They wrote an 'indictment' for the lieutenants!..

The dismissal of 5 lieutenants from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) for crossing swords and reciting the Officer's Oath, declaring "We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal" after the Military Academy graduation ceremony on August 30, along with 3 commanders for failing to intervene in this celebration, did not satisfy the pro-government media.

It appears that they will now push for the lieutenants and their commanders to be tried on charges of "attempting to overthrow the government and pitting the public against each other."

How do we conclude this?

From an article published on the Yeni Şafak newspaper's website around noon today.

AN ARTICLE OR AN INDICTMENT?

The article in question, titled "A threat beyond discipline in the TSK: The oath-taking ceremony incident and the provocation planned against the government," which is called an "article" but has an unknown author, begins with this introduction:

"The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is a deep-rooted institution known for its discipline and adherence to the chain of command. However, the incident that occurred during the 2024 oath-taking ceremony should be evaluated not just as a disciplinary issue, but as a deeper provocation targeting Turkey's political stability. The recitation of an abolished oath text by five lieutenants after the official ceremony turned into an organized act in front of the press, becoming an attempt to damage the government's reputation in the eyes of the public. This article analyzes how the lieutenants were provoked and how this act was used as a political tool against the government, while revealing the responsibilities behind the scenes of the event."

Let us note that "analyses" have been made in the introductions of indictments since the "FETÖ" era, and continue.

"EVIDENCE" AND "CRIMES"

Following this introduction, the listing of "evidence" begins, and the "signs that the incident was planned" are listed as follows:

- Repeated Applications to Superiors: The fact that the lieutenants applied to their superiors multiple times to recite the abolished text shows that this act was not a determination, but a systematic challenge.

- Messages Before the Ceremony: The correspondence between the lieutenants reveals that the event was not spontaneous but planned in advance. These messages included expressions stating that reciting the oath in an environment where the press was present would be more effective.

- "Malazgirt Battalion to the Field" Announcement: This announcement made by Lieutenant Ebru Eroğlu at the ceremony suggests that the event had the purpose of sending a symbolic message and was directed by an organized structure.

- Text Recited from Memory: The fact that the oath text was recited from memory is further proof that the event was prepared in advance and was not an individual reaction, but a collective act.

After all of this, the accusation is made that "These indicators reveal that the event is more than a simple disciplinary violation; it is an act aimed at putting the government in a difficult position and creating a political debate in the eyes of the public."

THE BATTALION'S NAME IS MALAZGIRT, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE

Before moving on to the later sections of the "article/indictment," let us answer those "accusations" one by one.

- They applied to their superiors multiple times to recite the Officer's Oath. As stated, there are not 7, but a total of three applications, one written and two verbal; but is there a law that says, "You can only apply once"? The application made was for this oath to be recited at the official ceremony. It was not accepted, and they did not recite it. If there were a "challenge," they would have recited it at the official ceremony despite not being given permission, right?

- During the ceremony rehearsals, the lieutenants frequently asked the regiment senior whether the Officer's Oath would be recited or not. He relayed this to his superiors. His superiors came and gave instructions to both Ebru Eroğlu and the battalion that it would not be recited. In short; since when is asking a question considered "planning"?

- Lieutenant Ebru Eroğlu's "Malazgirt battalion to the field" announcement supposedly had the purpose of sending a symbolic message. For heaven's sake, the name of the graduating lieutenants' battalion is "Malazgirt." So what, was Lieutenant Eroğlu supposed to call a different battalion instead of her own? With this mindset, could one also derive a "symbolic message" from the fact that the battalion was named "Malazgirt"? Lest we forget, there are also Dumlupınar, Anafartalar, and Sakarya battalions at the Military Academy besides Malazgirt!..

- Again, this announcement by Ebru Eroğlu supposedly suggests that she was directed by an organized structure. Did the pro-government media itself not write that the MIT (National Intelligence Organization) investigated the lieutenants and their seven generations of relatives? If something had come out, wouldn't their strings have been pulled long ago?

- The recitation of the oath text from memory is also proof that the event was prepared in advance and was a collective act. Can lieutenants who go through rigorous training and memorize dozens of marches not memorize this 5-line oath? Furthermore, since when is memorizing a crime? Moreover, it is a text that was recited at official ceremonies until it was removed from the directive in March 2023, and afterwards in all celebrations the lieutenants held among themselves the day before.

In short, should you laugh or cry?!

ARE CIVILIANS IRRESPONSIBLE?

In the second part of the "article/indictment," the "crimes" of the platoon and company commanders are included under the heading "The responsibility of the command echelon: Turning a blind eye or negligence?"

"They either acted negligently or knowingly paved the way for this provocation in the realization of this act!"..

The bill charged to the School Commander is as follows:

"The greatest responsibility for the growth of the incident and its reflection in the press belongs to the school commander. The school commander is responsible for the entire organization of such a high-profile event. The fact that the incident took place in front of the press and caused a wide repercussion shows that the commander either underestimated the situation or consciously turned a blind eye to this provocation... This command weakness constitutes a major security problem not only in terms of military discipline but also because it provides indirect support to a provocation planned against the government."

Noting that the commanders' responsibility is limited to the official ceremony and does not cover the time after the ceremony, let us look at this school commander issue.

Major General Gültekin Yaralı, who had been the commander at the school for 4 years, was promoted to Lieutenant General at the beginning of August and appointed as the 7th Corps Commander. Brigadier General Levent Sabahattin Güldağı, who was made the Military Academy Commander in his place, started his duty in mid-August. But because he was new, he did not attend the ceremony rehearsals; the Deputy Regiment Commander did. One had just left, one had just arrived. Both the one who left and the one who arrived watched the official ceremony from the stands behind Erdoğan, and then they left to see him off.

I wonder, what was expected of not only the School Commander but also the platoon and company commanders in the face of this ritual performed after the official ceremony? To step in front of the lieutenants, take their swords from their hands, and cover their mouths?

Let's say there is a "crime" and both the lieutenants and the commanders are "guilty"!.. But isn't there also a deanship at the school managed by civilians? Well, don't they have any responsibility at all?!

Let us come to the conclusion section of the "article/indictment."

"It is clear that this incident can be evaluated not just as a disciplinary violation, but as a political provocation against the government. Following the treacherous coup attempt carried out by the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) on July 15, 2016, Turkey continues to fight against parallel structures in state institutions. This oath-taking ceremony incident brings a similar strategy to mind." After saying this, these three "crimes" are summarized:

1- "Damaging the government's reputation: The lieutenants' act and the way the incident was reflected in the press aimed to create the perception that the government has lost control over the TSK. The perception intended to be created through the 'We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal' slogan aimed to create a false impression that the government is against Atatürk's principles and reforms. This situation aimed to create distrust against the government, especially in secular circles."

2- "Paving the way for overthrowing the government: Such provocations can be used to reduce public support for the government and put the current administration in a difficult position. The lieutenants' act is not just a disciplinary issue, but also a political message targeting the current government. The perception the incident wanted to create is that the government cannot establish authority over military discipline and has moved away from the state's fundamental values."

3- "Following this incident, two different perceptions have been attempted to be created in the public opinion: (1) The 'Atatürkist Lieutenants are being expelled from the Army' Perception: The incident has been attempted to be reflected by some circles as the lieutenants being punished because of the 'We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal' slogan... This situation has not only harmed Atatürk's ideals but has also damaged the unity and discipline within the TSK... (2) The 'There are still coup plotters in the TSK' Claim: Another segment has interpreted this incident as there still being pro-coup elements within the TSK. This shakes the credibility of the TSK in the eyes of the public and drags the military institution into political debates. These pieces of disinformation show that the incident is not just a military matter, but also a political tool aimed at pitting different segments of society against each other."

Ultimately, this "verdict" is rendered:

"The distrust intended to be created in the public opinion, especially against the government, is the most dangerous dimension of this provocation. Individual disciplinary punishments alone are not enough to prevent such provocations within the TSK... The government taking a determined and clear stance against such incidents is of vital importance for both the discipline of the TSK and the country's political stability."

Wow!.. So many "crimes" have been committed, the Ministry of National Defense could not detect these in the investigations that lasted for months, and did not see the need to file a criminal complaint against the lieutenants and their commanders... But the media found them all one by one!..

The message given is clear:

Dismissal is not enough, try them for "attempting a coup" as well... Here, the indictment is ready too!..

Müyesser YILDIZ

February 1, 2025