One of the main neoconservative obsessions these days is the increasing expression of religion in Turkish politics and public life, which neoconservatives see as evidence of troubling shift away from the West and toward America’s (and, of course, Israel’s) Islamic extremist enemies. Typical of the genre is this report from Harold Rhode, one of Doug Feith’s former flunkies in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, who writes “there is an internal battle among Turkish Muslims between forces that want to be part of the Western world and those that want to return Turkey’s political identity to be based primarily on Islamic solidarity. But it isn’t Ottoman Islam that these Islamist Turks seek to revive. Their Islam is more in tune with the fanatically anti-Western principles of Saudi Wahhabi Islam.”

Rhode’s report is shot through with a deep admiration for the strictly secular republic created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, which is unsurprising, as Rhode is a protege of historian Bernard Lewis, one of the West’s preeminent experts on Turkey, and a major intellectual force behind the invasion of Iraq. While Lewis produced some important work early in his career, he has unfortunately spent his later years saying and writing painfully reductionist, simplistic, and occasionally just plain silly things about the Middle East and political Islam.

As a scholar of modern Turkey, Lewis is a huge fan of Ataturk, and it was Lewis’s view — one uncritically adopted by his neoconservative acolytes — that what Iraq needed was its own Ataturk. Unfortunately, Lewis’s overly romantic view of what Ataturk had achieved, and the deeply undemocratic and violent means by which he achieved it, blinded him to the fact that, in many ways, Iraq had already had its Ataturk: Saddam Hussein, a secular authoritarian dictator who sought to remake the state in his own image. While Saddam’s reign was far bloodier than Ataturk’s, and much less interested in responsible state-building, it speaks to the neoconservatives’ generally dim view of Arabs and Muslims that they believed what was needed for Iraq was simply another strongman — though one who would guide Iraq’s evolution in a manner friendlier to the U.S. and Israel.

Even more unfortunately, the neocons identified Ahmad Chalabi as Iraq’s new Ataturk (according to George Packer, at one point Rhode even compared Chalabi to the Prophet Muhammad, saying “At first people doubted him, but they came to realize the wisdom of his ways.”) We know how that worked out. An article in today’s NY Times surveys the damage caused by Chalabi’s de-Baathification shenanigans, quoting analyst Reidar Visser blaming Chalabi for bringing about “a sectarian repolarization of Iraqi politics.”

But, of course, the neocons haven’t let their disastrous misreading of modern Iraqi society and culture deter them from a similar misreading of Turkish society, equating strict pro-Western secularism with modernity and democracy, and conflating political expressions of Islam with anti-Western extremism.

The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens offers a slightly more nuanced take than Rhode, but still unfortunately takes cues from Lewis — who “speculated that in a decade the secular republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk might more closely resemble the Islamic Republic of Iran,” which is interesting, given that the Islamic Republic is arguably more democratic than Turkey was under Ataturk — leading Stephens to identify a paradox where there is no paradox. Noting the recent rise of “an Islamic bourgeoisie that was long shut out of the old statist arrangements between the country’s secular political and business elites,” Stephens marvels that “Members of this new class want to send their daughters to universities — and insist they be allowed to do so wearing headscarves.”

They also insist that they be ruled by the government they elected, not by the “deep state” of unelected and often self-dealing officers, judges and bureaucrats who defended the country’s secularism at the expense of its democracy and prosperity.

The paradoxical result is that, as the country has become wealthier and (in some respects) more democratic, it has also shed some of its Western trappings. Mr. Erdogan’s infatuations with his unsavory neighbors undoubtedly stem from his own instincts, ideology and ego. But it also reflects a public sentiment that no longer wants Turkey to be a stranger in its own region, particularly when it so easily can be its leader. Some Turks call this “neo-Ottomanism,” others “Turkish-Gaullism.” Whichever way, it is bound to discomfit the West.

Why is any of this strange? Much like the United States, Turkey is a fairly religious society. It makes perfect sense, then, that as Turkey has become more democratic, and political participation has expanded beyond an elite, Euro-centric core, that religious conservatives have become more visible, and issues relating to Turkey’s Islamic identity have come to the fore. There’s nothing necessarily to be feared about this — a similar debate is a central feature of American politics, too (or didn’t you notice our presidential candidates meeting with one of our most prominent clerics on television?) I’d argue that Turkey is currently engaged in the most interesting, dynamic and potentially consequential democratic experiment in the world, seeking to define a pluralist politics in a strongly Islamic society. The only people who will likely be “discomfited” by this process are those who equate “democracy” and “modernity” with “agreeing with the U.S. on everything.”

For a deeper analysis of the changes Turkey is undergoing, both domestically and in its regional policy, and why we shouldn’t freak out about it, please see my colleague Michael Werz’s recent report The New Levant.

Last month, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) signed legislation to allow “concealed carry permit holders to bring loaded guns” into establishments that serve alcohol. The law does not permit gun holders to consume alcohol, though the gun lobby is working to get that changed.

Virginia isn’t alone in its quest to arm its bar patrons. The Georgia state house has also passed a bill that would make it “legal to enter a bar or restaurant with a licensed concealed weapon and get drunk,” as long as the individual doesn’t fire the weapon.

Tennessee, too, is trying to follow in Virginia’s footsteps. Last year, the legislature overrode Gov. Phil Bredesen’s veto to pass a law providing gun owners the right to carry their weapons into any restaurant, except those whose predominant business was to serve alcohol. But the law was declared unconstitutionally vague by a state court, so Tennessee is trying again. This time, the law provides “no exclusions for where guns can be carried, as long as permit holders don’t consume alcohol.”

Rep. Joe McCord, a Republican state legislator with an A+ plus rating from the NRA, explained what is going on:

‘Essentially, NRA is saying to us, if you don’t support and vote for carrying guns in bars, we will not endorse you,’ McCord said. ‘This line of reasoning borders on lunacy.

‘What line will we not cross for the NRA? At what point do we say that’s too much?’ asked McCord, who is not seeking re-election. ‘I’m sorry for those of you who feel you have to hold your nose and vote for it … because of the NRA.’

Indeed, some legislators voted for it despite voicing concerns about the bill, presumably due to pressure from the NRA. In fact, an NRA lobbyist reportedly was invited to speak to a meeting of the House Republican Caucus just hours before the vote took place.

Gov. Bredesen is waiting to decide whether to veto the “guns in bars” bill. He has said the revised measure “hasn’t been made any better.” When he vetoed the bill last year, Bredesen cited a gun safety class he took in high school, sponsored by the National Rifle Association: “A basic tenet taught at that class was this: ‘Guns and alcohol don’t mix.’”

The Arizona Republic has posted a video of lawyer and chief architect of Arizona’s likely unconstitutional immigration law, Kris Kobach, instructing Maricopa County (Arizona) officers on what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is unlawfully present in the country — one of the most controversial elements of Arizona’s new immigration law SB-1070. According to Kobach, the criteria he recommends are “common sense.”

When listing the factors that police officers should consider to determine whether a person they come in contact with is undocumented, Kobach vaguely notes that law enforcement must take into consideration the “totality of circumstances.” According to Kobach, “one factor is not enough.” From there, he simply advises officers to just “rely on more than one.”

Some of the factors Kobach lists, such as an individual taking flight or passengers attempting to hide, certainly do raise suspicion that some sort of unlawful activity is taking place. However, most of the criterion — even when combined — add up to a set of relatively common circumstances that could lead to a series of unreasonable stops, and in the case of SB-1070, wrongful arrests and detentions. Those factors are:

The individual has no English skills or speaks English poorly and does not comprehend English instructions.

Indications from dress or appearance of the person that he is an illegal alien.

The appearance of the individual is unusual or out of place in a particular locale.

The individual appears to be in transit or traveled a significant distance.

Indications that the passengers and/or the vehicle have been on a long trip.

The vehicle is overcrowded or riding heavily.

Evasive maneuvers taken by the driver of a vehicle, such as abruptly exiting from the highway.

The individual has no identification on his person.

Watch the video:

According to Kobach, a couple of these factors are probably enough to raise “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is not legally present in the U.S. and justify a warrantless interrogation as part of an attempt “to determine the immigration status of the person.” But let’s say a Mexican American family passes through Arizona on a “long” cross-country road “trip” this summer. They’ve already traveled a “significant distance,” and with two parents, a couple children, camping gear, suitcases, a puppy, and grandma, the vehicle is “riding heavy” and “overcrowded.” The air conditioning broke after they got back from the Grand Canyon and the individuals have been sitting in a hot, sticky van for hours so their clothes are dirty, smelly, and a bit “out of place.” One of the kids gets carsick so the father, who is driving, has to “abruptly exit” the highway. When an Arizona police officer pulls him over and tells him he was speeding, he has trouble hearing the officer over the sound of heavy traffic. In addition, English is a second language for him and his wife. The grandmother, meanwhile, can only speak a few words. No one in the vehicle can produce identification except for the driver. Everyone except the dog is looking down at their laps and “avoiding eye contact” because the police officer is being a condescending jerk.

Based on the criteria Kobach provides, the “totality of circumstances” in the situation described above could land the whole family — particularly grandma — in jail. At the very least, they’d be slapped with a big fine for not thinking to pack their passports. In fact, Kobach’s explanation suggests that just two or three of the eight factors listed should raise “reasonable suspicion.”

Kobach’s advice also hasn’t helped Maricopa County officers stay out of trouble. Local Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been pursuing undocumented immigrants since before the bill was even written, is under investigation by both the Department of Justice and the FBI, in addition to facing over 2,700 lawsuits in relation to civil rights violations. Arpaio has repeatedly mistook Kobach’s organization’s legal analysis for code law.

In the National Review yesterday, Robert Joseph and Eric Edelman – two former Bush administration officials – laid out the right wing’s case against the new START treaty. Joseph and Edelman pushed back directly on the Center for American Progress, writing that we have “suggested that any opposition can only be based on narrow partisan considerations.” This is not true. As I have argued extensively, it’s not just partisanship which would lead someone to oppose START, but also being a radical right winger with an extreme foreign policy outlook. But after reading Joseph and Edelman, as well as the Heritage Foundation’s analysis, perhaps there is a third reason for opposition — a lack of understanding about what’s in the treaty.

The Heritage Foundation’s bizarrely anonymous START working group concludes:

The New START definition of a mobile ICBM launcher to be limited by the Treaty appears not to limit rail-mobile ICBMs because the definition of a mobile ICBM in New START describes a road-mobile launcher, not a rail-mobile launcher… In the absence of New START limitations on rail-mobile ICBMs and launchers, an unlimited number of these could be deployed.

Joseph and Edelman in the NRO echo this claim:

the treaty may contain a startling loophole, large enough to drive a train through, which would not count ICBM launchers on rail-mobile platforms.

According to this view, our negotiators were so negligent that they forgot or were duped into not covering Russia’s rail-mobile ICBMs in the treaty. Either all these authors don’t know what they are talking about or they are willfully trying to create a fake issue. The treaty specifically covers all launchers. If it shoots an ICBM it is covered under the treaty. Here is how the treaty defines “ICBM launcher”:

28. (56.) The term “ICBM launcher” means a device intended or used to contain, prepare for launch, and launch an ICBM.

Stanford’s Pavel Podvig, who has done the most thorough debunk of this new right wing talking point, notes that:

Article II of the treaty limits all launchers, deployed and non-deployed, and does not care whether they are mobile or not.

Podvig goes further though, noting that:

any rail-mobile launcher is an ICBM launcher and therefore would definitely be “caught” by the treaty limit of 800 non-deployed launchers. Note that the definition does not require the launcher to be actually used for a launch – it is enough that it is intended to be used in that role…

Speaking seriously, the treaty indeed does not define or otherwise specifically mention rail-mobile launchers. The reason is simple – there are none deployed. The last RT-23UTTH/SS-24 rail-mobile missiles had been removed from service in 2002 and the last base was liquidated in 2007. The New START treaty is fairly clear in that it deals only with those systems that exist – since all mobile launchers of ICBM are road-mobile, they are defined accordingly.

In other words, the far right is upset that the treaty doesn’t stop something that doesn’t exist, since years ago the Russians eliminated this program.

Based on the right wing’s logic, I just discovered another massive whole in the treaty — it doesn’t prevent the Russians from developing a nuclear armed ICBM time-travel missile that could be used to preempt a preemptive US nuclear strike! Except of course even an ICBM time-travel missile would be covered if it existed, because if it launches an ICBM, the treaty covers it.