Texas Gov. and fledgling GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry made the most stunning pronouncement of last night’s South Carolina Republican primary debate: Asked if Turkey should be kicked out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Perry said, “Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then, yes.” Perry went on to group the NATO ally — meaning that if someone attacks Turkey, the U.S. must respond — together with U.S. adversaries. He referred to “countries like Iran, and Syria and Turkey.”

The media both in the U.S. and Turkey reacted with incredulity. “You couldn’t make this stuff up,” wrote the New Yorker’s John Cassidy. A Turkish columnist called Perry an “idiot.” CNN’s fact-checking operation said Perry’s claim that Turkey is run by “Islamic terrorists” was “false.”

But the most geo-strategically significant fallout from Perry’s comments may have come from Turkey itself. Turkey’s foreign ministry released a statement on Perry’s remarks, reported the AP:

Turkey joined NATO while the governor was still 2-years old. It is a member that has made important contributions to the trans-Atlantic alliance‘s conflict-full history. It is among countries that are at the front lines in the fight against terrorism. [...]

Figures who are candidates for positions that require responsibility, such as the U.S. presidency, should be more knowledgeable about the world and exert more care with their statement.

The foreign ministry also took a dig at Perry’s low polling numbers in the primary race, citing them as a repudiation of his views on Turkey among Americans.

Here are a few — of many — items demonstrating, contra Islamophobic hyperventilation, neoconservative proclamations, and the opinions of some House Democrats, Turkey’s commitment to the alliance with NATO and the U.S.:

Turkish troops fight alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan, running reconstruction projects and training Afghan forces.

Turkey bankrolled the U.S.- and NATO-backed rebel forces that ousted Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya.

Turkey agreed recently to host a U.S. missile defense radar installation, drawing the ire of Iran.

Turkey works the levers of diplomacy tirelessly to avert a military confrontation between the West and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program, recently extracting a statement from Iranian officials that the issue can be resolved through diplomacy.

Perry’s camp later walked back his statement, adding that the governor “would welcome the opportunity to work with Turkey on regional issues like Syria or Iraq.” But, judging from the Turkish foreign ministry’s statement, that sort of cooperation with a future Perry administration may already be off the table.

During tonight’s GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News’s Bret Baier asked a question that seemed to give credence to the right wing’s anti-Turkey campaign. “Since the Islamist-oriented party took over in Turkey,” Baier said, the murder rate of women has increased, press freedom has declined, and the country has “embraced Hamas” and threatened military action against Israel.

Baier then asked Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) if “Turkey still belongs in NATO.” “Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then, yes,” Perry replied. Watch the clip:

In fact, Turkey is an important strategic partner of the United States. As White House national security aide Tony Blinken said a couple of months ago:

Turkey has been a longstanding ally to the United States through NATO. We have worked together closely throughout the decade in [many] theaters of conflict. We have Turkish soldiers in Afghanistan standing side-by-side with our troops. We have Turkish cooperation in Iraq. Turkey has taken a strong stand against the Asad government in Syria, and the Prime Minister has called on Asad to step down. Turkey is implementing Arab League sanctions. It played a very significant role in Libya in terms of supporting forces for progress there. And we’re seeing similar things in Egypt. So in many, many areas, as well by the way, as trade and economic ties, which have I think have increased twofold since President Obama has been in office. So in many, many areas we’re working very, very closely with Turkey.

The death of Muammar Qaddafi offers a milestone in the Libyan revolution as the Libyan Transitional National Council must move on to the difficult task of holding national elections and NATO forces begin to wind down operations. But the Libyan and NATO victory doesn’t seem to be enough for congressional hawks who have long mocked the White House’s so-called “leading from behind” Libya strategy.

While U.S. participation in a successful NATO and regional coalition operation in Libya without putting American lives in danger would seem like an overall victory, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) all took to the airwaves to grudgingly admit that while the White House’s strategy appears to have worked, their untested plans for more U.S. airpower and a unilateral strategy in which U.S. commanders would control the air campaign, would have resulted in fewer Libyan deaths.

Mccain told the Today Show:

The fact is that we could have ended this conflict a lot earlier if we had used the full weight of U.S. air power instead of leading from behind and we wouldn’t have the 30,000 who are wounded and hundreds, if not thousands, who are killed.

Rubio told Fox News:

We have a lot of people dead and a lot of young men who, instead of entering the workforce and helping rebuild Libya, have to go into rehab and recovery for their war wounds. A lot of this could have been avoided had we gotten involved early and decisively.

And Graham told Fox News:

If we could have kept American air power in the fight it would have been over quicker. Sixty-thousand Libyans have been wounded, 3,000 maimed, 25,000 killed.

Watch a compilation of their comments:

Of course, a large-scale bombing campaign, as they seem to be suggesting, would have taken a massive humanitarian toll as well. Perhaps more importantly, a U.S. driven campaign, as opposed to the role the U.S. and its allies played in offering air support for Libyan rebel forces, would have made Qaddafi’s defeat yet another U.S. led overthrow of an Arab leader instead of a popular revolt driven by Libyan rebel forces. While Rubio, McCain and Graham might have wanted to apply an Iraq-style strategy of unilateral U.S. military action, their assertions that lives would have been saved appears to be nothing more than politically motivated speculation.

With deteriorating relations between Turkey and Israel, some of Israel’s staunchest backers in the U.S. have seized on the diplomatic crisis to push for the U.S. to abandon its partnership with Turkey — including kicking the strategically-located Eurasian country out of the NATO alliance. The campaign, spearheaded by neoconservatives, ramped up this week with attacks demonizing Turkey from several Islamophobic commentators. Over the past few weeks, these Islamophobes have been accusing Turkey of trying to create an Islamist empire, one that would put Turkey at odds with the West and make it an enemy of the U.S.

On Tuesday, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum wrote that he “see(s) a rogue Turkey as the region’s greatest threat”:

A second republic headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Islamist colleagues of the AK Party (AKP) began that day. The military safely under their control, AKP ideologues now enjoy can pursue their ambitions to create an Islamic order.

Investigative Project chief Steven Emerson wrote yesterday:

The struggle against Israel is one facet of the Muslim nation’s new Islamist foreign policy under the leadership of Erdoğan and his AKP party. Turkey has distanced itself from membership in the European Union, a former goal of the nation, in order to pursue better ties with terror-supporting nations like Syria and Iran.

Also Thursday, Atlas Shrugs blogger Pam Geller wrote:

Turkey has reverted (no pun intended), and dreams Ottoman domination and Islamic imperialism.

On Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch blog, Joseph Zaalishvili wrote Wednesday:

After Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan openly began the Islamization of Turkey, the jihadists found fertile ground there. Turkey appeared ambitious to become the leader of Islam in the region.

Earlier this month, Center for Security Policy (CSP) head Frank Gaffney wrote about the “increasingly overtly hostile posture towards Israel being taken by Turkey under its Islamist prime minister, Recep Erdogan.” His colleague at CSP, Caroline Glick, wrote in the Jerusalem Post:

[W]e need to recognize that what we are experiencing now is the beginning, not the end, of Turkey’s slide into the enemy camp. Erdogan is openly taking steps to transform Turkey into an Islamic state along the lines of Iran.

Erdoğan is not actually an Islamist, as demonstrated by his call last week for Egypt to become a secular state, drawing warnings from Egypt’s actual Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood, for Erdoğan to butt out.

And while Turkey has indeed tried to end regional strife and avoid conflagration through diplomacy, its partnership with the U.S. and NATO are clearly valuable to Erdoğan’s government. Just this month, Turkey agreed to host a NATO radar system, part of a missile defense system designed to guard against Iranian weapons advances (the move drew criticism from Iran).

That this network of Islamophobes are all taking the same line should come as no surprise. As detailed in CAP’s “Fear, Inc.” report about America’s Islamophobia industry, they come from a small cadre of so-called “experts” and “scholars” who form organizations that fuel Islamophobia in the U.S.

Just six months and one week since the first anti-government protests broke out in Libya, the rebels there appear to have effectively ousted Col. Muammar Qaddafi after more than four decades in power.

All civil wars are of course different, but half a year does not constitute a long conflict aimed at unseating an entrenched regime. Think of the long guerilla war in South Africa that, along with international pressure, brought down the South African apartheid regime. Or the fourteen year long struggle that removed the Communist government from power in Afghanistan.

Here’s a timeline of how things developed in Libya, from the initial protests to the outbreak of civil war and the NATO-led military intervention on behalf of the rebels, with key points of commentary from U.S. politicos included.

Feb. 15/16 – The arrest of a human rights activist sparks demonstrations that devolve into riots in the Western city of Benghazi.

Feb. 17 – Demonstrators declare a national Day of Rage.

Feb. 23 – A day after the first high-level diplomatic defections at the U.N., the Qaddafi regime loses power in Benghazi, long a hot-seat of opposition, and rebels begin to form an opposition council.

Feb. 24 – President Barack Obama issued a statement on Libya, saying: “The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and unacceptable. These actions violate international norms and common decency. It must stop. We strongly support the universal rights of the Libyan people.”

Feb. 26 – The U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on the Qaddafi regime for its crackdown on demonstrators. Two days later, the E.U. follows suit.

Mar. 8 – Former Speaker Newt Gingrich predicts that “NATO…won’t bring much to the fight,” and disregards the importance of U.N. support for U.S. airstrikes in Libya.

Mar. 11 – Soon-to-be GOP presidential candidate (now out of the race) Tim Pawlenty dismisses international coalition building, saying he’s “not overly concerned about our popularity ratings in Europe or the Middle East.”

Mar. 17 – The U.N. Security Council approves a no fly zone over Libya that calls for any necessary means to protect innocent civilians from being slaughtered.

Mar. 19 – The first international airstrikes against Qaddafi’s forces halt their advance on the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.

Mar. 21 – Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Dick Lugar criticizes the U.S.’s involvement in Libya: “I do not understand the mission because as far as I can tell in the United States there is no mission and there are no guidelines for success.”

Mar. 28 – Bryan Fischer of The American Family Association, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), and Islamophobic blogger Pamela Geller all parrot Qaddafi’s talking point that Al Qaeda is behind the Libyan rebel uprising.

Apr. 3 – Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calls for the Obama administration to arm Libyan rebels and predicts that the current policy would “lead to a stalemate.”

Apr. 22 – GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Obama for “mission creep and mission muddle” in Libya for extending the NATO humanitarian mission to support for the Libyan rebel aim of ousting Qaddafi, echoing John Bolton that the move would incur a “massive strategic failure.”

Apr. 24 – Bill Kristol complains that “we’re bombing from 25,000 feet…it’s ridiculous,” and criticized Obama for not utilizing slower, lower flying aircraft that are easier to shoot down. “You can’t get involved in a military action like this though and be totally driven by fear of one American pilot getting shot down. It’s just wrong, in my opinion,” said Kristol.

Apr. 25 – A New Yorker article quotes an Obama aide saying the president is “leading from behind” on Libya. Despite the quote’s provenance with iconic South African president Nelson Mandela, it becomes a top talking point for neoconservative attacks on U.S. policy.

Apr. 26 – Sarah Palin criticizes Obama through a Facebook wall post: “Simply put, what are we doing there? You’ve put us in a strategic no man’s land.”

Apr. 30 – A NATO missile strike kills one of Qaddafi’s sons.

May 8 – Former vice president Dick Cheney tells Fox News that “the policy of the administration has been to hope for Qaddafi’s departure but not be prepared to do enough to make sure it happens.” He adds: “It’s not clear to me that this administration is up to the task” of taking out Qaddafi.

May 10 – GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty says he would have “[told] Qaddafi he’s got X number of days to get his affairs in order and go of we’re going to go get him,” instead of limiting U.S. involvement to airstrikes.

June 20 – The Bill Kristol-led Foreign Policy Initiative calls for House Republicans to push Obama to expand U.S. involvement in Libya, writing that Obama “has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power.”

June 24 – Spearheaded by the House GOP, a bill passes the lower chamber limiting funds for U.S. military action in LIbya. House Speaker John Boehner’s spokesperson said the bill would “restrict funds for the remainder of the fiscal year but in a responsible way.”

June 27 – Based on a U.N. Security Council recommendation, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues an arrest warrant for Qaddafi and key members of his regime.

July 15 – The U.S. recognizes the Transitional National Council (TNC) rebel alliance as the government of Libya.

July 27 – The United Kingdom recognizes the rebel government and ousts three remaining Qaddafi diplomats in London.

Aug. 14 – Days after taking the oil town of Brega, crippling another source of funds for Qaddafi, rebels seize Zawiyah, another Qaddafi stronghold near Tripoli.

Aug. 21 – Rebels move into Tripoli, Qaddafi’s remaining stronghold, arresting two of his sons. They are greeted there by celebrations in the capital’s central Martyr’s Square (Green Square’s pre-Qaddafi name).

Today, Qaddafi remains at large but his rule over Libya appears to have come to an end. While the difficult road lays ahead of the North African nation shouldn’t be underestimated, the ouster of a brutal dictator marks a historic day for the people of Libya. (Some dates were drawn from a Reuters timeline.)

Predicting from the get-go that limited Western involvement in the Libya conflict would lead to a “stalemate,” hawkish right-wing commentators have urged the Obama administration to do more to ensure a rebel victory that ousts eccentric dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Many neoconservative pundits and their close allies in Congress have called for arming the rebels.

France, for its part, took the step of unilaterally providing arms even as NATO-ally Britain refused to do so because of questions over the move’s legality. The U.S. has stated that it remains open to the possibility, but no reports have surfaced indicating the rebels are receiving arms from America.

An article today in the Washington post suggests, however, that the predictions of a stalemate and the need to arm rebels may have been premature:

On Wednesday, the rebels claimed a new victory in a march toward the capital that, in recent weeks, has won them tanks, rocket launchers and an large ammunition dump seized from Gaddafi’s military.

In addition to this, the Libyan rebel forces have also been building their own arms. In short: the rebels appear to be arming themselves just fine.

Little is known about the rebels themselves, and arming them could be fraught with pitfalls. Consider New Yorker writer Steve Coll’s assessment at the outset of the conflict, which still rings true today, that the rebels’ “principles, capacity, training, discipline, and understanding of international human-rights norms seem so doubtful.”

While we don’t know that arming the rebels would ensure a decisive victory, we do know that when the civil war ends — as we hope it does — Libya will likely suffer many of the same consequences as other unstable post-conflict situations awash with guns.

Early on in the conflict, urging restraint in arming Libyan rebels, Diana Weuger, who blogs about small arms, wrote in the Atlantic:

Even if we could collect most of what we gave out — which we can’t — a scant handful of high-powered weapons in the hands of bad actors can be disastrous in a place where government control is weak. It doesn’t take much firepower to destabilize an already fragile society.

While both sides of the issue have supporting arguments, the rebels’ ingenuity and battlefield captures may obviate this difficult decision for U.S. policy makers.