10-21-2005, 11:32 PM
you rightly mentioned France and Turkey. I think Turkey is nearer to our society as against France, lets talk about them a bit. Turkey's military role is defined in the constitution and chief of staff automatically leads the country. But they still remain within their constitutional role. Our military has no such role defined in the constitution and when they overthrow the very constitution that guarantees their own existence in terms of annual budget and protector of our national security, it becomes absurd. They throw out the very constitution which is the basis of their own existence. They talk about Turkey, they say well in Turkey mili. chief is head of state so why cant we have the same. When you look at Turkish army they are different to ours. They never ever step back from the front. They either die or fight, no surrender. Compare it with our two and a half wars and you will see the difference. Then if they have respect in the society one could understand. Today I think our military is the biggest business group in the country. They have bank, cement, fertilizers, housing societies and God knows what. We give them the money to spend on national security not that they start a business. They have their own audit depts. who never ever found a substantial wrongdoing in the whole of military. I think they are all angles.
Even if the General enters mainstream politics in 2007, what will we make of the army of generals put in charge of all major depts. of the country. We pay them so they are prepared to protect national security not to colonise our own country.
Finally I am very proud of my country but these things let me down.
Even if the General enters mainstream politics in 2007, what will we make of the army of generals put in charge of all major depts. of the country. We pay them so they are prepared to protect national security not to colonise our own country.
Finally I am very proud of my country but these things let me down.
