BY TARHAN ERDEM
RADIKAL - Chief of General Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug yesterday read out a statement in Balikesir, and his anger was evident. In reviewing this statement, let's review the news that spurred it. Citing a leaked intelligence document, Taraf daily carried a banner story charging that the military command was negligent in the recent PKK attack on a military outpost in Aktutun and that General Staff statements following the incident were contradictory. Any journalist with access to the source cited by Taraf would have also carried such a story.
Nobody could be indifferent to documents indicating official negligence on an issue which has gotten so much public interest. The way the story was written gives the impression that it was meant specifically to criticize the military. In sum, a newspaper turned a document into news by criticizing the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), and then the chief of General Staff rebuffed this story. So far there's nothing wrong. The newspaper did its job as it sees fit and left its readers to judge the situation. The other side of the story is the style and content of the General Staff's statement.
What level of which institution should have the role of rebuffing news stories about the military? What official should be the spokesman for this? Could the duty of disciplining and teaching good manners be done by an authority other than the judiciary? Newspapers are products for public consumption. Institutions established by the people also evaluate the quality of this product. If a correction about the state is necessary, the newspaper addresses those who govern the state and the statesmen on behalf of the nation. In other words, the defense minister or an official appointed by him should give or respond to news about the army. In addition, it's natural for a commander or unit which governs an operation to provide information about a small or large operation.
I don't think many people believe the chief of General Staff should respond to every news story about the military. It would be appropriate for the ministry or the General Staff spokesperson to respond to the questions raised by Taraf. What's perhaps unacceptable about Basbug's statement are his feelings, which he didn't try to hide. I think showing so much anger ill fits Basbug's duty. People who find mistakes in any army operation naturally praise critics of the operation. People who argue that mistakes were made about Aktutun naturally praise the critics. But it would be grossly unfair to paint those who take this position as somehow giving psychological aid to the PKK. They're not praising the PKK, but trying to avoid mistakes in the fight against it. But Basbug is arguing that people who say PKK attacks were successful are partially responsibility for the bloodshed. Let me say outright that I don't understand this. If someone says that any action taken by the army is right and can't be criticized, let's talk about this. As the army isn't immune to criticism, such criticism shouldn't be seen as sacrilege.