Turkey’s highest ranking military officers has reportedly resigned en masse.
According to the SFGate,
The chiefs of staff of Turkey's military stepped down Friday as tensions dramatically increased over the arrest of dozens of officers accused of plotting to overthrow the Islamic-rooted government.
The resignation of so many top commanders, a first for Turkey, a NATO member, signals a deep rift with the government, which has confronted a military that once held sway over Turkish political life. The arrests of high-ranking military officers would once have been unimaginable.
The resignations of Turkey's top general, Isik Kosaner, along with the country's navy, army and air force commanders, came hours after a court charged 22 suspects, including several generals and officers, with carrying out an Internet campaign to undermine the government. The commanders asked to be retired, the state-run Anatolia news agency said.
In Brussels, a NATO spokeswoman declined to comment on the resignations. Turkey's military is the second largest in the 27-member alliance. It has about 1,800 troops as part of NATO's 140,000-strong force in Afghanistan.
The Turkish government responded by quickly appointing the remaining highest-ranking commander, Gen. Necdet Ozel, as the new land forces commander and the acting chief of staff, the office of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced. President Abdullah Gul approved the appointment.
This puts to light the question “who protects us from our protectors?” when men in uniform try to exert political pressure on the civilian government.
Nevertheless, these events can present themselves as windows of opportunities for the Turkish people to even pare down on the vertical hierarchical structure of the world’s sixth largest armed forces that should free up resources for the private sector to use, and importantly, to reduce dependency on so-called ‘protectors’, who in reality signify as instruments of state initiated violence on her people.
Bluntly put, a shrinkage of government equates to the advance of civil liberties.
From Google Public Data
While it isn’t clear in the report on what has prompted for such an incident (except for the charges of plotting to overthrow government), my suspicion is that these protestations could signify adverse reaction to, or symptoms of a resistance to change, to Turkey’s recent transition towards greater economic freedom.
Evidence of this can be seen by the substantial decline of military expenditures as % to GDP.
And coincidental to the diminishing expenditures of Turkey’s government on her military, is the significant liberalization of the economy as shown by the chart above from the Heritage Foundation.
Of course the Turkish people may choose to consider the privatization of national defense route.
As Gustave de Molinari (1818–1912), a prominent Belgian-born French economist, student of Jean-Baptiste Say, and teacher of Vilfredo Pareto wrote in his article “De la Production de la Securité” of February 1849. (bold emphasis mine)
If there is one well-established truth in political economy, it is this: That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible needs of consumers, it is in the consumer’s best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price.
And this: That the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer.
Now in pursuing these principles, one arrives at this rigorous conclusion: That the production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition.
Whence it follows: That no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity. . . .
Either this is logically true, or else the principles on which economic science is based are invalid. (Gustave de Molinari, Production of Security, J.H. McCulloch, trans. [New York: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1977], pp. 3–4)
Read here for a multi essays or treatises of how national defense can be provided for by the private sector—The Myth Of National Defense: Essays On The Theory And History Of Security Production
Or as the letter below from US founding father Samuel Adams to militia James Warren
A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens. They have their Arms always in their hands. Their Rules and their Discipline is severe. They soon become attachd to their officers and disposd to yield implicit Obedience to their Commands. Such a Power should be watchd with a jealous Eye. I have a good Opinion of the principal officers of our Army. I esteem them as Patriots as well as Soldiers. But if this War continues, as it may for years yet to come, we know not who may succeed them. Men who have been long subject to military Laws and inured to military Customs and Habits, may lose the Spirit and Feeling of Citizens. And even Citizens, having been used to admire the Heroism which the Commanders of their own Army have displayd, and to look up to them as their Saviors may be prevaild upon to surrender to them those Rights for the protection of which against Invaders they had employd and paid them. We have seen too much of this Disposition among some of our Countrymen. The Militia is composd of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.
