Cook's post is astonishing.

First, how can he say that Europe is "increasingly becoming a geographic location." Portugal, Ireland, Latvia, Sweden, Poland, and Greece. A geographic location???

Second, the expansion of the EU in recent years is one of the most stupendous geopolitical developments in memory. Think of the US merging with Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and all Central American countries. One can hardly accuse the EU of falling prey to old bad habits.

Third, Cook repeats the logical fallacy that the EU should accept Turkey because it's good for Turkey. Not to put too fine a point on it, this suggests an alarming lack of understanding about International Relations. Should the US merge with Mexico because it's good for Mexico? That's not the way it works in the real world.

Fourth, the suggestion that Turkey can't get its act together without the EU reeks of the same racism Cook is trying to expose earlier in his post.

How long has Turkey been a NATO member?  Have they ever not fulfilled their end of the alliance? Ostracism is a reprehensible way to treat a long-term ally. 

Turkey is mid-eastern? Hardly, just how do you come with that analysis?  Turkey sits atop what may be the most important pivot point on Earth.  They straddle several geopolitical fences.  For that reason alone, it would be better to keep at least their center of gravity leaning west.

I wasn't aware that NATO was a part of the 'coalition of the willing'. NATO did not agree that the Iraq War was proper. Neither did the UN Security Council. This alone was a cause to question the war's legitimacy.

America, as well as the whole world would have been a far better place, had Bush listened to our allies in Paris, Berlin and Ankara.

As to your ignorance regarding Turkey's fulfillment of their NATO obligations; they have soldiers in Afghanistan, they have supported NATO efforts in Bosnia, they were stalwart allies of the US throughout the whole of the Cold War, even though they had the Soviet at their very borders. Maybe you should do a bit of research, before you defame our allies:

• 1st Lt. Rose Richeson-39th Public Affairs, "U.S.-Turkey military partners support the GWOT", US Air Force in Europe, April 19, 2007
  "Incirlik Air Base Turkey -- In just three days, the U.S., Turkey and Afghanistan worked together on a joint mission transporting more than 135,000 pounds of Turkish equipment and supplies from Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to Kabul AB, Afghanistan."
  
  
• NATO in Afghanistan
  
  
• John C K Daly, "Afghanistan: The Turkish advantage", International Relations and Security Network (ISN) Security Watch April 30, 2007
  "Turkey takes over ISAF's Kabul Command, there are hopes that Turkish sensitivities to local cultural and religious sentiments will give it an advantage in winning over the hearts and minds of Afghans."
  
  
• "Turkish Contributions to Security and Development in Afghanistan", UN Report, March 22, 2007
  "Historical ties with Afghanistan and the importance attached to NATO's eventual success are the primary drivers of Turkish contributions. Turkey currently retains 750 troops in Afghanistan, which will increase to about 1200 by April this year. In support of the inextricable link between security and development, Turkey has launched, in coordination with the Government of Afghanistan, its most comprehensive sustainable development assistance program ever. Through its PRT in Wardak, which reached full operational capability as of 20 November 2006, Turkey has further extended the scope of its contributions to reconstruction and development. Turkish contributions to security and development are expected to increase with the prospective assumption of the Command of the Capital (Kabul) Region in April 2007."
  
  
• "Afghanistan: Turkey Takes Over ISAF Command Headquarters", Radio free Europe, February 13, 2005
  "Turkish military officials today took over the command headquarters of the NATO-led International Security Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Technically, the NATO alliance continues to be in charge of the UN-mandated force. The Turkish officers are replacing a unit of mostly French and German troops from the alliance's "Eurocorps" that have been in charge of ISAF headquarters since last year."
  
  
• "The Effects of the Iraq War on the U.S. - Turkish Relationship", Council on Foreign Relations, May 6, 2003
  "The U.S. – Turkish relationship has been affected not so much by the aftermath of the war as by what preceded it. The Turkish-American partnership has developed over the past fifty years and includes joint efforts in Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan."
  
  
• "Newsmaker: Bulent Ecevit", PBS Newshour, January 17, 2002
  "The prime minister of Turkey, a longtime ally of the United States, discusses peacekeeping in Afghanistan and concerns about Iraq."

Turkey helps cover our ass in Afghanistan, which is where the righteous battle should have been waged when Mr. Bush turned our military away from their hunt of al Qaeda at Tora Bora, so he could Wage War Upon Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.

There were NO WMDs
The Threat was NOT Eminent

The War Upon Iraq was unjustified, and Bush ignored taking our true enemy to ground without prejudice as the dogs that they are to pursue this unrighteous war. Mr. Bush promised to wage war against international terrorists, where ever we found them, and then he ignored the PKK in Northern Iraq, as they regrouped, and started anew their attacks across international borders in both Turkey and Iran, from bases protected by the US military.

This is a reprehensible and dishonourable way to treat our long term allies, but betrayal and hypocrisy is Standard Operating Procedure for Contemporary Conservatives; and exaggerated vengefulness is a known quality of the Bush Administration.

Turkey's capital is in Asia. That was the Turk's decision. They could have had the capital in Europe if they had made Istanbul the capital. 95% of its land mass is in Asia. It borders such countries as Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Armenia. There is no question about the fact that geographically Turkey (except for a small segment of land) is in Asia. But most importantly, it does have a middle eastern culture. Orthdox Islam is incomptible with the principles of religious freedom which are an essential part of European culture.

Turkey does not fit into the European Union and must not be allowed to become a member.

Even more importantly, Turks need to recognize that, in spite of the best efforts of Kemal Ataturk, they are not Europeans. Their cultural heritage is middle eastern. They should embrace this reality and not try to be something they are not.

Your usage of the term 'Orthodox' struck me at first as brutal satire, but I quickly realised that sadly, it is improbable that you intended it as such, and is instead, another strong indicator of an inherent permeating bias, an Islamaphobia, that clouds your thoughts towards anything Islamic. The term Orthodox is not in anyway associated with Islam. In and around Turkey, almost all manifestations of Christian sects define themselves as 'Orthodox'. The Predominate Christian sects of The Greeks, The Russians, The Syrians, and The Coptics all use it within their faith's name.

To my knowledge (admittedly weak in the study of languages), it has never been associated with Islam. The term "Orthodox" is itself relatively modern:

From The Online Etymology Dictionary:

Orthodox - 1581, from L.L. orthodoxus, from Gk. orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos "right, true, straight" + doxa "opinion, praise," from dokein "to seem," from PIE base *dek- "to take, accept" (see decent).

As the name of the Eastern Church, first recorded in Eng. 1772; in the sense of branch of Judaism, first recorded 1853.

The L.L. stand for Late Latin, and is defined in this dictionary as the literary Latin language as spoken and written c.300-c.700.

Nothing beats a miasmic fog for anchoring unsubstantiated claims intended as a framework from which to build an unjustified world-view upon. You're not affected by the virulent "Clash of Civilisations" strain of Islamaphobia are you?

Turkey is not Mideastern, its origins are complex, but the roots of Turcomen are in no way Arabic, and only tangentially Persian.

From Washington State University,
World Civilizations I&II Online Class
by Richard Hooker

Ottoman Origins

The Ottomans arose from the obscure reaches of Anatolia in the west of Turkey; these Western Turks were called the Oghuz. They had come primarily as settlers during the reign of the Seljuks in Turkey (1098-1308)
[. . .]
The Ottomans inherited a rich mixture of political traditions from vastly disparate ethnic groups: Turks, Persians, Mongols, Mesopotamian and, of course, Islam. The Ottoman state, like the Turkish, Mongol, and Mesopotamian states rested on a principle of absolute authority in the monarch. The nature of Ottoman autocracy, however, is greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted in the West, particularly in world history textbooks.

Suleyman the Lawgiver

The Europeans called him "The Magnificent," but the Ottomans called him Kanuni, or "The Lawgiver." The Suleymanie Mosque, built for Suleyman, describes Suleyman in its inscription as Nashiru kawanin al-Sultaniyye , or "Propagator of the Sultanic Laws." The primacy of Suleyman as a law-giver is at the foundation of his place in Islamic history and world view. It is perhaps important to step back a moment and closely examine this title to fully understand Suleyman's place in history.

The word used for law here, kanun, has a very specific reference. In Islamic tradition, the Shari'ah, or laws originally derived from the Qur'an , are meant to be universally applied across all Islamic states. No Islamic ruler has the power to overturn or replace these laws. So what laws was Suleyman "giving" to the Islamic world? What precisely does kanun refer to since it doesn't refer to the main body of Islamic law, the Shari'ah?

The kanun refer to situational decisions that are not covered by the Shari'ah . Even though the Shari'ah provides all necessary laws, it's recognized that some situations fall outside their parameters. In Islamic tradition, if a case fell outside the parameters of the Shari'ah , then a judgement or rule in the case could be arrived at through analogy with rules or cases that are covered by the Shari'ah . This method of juridical thinking was only accepted by the most liberal school of Shari'ah , Hanifism, so it is no surprise that Hanifism dominated Ottoman law.

The Ottomans, however, elevated kanun into an entire code of laws independent of the Shari'ah . The first two centuries of Ottoman rule, from 1350 to 1550, saw an explosion of kanun rulings and laws, so that by the beginning of the sixteenth century, the kanun were a complete and independent set of laws that by and large were more important than the Shari'ah . This unique situation was brought about in part because of the unique heritage of the Ottomans. In both Turkish and Mongol traditions, the imperial law, or law pronounced by the monarch, was considered sacred. They even had a special word for it: the Turks called it Türe and the Mongols called it Yasa . In the system of Türe and Yasa , imperial law was regarded as the essential and sacred foundation of the empire. When this tradition collided with the Islamic Shari'ah tradition, a compromised system combining both was formed.

The Sultanic laws were first collected together by Mehmed the Conqueror. Mehmed divided the kanun into two separate sets or laws. The first set dealt with the organization of government and the military, and the second set dealt with the taxation and treatment of the peasantry. The latter group was added to after the death of Mehmed and the Ottoman kanun pretty much crystallized into its final form in 1501. Suleyman, for his part, revised the law code, but on the whole the Suleyman code of laws is pretty identical to the 1501 system of laws. However, it was under Suleyman that the laws took their final form; no more revisions were made after his reign. From this point onwards, this code of laws was called, kanun-i 'Osmani , or the "Ottoman laws."

Your biases run so deeply that you fail to comprehend reality. Turkey does not need a membership in the EU. Their geopolitical location, along with their cultural merchanting heritage, has assured them a well-positioned economic future as a transiting point for energy supplies traversing East to West from both the Central Asian Steppes, and Russia. Yet already the trade between Turkey and the European Union makes them co-dependents.

The trade volume between Turkey and the EU members reached more than 90 billion euros in 2006.

Turkey imported 49,8 billion euros-goods from the EU countries (12 % increase). Thus Turkey imported more EU goods than Japan did in 2006. Turkey is the 5th biggest market for the EU companies.

Turkey last year exported 41,6 billion euros goods to the EU countries with 15 % annual increase.

Jan Soykok, "Trade between Turkey and the EU is Over 90 Billion Euros in 2006", Journal of Turkish Weekly, April 2, 2007