.

Indeed, in this case, a separation penalty from the TSK was also imposed by the High Disciplinary Board for the administrative officers who did not do what was necessary and did not take the required measures.

If it is thought that a decision made by the administration is wrong, the thing to do is to resort to administrative judicial channels.

2. How is it known that the activity did not develop spontaneously, but was planned?

The lieutenants';

- Repeated applications to their superiors to read the repealed text at the ceremony,

- The messages they exchanged among themselves to read it after the ceremony despite having read the oath the night before,

- Their statements during the disciplinary investigation such as "we thought it would be more effective to read the oath where the press was present",

- Lieutenant Ebru Eroğlu's announcement of "Malazgirt Battalion to the field" after making an announcement to remove families from the ceremony area via the announcement system, and,

- Lieutenant Ebru Eroğlu reading the text from memory revealed that this action was not an individual and spontaneous act, but was carried out in a pre-planned and organized manner, and that an attitude and behavior disruptive to discipline was displayed.

3. Why is the lieutenants' defense that "We wanted to read the text at the ceremony, and when we were not allowed, we read it after the ceremony. Since the order was 'it will not be read at the ceremony', there is no disobedience to orders" invalid?

A ceremony is a whole. Even if the official part of the ceremony has ended, organizing an alternative ceremony by going outside the written matters in the ceremony directive is contrary to discipline.

The lieutenants acting by interpreting orders as "in-ceremony" or "out-of-ceremony" means bypassing the chain of command.

4. The oath in question has been read in different environments in past years. Why was action taken this year when no action was taken against them?

Because the problem here is not the reading of the oath. This year, there is an alternative oath ceremony organized with the intention of sending a message, taking advantage of the presence of the press in the area where the ceremony took place. There is a disregard for superiors and military hierarchy, and a stubbornness against the administration!

5. Were the lieutenants punished because they chanted the slogan "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers"?

Attitudes and behaviors that will create a perception of division over common values, especially Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, can never be accepted.

The lieutenants were not referred to discipline because they crossed swords or said "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers," but because they read the repealed oath text by committing a deliberate, organized, and planned act of indiscipline despite the warnings of their superiors.

Furthermore, if the problem were saying "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers," disciplinary action would have been taken against approximately 400 lieutenants who crossed swords and read the oath there.

6. Despite the MSB saying the problem is indiscipline, why is it persistently claimed that the lieutenants were punished for the slogan "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers"? What is the goal?

Those who tried to defend that the lieutenants were right from the very first day without waiting for the inside story of the incident to emerge, once they realized that some lieutenants had committed indiscipline in an organized and planned manner, started to keep the narrative that they were referred to discipline because they said "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers" on the agenda.

While no question such as "Why did you say We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers" was asked to the lieutenants in the investigation conducted, trying to reflect this incident as if it consisted only of this slogan is nothing but an effort to exploit our nation's love and respect for Atatürk.

Whether in the public or private sector, no manager overlooks, or can overlook, a personnel who does not follow the rules despite being warned 7 times.

7. How did this incident damage the reputation of the TSK / pave the way for it to be worn down?

While the justified pride of 3 female officers graduating first from all 3 Military Academies simultaneously, which is a first in the world, should have been experienced by the nation, and while this situation would have further increased the reputation of the TSK all over the world, the TSK was made a subject of debate and its reputation was damaged with this organized and collective indiscipline.

The reading of the oath in question caused a perception of "there is division in the TSK" to be created, comments and debates were made in the public opinion that there was a split within the TSK, and the TSK, which is the apple of the nation's eye, was pushed into political debates due to the undisciplined behavior of a few lieutenants.

On the other hand, as a result of this indiscipline, the ground was prepared for one segment to engage in disinformation by saying "Atatürkist lieutenants are being expelled from the army" and another segment by saying "there are still coup plotters in the TSK," and for the TSK to be worn down.

8. Why cannot the TSK allow such actions?

The foundation of the Turkish Armed Forces is discipline, and the primary duty of the TSK is to establish and maintain discipline.

The action in question was organized in a group without the permission of the superiors, was carried out in an environment where the press was present so that the action would be known, and the chain of command was bypassed.

The lieutenants' insistence on this behavior despite the clear warnings of their superiors and seniors means openly challenging military rules and regulations. This is in no way acceptable.

If such indiscipline and actions are overlooked or if deterrent measures are not taken, it may lead other personnel to question orders in a similar way. Disrespect for the hierarchy spreads, and the feelings of respect, trust, and reverence of subordinates towards superiors diminish.

Therefore, the institutional order is disrupted.

9. Okay, there is indiscipline. But should the penalty for this be separation from the TSK?

The incident here is, in summary, about procedure, independent of the content of the text and the slogans chanted. It is the attitude of "Even if you remove it, I will read this text with an alternative organization despite your warnings and refusal to allow it." It is the act of questioning the authority of the administration and ignoring the military hierarchy in a collective manner.

Indiscipline can set a precedent and cause groupings by harming the unity and solidarity of the Turkish Armed Forces.

For these reasons, deterrent penalties must be imposed to protect the institutional order.

On the other hand, the attitudes and statements of the lieutenants in question during the disciplinary investigation and the High Disciplinary Board process are also significant. Statements in the vein of "we did it knowingly," which are consistent with their actions, show this. In none of them is there an attitude such as "we made a mistake, we were misunderstood, we feel regret, we could not have predicted it would turn out like this." Do you think the TSK should have overlooked this?

10. Why do some retired soldiers persistently say there is no indiscipline here? Is it really so?

Some retired soldiers who say there is no indiscipline are actually continuing to persistently ignore the indiscipline committed by the lieutenants. However, it is very clear and obvious that if they were on duty and conducted an investigation regarding this incident, they would have made the same decision themselves.

This situation is similar to a former economist who has left office saying that the minimum wage should be 50 thousand TL. He knows that it cannot be, that it should not be for a healthy economy, and that he would definitely not accept it if he were on duty, but since the responsibility is not on him, he can make promises and statements that will please certain masses.

If retired soldiers had uniforms on them right now, they would prioritize the reputation and future of the TSK; they would remember that laws, chain of command, and discipline are indispensable for this army, and they would do exactly what is being done now.

11. How did the lieutenants, who are claimed to be punished because they said "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers," cause the greatest harm to Atatürk's ideals?

One of Atatürk's greatest ideals was for women to take the place they deserve in social life. The fact that 3 female lieutenants graduated first from the Military Academies, which would be met with great appreciation all over the world, is one of the highest points in reaching this ideal. However, this success has been overshadowed because of some lieutenants who disregarded discipline.

What is important is not to mention Atatürk's name or to appear to defend his values, but to show respect for the values he defended.

As such, the lieutenants who acted outside of discipline and pushed our heroic army into the center of political debates have also trampled on Atatürk's culture of discipline.

12. In the polls conducted, the vast majority of the public does not want the lieutenants to be punished. Is this true? If this situation is true, is it expected to be effective in making the decision?

Those who conduct the polls in question carry out these polls by saying that the lieutenants will be expelled because they said "We are Mustafa Kemal's soldiers."

However, could the lieutenants and those who motivate them make a defense without Atatürk being mentioned? Could they provide a logical explanation for their indiscipline?

Our people look at the issue emotionally, and those who try to cover up the indiscipline of the lieutenants also use this emotionality.

The state makes decisions only and only according to laws, regulations, and orders. The healthy functioning of the state and the protection of institutional order come before emotionality.

The names of the five lieutenants expelled from the Turkish Armed Forces are as follows: Ebru Eroğlu, İzzet Talip Akarsu, Serhat Gündar, Deniz Demirtaş, Batuhan Gazi Kılıç