By Colin Cookman

President Obama and other heads of state from NATO and the International Security Assistance Force met in Chicago over the weekend, where they laid out plans for an “irreversible transition of full security responsibility” to the Afghan security forces. Although no decisions have been made about the further reduction in U.S. forces past this fall, the alliance has now formally committed to shifting its combat forces to a supporting role by mid-2013, ahead of the withdrawal of most troops by 2014.

Many uncertainties remain — most immediately the status of negotiations with Pakistan over the reopening of NATO supply routes, and the funding plan for the Afghan national security forces over the coming years, which forms the biggest portion of an Afghan government budget that is still highly dependent on international donors. But pressing Afghan leaders to take responsibility for their country’s future, and for the ensuing political compromises and reforms that will be necessary to sustain the government in a way that does not require large-scale international intervention, is the right course for both U.S. interests and for Afghanistan.

As my colleagues Caroline Wadhams, Brian Katulis and I argued in our recent policy paper, a transition strategy that promotes Afghan’s stability over the medium to long-term requires the U.S. to prioritize diplomatic processes that can work to resolve the political disputes at the heart of the Afghan conflict — rather than pinning the country’s future on the cohesion of its regular and irregular security forces. Although media coverage in the run-up to the summit focused primarily on troop levels and funding pledges, it appears that President Obama focused his bilateral conversations with President Karzai on these issues, and the summit declaration includes strong language in support of reconciliation, good governance, and the importance of transparent presidential elections.

With the news that the United States’ ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, is likely to step down soon, his successor will face the challenge — alongside the other branches of the U.S. government — of making sure that these commitments are not left on the summit drafting table. This effort will require renewed focus from the U.S. and its partners to ensure free and fair elections for Karzai’s successor in 2014, to support an inclusive reconciliation process, and to hold the Afghan government accountable for its management of international donor funds. The international donors conference in Tokyo scheduled for this summer will be the next major opportunity to hold negotiations on this issue on an international scale. NATO and its allies have laid out an increasingly detailed plan for the transition of security responsibility in Afghanistan, but more work will need to be done to develop the processes of political reform and reconciliation that can ultimately support a durable end to the Afghan conflict.

President Obama and the U.S.’s NATO allies, meeting at a summit in Chicago, committed to a complete withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by December 2014. The withdrawal will be coupled with the “irreversible” handover of security responsibilities to the Afghans next summer.

A declaration from heads of state at the NATO summit emphasized that the handover will be completed by the end of 2014 but that NATO member countries may remain in a training and advisory capacities:

By the end of 2014, when the Afghan Authorities will have full security responsibility, the NATO-led combat mission will end. We will, however, continue to provide strong and long-term political and practical support through our Enduring Partnership with Afghanistan. NATO is ready to work towards establishing, at the request of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a new post-2014 mission of a different nature in Afghanistan, to train, advise and assist the [Afghan National Security Forces], including the Afghan Special Operations Forces.

In remarks delivered at the summit today, Obama emphasized the progress made in Afghanistan during the U.S.’s decade-long war. “Our forces broke the Taliban’s momentum,” said Obama. “More Afghans are reclaiming their communities. Afghan security forces have grown stronger.”

Public war weariness has been a growing pressure on the White House and NATO member countries as Europeans and Americans express frustration with the long war and the associated human and financial costs. While NATO forces will maintain an active presence in Afghanistan through 2014, France’s new president, François Hollande, announced that France would withdraw troops by the end of the year.

Standing next to Afgan President Hamid Karzai yesterday, Obama recognized the sacrifices made by both Afghans and Americans over the past ten years. “[President Karzai] recognizes the enormous sacrifices American troops have made,” said Obama. He added, “We recognize the hardships that Afghans have been through during these many many years of war.”

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.