President Obama requested that we, the citizens, suggest ideas of change for him to consider. This is a response to that request.
Former president George W. Bush made many decisions based on religious considerations. His faith-based politics at home are a good example. These were perfectly unconstitutional decisions. His premise in foreign policy was the same. He said he invaded Iraq after consulting with God and he wanted to subdue a Middle Eastern group of countries with Turkey as a model. In this process, he wanted to convert Ataturk’s laic (Secular) Turkey to a mildly Islamic country. Arabs don’t like Turks and did not want to have any part of it. Besides they were not ready for democracy. But in Turkey he found an ally in Recep Tayyip Erdogan who under the guise of abiding by the laic laws, wanted to Islamize Turkey. Ataturk’ political philosophy in respect to religion was very close to that of our Thomas Jefferson [“Jefferson & Ataturk, Political Philosophies” G.W.Sheldon, 2000 Peter Lang Publishing] Ataturk had made a revolution, among other things, llto separate State from Islam because Islam had been part of the problem in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus the U.S. was returning a westernized Turkey to where Ottoman Empire had failed. While we were fighting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it makes no sense to convert a state like us to an Islamic republic, mildly or not.
Former president Bush proved to be an irrational man. In stead of consulting with his father, his Secretary of State, with the Pentagon, and with the CIA, he decided to make war on Iraq just by himself, by appealing to a “higher Father” for strength [Bob Woodward in Washington Post, 1-18-09] We know the result. His plans for Turkey were similarly flawed, irrational decisions.
There were, and there still are, two possibilities of dealing with Turkey.
1) Support the “laic” republic founded by Ataturk, that aimed at converting Turks to Westerners, culturally, technologically, educationally, and every which way. Such a government has been a truly friendly ally, politically, and culturally, was reliable, and would cooperate in our fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and other Islamic radicals. An Ataturkist regime would be perfectly democratic, since they have practiced it for the last 89 years.
2) Support the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that would Islamize Turkey to a weaker, unreliable, in-name only ally, that would be easier for the United States to manage as a “Puppet Regime” [Remember Brave New World!]. However, in time, it would slide to full Islamic policies, that would be anti-U.S., anti-Israel, pro-Russian, and pro-Iranian. This is now happening before our eyes. Mr. Erdogan is taking sides with Hamas in the Gaza conflict and alienating Turkey’s long time ally Israel. In his fury, he is now taking it from Turkish Jews. After his very public argument with President Perez at Davos, he said that he considers anti-Semitism a crime against humanity. Thus, Mr. Erdogan incriminated himself by what he is doing at home.
Which policies are more in the basic interests of the United States and of the world? Obviously, it is the first.
President Obama made a wise decision: The U.S. will not take sides in Turkish politics which also creates domestic unrest. I hope, this means, he will no longer push for a mildly Islamic Republic. But this would mean that he walked half-way in the right direction. In my opinion, real American interest would dictate that he should walk the whole way and help Turks getting rid of the dangerous anti-U.S. Islamic regime. The U.S. should not push Turkey into the laps of Putin and the Mullahs. We should instead help Turkey restore the modern Ataturkist principles and values..
I congratulate President Obama for his election with such a high percentage of the American vote and wish him much success in his programs, especially in straightening up our relations with Turkey.
R E A D ER’ S C O M M E N T O N P U B L I C E D U C A T I O N
Can Korman sent my article on Public Education to an American friend who stayed many years outside the U.S. Below is her comments. She seems to be happy with the Dewey system.
Hi Can,
…The education article is some thing I know a little more about and therefore have stronger opinion about. I thought grades1,2,6,and 7th grade history and geography. In summer sessions I thought grades 3 .and 4. I also was administrator of schools in Sofia, Yaounde, and Jakarta. From the teaching perspective I have been exposed to and practiced many techniques of teaching. My training/education was at UCLA and taught in Beverly Hills, CA. My own education, primary through university was in Los Angeles. Background. As an elementary school kid you might say I was exposed to the John Dewey System and for that I am so thankful! Why? I’ll give a little example. In grade 6 we studied Westward expansion. Our studies included building a log cabin furnished with stuff we made and items donated by our families who had relevant antiques at home. We also made a covered wagon, dressed in pioneer clothes, churned butter, made powder horns from horns obtained by our teacher from a slaughter house, trekked through some vacant land near our school. We studied routes followed by settlers and explorers, wars, treaties…. Now when I study history which I learned to love through that teaching method, I always want to know much more than a few memorized names and dates. I’m able to put myself in the shoes of people I can never know. We did memorize the multiplication tables and spelling words. We also enjoyed real music and art instruction…. The Ayn Rand admirers and other conservatives would have us “learn” a national set of “facts” and be tested on successful memorization at least once a year. Hello, No Child Left Behind in its present adaptation. Yes, learning is an individual mental process, but there are many techniques which are successful in teaching and not all of those techniques work for each individual child/person. There are many reasons for “failing” schools. Closing them does not cure them. Oh, Can, we/I could go on and on. Let’s talk about one day….But ,one more example of the fallacy, in my opinion, of Mr.Tarhan’s premise… . The state Department decided some years ago to adopt just one method of teaching foreign languages. That method was to listen and repeat. At least that’s what my Czech teacher said. I dropped the class after several weeks, because I cannot learn language that way. I must be able to see what is being said/taught. Same with Arabic. One size never fits all. Using some of the elements of the John Dewey system enable many of us to develop a life long love of learning and appreciation of the learning process.
An Anonymous Reader
W R I T E R’ S R E S P O N S E
I thank the Anonymous lady for her comments.
It is obvious that what John Dewey called “class projects” such a Westward expansion is a lot of fun , both for people who teach it and those who learn it. A great deal of details is learned about a subject that covers at least several months time and the child misses to learn a systematic history of America during that time. In the boarding school in Istanbul (Galatasaray) a French physics teacher had led a project to build a glider. Participation was voluntary, and work was done evening. After two years he had tried to fly it. I did participate and we learned how to build structured wings, how to construct the whole thing as light as possible. But that was not done in stead of the physics courses, but in addition to. The regular physics course was still given. That school project was great fun too. Yes, learning must be fun, but the purpose of education does not consist of fun alone. There are so many things to learn and there is no question that our schools do not measure up to European and Japanese schools where kids are taught to think. In our schools still some one may ask “Does in your country the sun set from the East or from the West?”
I have no premise to learn foreign languages by hearing and repeating. I learned three foreign languages by immersing myself in environments where every one was speaking that language.
Ayn Rand is being misquoted. All she required was that kids learn by understanding. Once that happens there is no need to memorize. One remembers what one understands.
No Child Left Behind is a lousy program that would lower the knowledge level of the class to the level of the dumbest kid.
………………………………………………………………………………………….
To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to [email protected] with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com
Leave a Reply