What is the root cause of the neocons' quarrel with Islam?

How about I start by asking a top-down question?  However, this is a somewhat shocking question. Yes, pay attention now, dear readers, the question is this: 

Have you ever thought about why "Orientalism" and "Orientalist Thinkers" were targeted in the West when the "Clash of Civilisations" was served to the whole world as a fictional assumption? Let me even go a little further, why are they shown as enemies? I know it is a complicated question? But this is the situation. Let's analyse this situation together. You can be sure that we will find interesting situations while analysing this question. Having said this, let's put an end to our hypothesis and say. There is no need to go too deep. Let us say it from the very beginning, as a matter of fact, the result is obvious. 

First of all, the idea of "Orientalism" and the "Orientalist Thinkers" who are the ideologues of this ideal are about to be wiped off the face of the earth, let me inform you. Isn't it interesting that they are also about to become extinct in our old world, which is struggling with the spiral of climate change after the increase in the rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal. I don't know, like you, I have a worry and anxiety in my heart, as if we will never see the "Orientalist Thinkers" again. Will we really never see them again? Why were the "People of Oriental Thought" targeted and subjected to massacres due to the sharpening religious, ethnic, national and racial polarisation of the human species like the species that have become extinct? First of all, you can clearly see that they have been targeted. Due to those who aged and withdrew due to biological factors and those who were forcibly erased from the field of idealism, they became fewer and fewer. Those who remain in trace amounts are treated as "crazy or insane" bards who have lost their self-control and behave erratically. In other words, they are not taken into consideration properly. You know, there is a mode like "Tell me, tell me, it's exciting." That's what it's like. That's what it's like...

Now let's come to the most sensitive, most important, most crucial part of the matter, that is to say, where it all comes to a head. First of all, let's answer this. In other words, is there a plan in this regard? To the question. Or do you have a suspicion that there is no such plan? In order to provide a starting point for this question, it would be useful to recall Arnold Joseph Toynbee. First of all, Toynbee was officially an intelligence officer. He was a famous pamphleteer of the Pax Anglo-Saxon, which focussed on inter-communal conflicts at the beginning of the 20th century, and an activist in the British Intelligence Service's Propaganda Department at Welllington House in London. Yes, Prof. Arnold J. Toynbee, who is also a historian of civilisation, is the author of the biased "Blue Book" on the Armenian-Turkish and Armenia-Turkey Conflict together with James Bryce. He is a social engineer who is supposedly trying to design humanity from a broad historical perspective. He is a futurologist who offers horizon-opening and striking insights into the future of Western civilisation, the balance of power within this civilisation, how the world will be shaped, especially after the Second World War, and how another ground will replace the marginalised Islamic civilisation. (1)

This is what Toynbee tried to do with his works that form the basis of Huntington's famous "Clash of Civilisations" thesis. Toynbee, who had determined that civilisations had produced new civilisations and great institutional religions by meeting and colliding with each other throughout history, argued in his works "Civilisation on Trial" and "A Study of History" that the future would be built through the interaction between civilisations.  In particular, "A Study of History" was published by Toynbee in 12 volumes from 1934 to 1961 as a universal history. Samuel Huntington's famous 'Clash of Civilisations Theory' was theorised in 1981 during the Cold War. Huntington argued that the deepest cause of the post-Cold War conflicts would be the difference between civilisations, or at least that the conflicts between civilisations would be bloodier than others. This is the starting point of the ongoing debate on whether the transition period will be "bloody or bloodless".

While his competence as a cultural theorist is questionable, Huntington is strong as a political-cultural analyst. And let us not forget that his book 'Clash of Civilisations' is only 32 years old and has been and is being criticised. After all, 32 years is not a very long period of time in the "History of Civilisations". However, this book also ensured the integration and cohesion of the Neocons (New Conservatives) that emerged after the Cold War. It has also paved the way for Ibn Khaldun's famous 'Muqaddime' in the Turkish-Islamic thought system to preserve the validity of the theory of "a society without enemies is not a nation", which is the parameter of marginalisation. An important "conscious mistake" of Huntington is that he divided the world into blocks in the XXth century categories: West, Euro-American civilisation, Islam, China-Confucius and Latin America. Unfortunately, this perspective has led to the ignoring of the great differences and diversity of ethno-cultures. The ideal here is to moderate Islam and Christianity and to validate the thesis that the world is highly interconnected. The concern is that homogeneity and sharp distinctions, such as Huntington's, will lead to local and regional conflicts. This is why conflicts, battles and wars at the national level remain valid even though no inter-bloc conflicts have taken place yet. 

To cut a long story short, the similarities between the hostile attitudes of the "Neocons", especially in the USA, towards the Islamic geography and Turkey are extremely consistent and striking. In other words, the Neocons' perception of the Islamic geography, Turkey and President Erdoğan as a hate figure is therefore a counteractive reflex.  Neocons, like the Orientalists who declared Islam as the new other on scientific grounds, adopt a similar attitude towards developments related to our geography.  For example, it is clear that they show hostility to refugees and that they look at different issues of the Islamic geography from the same plane. Another issue is that when the developments after the "Arab Spring" or "One Minute" are analysed, it is seen that the "orientalist-neocon" perspective is in an intense continuity.  Furthermore, the internalisation of the Eurocentric and orientalist perspective has brought along a detachment from geography. However, with the intervention of the expansionist states, a great dissolution started to be experienced in the geography, especially at the ethnic level.  As a continuation of the new period of invasion and occupation that started in 1991 with the end of the Cold War, state structures collapsed and on the contrary, illegal organisational structures strengthened. A new milestone of this system of thought was the 11 September Attacks. After 11 September, the second phase began and the invasion and occupation spread to a much wider area. Interventions of unspeakable magnitude have taken place at intervals of three to five years. Expansionist states have occupied and invaded almost the entire Islamic geography. 

In addition to the efforts of the neocons to disintegrate Islam, when Turkey turned towards Somalia from an Orientalist perspective, a neocon-orientalist perspective was immediately put into action. However, Turkey's approach and opening towards the Islamic geography is the weaving of a holistic and contiguous perspective. This is also the reason why Turkey is the main target of these counter-insurgency interventions. In the covert and overt interventions from 2013 to 15 July 2016, the Republic of Turkey was sought to be immobilised by pressures from both inside and outside. As President Erdoğan aptly put it, the expansionist powers wanted to "bring Turkey to its knees". However, it can be easily said that in these thirty years, Turkey has been able to produce reflexes to resist with Ankara-centred policies as well as to put them into action. 

After all these, I would like to say that the concepts of indigenousness and nationality are not just put forward with such sloppy evaluations. It is vital that Turkey does not kneel in the Islamic geography. And this should be valued as the formation of a fulcrum.

Footnotes

(1)https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/uygarlikyargilaniyor/649567.html&manufacturer_id=1114/ Access Date 23.07.2023/