BirGün

[Jay]

 

[Jay]

​

It’s easy to romanticize generals. Especially in moments of national crisis, when the institutions of liberal democracy appear fragile, corrupted, or outmatched by rising strongmen, the military offers a seductive fantasy. That of order, secularism, even salvation. But for those of us with an internationalist memory, who see beyond the immediate headlines and into the recurring structures of global power, this fantasy is as dangerous as it is false.

The recent purge of over 800 Turkish officers and the dismissal of 60,000 soldiers is being framed by foreign media and local liberals alike as an authoritarian overreach by President Ayşe Arslan’s communist government. The idea that the Turkish Armed Forces are the rightful guardians of democracy is a real fiction.

For a century, the Turkish military has acted less like a national institution and more like a client force for international capital and Western strategic interests. From the NATO-backed 1980 coup to the quiet complicity in the Syrian conflict, Turkish generals have routinely placed the demands of Washington, Brussels, and domestic oligarchs above the will of Turkish workers, peasants, and the Kurdish and Alevi communities who have long borne the brunt of elite violence.

This army has overthrown elected governments, massacred leftists, and suffocated democratic experiments whenever they’ve emerged from below. It has not been the shield of the republic, it has been the bayonet of fascism.

So when we hear whispers that America, another deeply compromised regime, may be aiding anti-government elements within the Turkish military, we shouldn't be surprised. This is part of the pattern. Whether it was Operation Gladio in Italy, the CIA's fingerprints on coups in Latin America, or NATO’s complicity in anti-leftist crackdowns across Europe and the Middle East, military forces across the so-called “Free World” have been conditioned to view socialism, especially domestic socialism, as the real enemy.

President Arslan’s government, for all its flaws, represents something terrifying to those entrenched forces: a break. A break from the old comprador elite. A break from the Military's chokehold. A break from capitalism’s logic of endless accumulation and foreign dependency. Her decision to empower the People’s Revolutionary Guard Corps isn’t simply a power grab, it’s an attempt to build a new state on new foundations. One where the workers not only own the means of production but the levers of state including the military.

Critics say this is authoritarian. But let us be honest, was it not authoritarian when generals shut down unions, when tanks rolled into Kurdish towns, when police disappeared students in the name of “stability”? Why is it only now, when the army is being dismantled, that commentators find their voice?

No revolution is immune to corruption or excess. But we must also remember, revolution is not always orderly, and democracy does not always wear a suit. Sometimes it comes with calloused hands, in the form of paramilitaries born out of popular movements, reclaiming power from centuries of imperial and domestic tyranny.

The Turkish people have a long history of being ruled in the name of “order” and “stability.” Maybe it’s time they get the chance to rule themselves.

 

[Jay]

Since the outbreak of civil war in Syria in 2003, Türkiye has welcomed more than 1.1 million Syrian refugees, more than any other country. What began as an open-arm gesture rooted in historical and cultural kinship has evolved into a source of deep political, economic, and social tension. Now, amid economic turbulence and rising domestic discontent, the limits of Türkiye’s hospitality are being tested.

In the early years of the Syrian conflict, Türkiye was lauded for its swift and generous response. Refugees were granted temporary protection, access to health care, and enrollment in public schools. Camps were established along the southern border, offering safety and basic services. Many Syrians eventually moved into Turkish cities, seeking work and stability in communities already struggling with urban poverty and unemployment.

But as the war dragged on and the prospect of large-scale repatriation diminished, so too did the sense that the crisis was temporary.

Today, the majority of Syrian refugees live in urban areas such as Istanbul, Gaziantep, and Şanlıurfa, often in poor neighborhoods and working in low-wage, informal sectors. Rights groups warn of deepening vulnerabilities, including child labor, housing insecurity, and rising incidents of xenophobia.

“The hospitality hasn’t disappeared,” said Ayşe Yıldırım, a humanitarian aid worker in Gaziantep. “But after three years, the burden is undeniable.”

Türkiye’s economy, already beleaguered by inflation, currency volatility, and high unemployment, is showing visible strain under the pressure of hosting millions of displaced people.

In a nation where inflation has surged past 50% in recent years and the lira has steadily weakened, the cost of providing services, including education, healthcare,and housing subsidies, has become increasingly untenable. According to estimates from Turkish think tanks, the government has spent more than $10 billion on refugee-related expenses since 2003.

In working-class districts, the influx of Syrian labor has sparked resentment. Many Turks claim that Syrians are willing to work for lower wages, undercutting local workers and contributing to rising job insecurity. Informal employment is rampant, with little enforcement of labor rights.

“People are angry,” said Emre Koç, a small business owner in Ankara. “They’re not against helping Syrians, but they’re worried about their own future.”

As economic anxiety deepens, politicians across the spectrum have seized on refugee policy as a tool of populist appeal.

Opposition parties have called for large-scale deportations, stricter border enforcement, and in some cases, even threatened direct intervention in Syria. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a now-jailed deputy from the banned opposition Welfare Party, had previously struck a more moderate tone, advocating for voluntary repatriation as a long-term solution. Meanwhile, the ruling Turkish Workers’ Party has framed its position as one of solidarity with the Syrian working class, denouncing what it describes as sectarian and ethnic violence driven by the petty bourgeoisie.

Tensions have periodically erupted into violence. In September, riots in the central city of Kayseri, sparked by unconfirmed reports of a Syrian man harassing a Turkish girl, led to attacks on Syrian-owned businesses and homes. Police were deployed to restore order, but the message was clear: resentment is rising.

Human rights groups warn that political scapegoating could escalate.

“Refugees are being used as pawns,” said Halil Demir of the Refugee Rights Association. “We’re forgetting they are people who fled war, just trying to survive.”

Despite the challenges, Türkiye has made efforts to formalize refugee integration. Nearly 350,000 Syrians are now registered in public education programs. Access to health care remains relatively widespread. The government has introduced incentives for Turkish companies to hire refugees legally, although uptake has been limited.

Still, the long-term path remains uncertain. Efforts to return Syrians to northern Syria have drawn criticism from local human rights groups who question whether conditions in the war-torn country can support sustainable resettlement.

“There’s no easy answer,” said Murat Erdoğan, a migration policy expert at Ankara University. “Türkiye cannot absorb everyone forever. But it cannot send people back to danger either.”

For now, the burden of a once-generous policy continues to rest heavily on a country in transition, caught between its humanitarian ideals and its economic reality.