That didn't take long: Occupy Wall Street now has similar approval rating to Tea Party per the latest polling.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1670

And that was taken before the violence in California and the rapes in NY...

I think it is reflective of how liberals and conservatives deal with in-group and out-group dynamics/how they define their enemies.

For liberals it is roughly "the powerful", for conservatives it is roughly "the dissident" or "the heretical". Cross some major tenet (and absolute support for Israel is a major tenet) and you will rapidly become seen not only as wrong, but as evil.

And, let's face it, a dog only has room at the back for one tail.

So if the tail really is wagging the dog - and in this case that's pretty much indisputable - then there also can be no disputing who is responsible: it is the country that has taken up permanent residence right next to The Place Where The Sun Don't Shine.

Of course a solution to the problem of Gibraltar between two US friends and allies is in the hands of the United States. By the treaty of Utrecht, Spain can regain Gibraltar by giving Great Britain Florida!

Hmmm...This is going to be a long one. I am not sure where to start with Mr. Drezner on this one as I'm not too concerned with who Mr. Halper or Mr. Goldfarb personally consider 'friends' or enemies or who one hugs or handshakes, as that changes as the wind blows and who knows the reasoning. Plus, the 'friend' terminology in Presidential and political speeches gets thrown around way too often and has lessened and cheapened its worth. But what I do take issue with is the apparent glossing over by Mr. Drezner of many a disturbance in the US-Turkey relationship both from a historical perspective and from a current relationship between the US and Prime Minister Erdogan (and his AKP party) that go a little bit further than simply 'aggravating.' Friends can agree to disagree - and should- but a tally sheet should be compiled from time to time to just keep things in perspective of whether that friendship still remains in tact to both party's mutual benefit or whether there should be a little bit more emphasis on returning to the real meaning of 'friends.'

If you take a journey through history from the early 20th Century onward, you will find many a disturbing reminder of Turkey's perspective on how international politics should be played to their benefit and your detriment and how the game of false faces is their forte. First you have them fighting against us in WWI. Then you have them aiding the Germans in military armaments and their refusal to get into WWII and support the Allied cause up until the last few months given the fact that they wouldn't be able to be a part of the UN charter unless they did. It is interesting to mention that Turkey wasn't above wanting military equipment and cash payments all throughout WWII from the Allied cause just so that they wouldn't think too seriously about joining the Germans nor were they that apologetic about their reticence to join or help the Allied cause in hindsight. Next, you have their very cozy relationship with the USSR up until the USSR was right on Turkey's border demanding the control of the Straits at which time Turkey conveniently switched directions to the West and Britain and pledged allegiance to the non-communist cause. Due to Britain's debt issues after WWII, the buck was passed to Uncle Sam. Hence the beginning of our long lasting 'friendship.' Then you have Uncle Sam paying tremendous amounts of money restoring the economy and military of Turkey in the Truman Doctrine so that they could fight off the communists on their own. Skipping a little bit, next you have President Johnson's Letter incident with Turkey where he is clearly rebuking and threatening Turkey over their new found military strength and their possible use of US-supplied weaponry to militarily invade Cyprus to protect the Muslim population of the northern part against what they deemed a threat from the Christian population from the southern part. That holds Turkey off from invading for around a decade before they actually do violate agreements and militarily invade Cyprus and leave a military contingency behind to this day. It is often said that Turkey is a founding member of NATO and this is true. However, like former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had mentioned in his last speech, how long will the US sit back and time and time again allow member states of NATO to not carry their weight and put their troops in harm's way? This couldn't be more true for Turkey who tends to find themselves seeking such roles as humanitarian aid distributor, naval blockader to a country who really has no navy to speak of, or police trainer. All of these are pursuits that NATO needs; however, when it comes to the US asking such countries to help with the heavy lifting of combat, Turkey isn't there to be found as Turkey has a clear problem with taking on NATO initiatives that are in Muslim countries, no matter the justification of NATO's cause. For, when we are speaking of the Bosnian conflict of the 1990s, then Turkey is ready to provide weapons and planes and military personnel in combat roles. Interesting. Moreover, fast forwarding to 2002 onward, the AKP and the former mayor of Istanbul have taken many a harsh stance with the US. Does March 13th ring any bells? The Hood incident? Northern Iraq? And then fast-forwarding to a few years ago, you have Turkey time and time again taking the stance against their NATO allies towards Iran and sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program. You have the Prime Minister quite often going on the defensive for Iran's nuclear program creating a shield and buffer zone to where harsher sanctions and inspectors take even more time to begin discussing at the UN. Then you have that huge blunder with Turkey and Brazil trying to arrange a deal with Iran behind the US that would conflict with the US's own demands and interests in pressuring Iran to drop the weaponization of its nuclear program. Next, you have the Mavi-Marmara incident where Turkey knew exactly what the ship was trying to do and still allowed it to depart from Turkish ports even after much international protest explicitly communicating to the Turks that this wouldn't turn out good for anyone if these ships departed. The AKP held fast and refused to stop them and it has become a nationalist-religious-populist event at this point. Furthermore, just a year ago, there was a much publicized and endorsed celebration in Instanbul for the Mavi-Marmara after it had been repaired and re-painted for its next Israeli blockade-busting voyage. Needless to say, there was a huge Turk turnout for the celebration. Fast-forwarding to more recent events with the current NATO radar installation talks with Turkey: how many times will Turkey seek concessions from the US before these radars have actually been put in the ground? At the beginning, you had them playing hard to get and then wanting us to change the language of the announcements against Iran; then you have them wanting the radars to cover all of Turkey; then you have them wanting to be in control of the radars; then you have them wanting the US to give them more surveillance information of the PKK in Northern Iraq; then you have them wanting the US to allow them to invade Northern Iraq to seek out the PKK elements and camps; and now you have them seeking more military equipment for the Turkish Armed Forces (attack helicopters, transport helicopters, armed drones, etc.). And these radars haven't even been installed yet! One can only wonder what will come next: UN Security Council Membership? (As a side note, it might be interesting to note here that the Turkish Armed Forces aren't necessarily pro-American either. If one takes a look at a few of their leaders' past and recent speeches and some of their political parties' platforms, one will clearly see that they are not above using the common line of defending the Republic against the big bad American presence.) Then fast-forwarding to the Arab-Spring, you have Turkey continually being the late-comer to the party of change. In fact the only change they truly seemed to embrace at an early stage was the Egyptian regime change given that Mubarak and Egypt tended to always compete with the AKP's desires in Palestine. In fact, one of my favorites was watching Prime Minister Erdogan a while back at the beginning of the troubles in Syria talk to Charlie Rose on television and tell Mr. Rose that President Bashar Al-Assad was his good friend and that President Assad would not be the type of man that would crack down militarily on his own people. This is similar to what Prime Minister Erdogan said with the Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir a few years ago when he was thinking about ignoring the ICC rulings and hosting the Sudanese leader in Istanbul: that there could never be genocide in Sudan and Darfur because Muslim leaders wouldn't do that. Then that takes us to the Libyan changes of late. Turkey was to have an estimated $15 billion worth of contracts with the Gadaffi regime (mostly construction) and stood to lose all of that money and thus took a very hard line at the beginning against NATO allies who wanted regime change and also the Libyan rebels themselves. After numerous discussions between the US and the AKP leadership, it began to appear to Mr. Erdogan that the writing was on the wall and that Gadaffi had no future in the new Libya. At that point, Mr. Erdogan decided to start reaching out to the Libyan rebels as his new friends. However, it is also interesting to note that Mr. Erdogan still refused to return his Al-Gadaffi International Prize for Human Rights Award and the money that accompanied it, as he felt he had no need to! Mr. Drezner, the article you reference with Turkey giving the rebels some monetary assistance ($200 million, I believe) is pittance compared to what the Turks hope to collect from past contracts and future ones and is pittance compared to the overall expenses that the US and other NATO allies provided to keep the rebels in the fight. From my perspective, it was a simple economic equation for the Turks on how best to try to recoup some of that $15 billion and to keep Turkish construction firms in Libya as outside of governmental contracts, the construction in Turkey has increasingly slowed due to the economic situation in Turkey; no more, no less.

But the most problematic area to me lies more in what is going on inside Turkey as we speak. Press freedoms seem to be being curtailed due to the current trials in Silivri and the past lawsuits by the Prime Minister for those who say things that insult him. Not to mention the always present problem with the seminary in Halki and religious issues somewhat in general. The secular democracy of the US doesn't appear to be the name of the game in Turkey for the AKP at the current moment; but, nor is the most recent Libyan Islamic democracy either. For in one of my favorite moments of late, a commissioned and paid for statue in Kars (eastern Turkey) to commemorate the friendship between the Turks and the Armenians was deemed "weird" and a "monstrosity" by the Prime Minister and was forced to be taken down despite the appeals by the artist. Also, the foot-dragging with the Constitutional changes are ever present and who knows when that will actually come to pass, even though a large portion of the Turkish nation is still marginalized. Plus, one could very easily see in Turkey a picture quite similar to what is going on in Russia with a changing of the Parliamentary system to the Presidential system. If that were to pass, Mr. Erdogan would have the opportunity to stay in power even longer and many believe, solidify his reputation even more so of a strong-handed leader. Moreover, the AKP is very fond of charts and rankings and labels and knows that the future and their party's strength lies in being able to brag about these 'advancements.' You don't have to spend much time in Turkey or studying it to understand that the current Turkish government loves to brag about things that it hasn't quite done yet or is supposed to do already and downplay those things that it hasn't done or failed at as not mattering. It reminds me of the Chris Rock joke: "You are supposed to feed your child. What do you want, a cookie!?"

And a final point: when the leader of Hamas (Ismail Haniyeh) names his grandson after Mr. Erdogan in large part due to the Mavi Marmara incident, when Mr. Erdogan wants to travel and speak in Gaza to intentionally increase pressure on Israel, when the AKP cancels Israel's invitation to the Anatolian Eagles military exercises, when the Turkish government calls Israel a terrorist, when Mr. Erdogan says the US is Israel's attorney and when Mr. Erdogan calls our current Ambassador to Turkey a "rookie" when he disagrees with the Ambassador over his observations, it should simply make one stop and pause and wonder if 'friends' these days means the same thing that we used to think it meant? It is high time that we start reminding the American public that there is such a thing as a friend when it comes to international politics, but that friends are expected to have more common areas of interest that align than those that separate and to not take such stances that endanger the other. Furthermore, friends should be a lot more willing to help out instead of having to be convinced and bribed at every turn to lift a finger to help. Now don't get me wrong, Turkey has progressed a lot in many areas, and should be congratulated on those successes. But with everyone having the right to do what they want, Turkey shouldn't be so comfortable wearing the label of 'friend' if their actions aren't in line with that notion.
Food for thought Mr. Drezner, as I respect your wisdom and opinion immensely but find you off on this one...

The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I mean, I know it was my choice to read, but I actually thought youd have something interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you could fix if you werent too busy looking for attention
British Food