These Are the Best Places in the World to be a Woman in Politics, According to the OECD

Banking And General Views As Iceland's Bankruptcy-to-Recovery Mode Proves Viable
Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images The city skyline is seen illuminated by lights at night in Reykjavik, Iceland, on Friday, Aug. 10, 2012.

Most countries are not hitting benchmarks for female representation in politics, however

Aspiring female politicians should consider moving to Finland or Sweden, where women have the most representation in government, according to new OECD data.

The findings, published July 6 as a part of the OECD’s Government at a Glance report, saw Nordic countries leading the way for women’s representation both in lower houses of parliament and in ministerial positions.

These countries are likely to benefit greatly from this representation, the OECD says. More equal gender representation can help governments institute better policies surrounding work-life balance, gender violence and equal pay.

But the overall trend is not as promising in the rest of the OECD, where things have only gotten marginally better for women’s representation in politics since 2002.

The report found that 16 out of the 34 OECD countries are failing to meet the desired 30% threshold of representation in both lower houses of parliament and ministerial positions.

Among the worst performers are Hungary, South Korea and Turkey. The U.S. and the U.K. also showed below average representation.

You can read the full report here.

TIME Greece

This Greek Island Is Being Overwhelmed by Thousands of Migrants

Louisa Gouliamaki—AFP/Getty Images Migrants, who got their temporary documents, embark on a ferry at the port of Mytilene to go to the port of Piraeus on June 19, 2015. Lesbos is a first step for many migrants to reach the "security" in Europe

The massive influx is exhausting resources on the island of Lesbos

The Greek island of Lesbos is facing the worst migration crisis in all of Europe, a Medecins Sans Frontieres official told the BBC.

Around 15,000 migrants arrived on the island in June. Lesbos has a total population of just 86,000, and the BBC says the massive influx has exhausted most available resources and left officials scrambling.

The migrants often arrive on the northern tip of the island close to Turkey, and then walk over 25 miles to the other side of the island to apply for papers that let them stay in the country for up to six months.

The island’s chief of police told the BBC that 1,600 migrants arrived on Saturday alone. Police said they were working 24 hours a day to process the new migrants, but still only manage to get through between 300 to 500 a day.

An abandoned race track and the island’s only detention facility house the migrants, but have been stretched to more than full capacity, the BBC reports.

Over 63,000 migrants have arrived in Greece this year already, according to the BBC.

The total number of migrants arriving in Europe in 2015 has more than doubled since 2014.


TIME Turkey

Turkish Police Break Up Gay Pride Parade With Rubber Bullets

It's not clear why police wanted to break up the parade

Police in Turkey broke up a gay pride celebration in Istanbul Sunday with water guns and rubber bullets.

An annual gay pride celebration has been held in Istanbul for years and it is not immediately clear why police wanted to break up the celebration, Reuters reports.

Some speculated that conservative Muslim officials took issue with the event because it fell during the month of Ramadan this year. Homosexuality isn’t illegal in Turkey, but many in the predominately Muslim country still don’t approve of gays and lesbians.

The pride event was held in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, a large public gathering place that has been home to protests against the Turkish government. The Agence France-Presse reported that police targeted the crowd after hearing slogans accusing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of engaging in “fascism.”

The violence captured the attention of some high profile figures in the U.S., where Pride Week celebrations are also under way:


TIME United Nations

There Have Never Been More Displaced People Across the World Than Now

If the number of displaced persons formed a nation, it would be the 24th largest country in the world

The total number of people forcibly displaced by war, conflict and persecution rose to a record 59.5 million at the end of 2014, the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) has said.

The agency’s annual Global Trends Report: World at War, released Thursday, found forced displacement worldwide has reached unprecedented levels, with a record annual rise of 8.3 million more displaced people since 2013. Some 38.2 million of the total were internally displaced in their own countries.

If the number of displaced persons formed a nation, the report said, it would be the 24th largest country in the world.

Speaking in Turkey on Thursday, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres confirmed worldwide displacement was at the highest ever recorded.

“When you see the news in any global network, we clearly get the impression that the world is at war,” he said. “Indeed many areas of the world are today in a completely chaotic situation and the result is this staggering escalation of displacement, the staggering escalation of suffering, because each displaced person is a tragic story,” he said.

Syria overtook Afghanistan to become the biggest source of refugees last year, with 1.77 million Syrians having fled the nation’s ongoing civil war.

Just over half of all refugees under UNHCR’s responsibility worldwide came from just three countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia. The report also pointed to new and continuing conflicts in South Sudan, Ukraine and Iraq, among others, which have caused suffering and widespread displacement.

Guterres warned that humanitarian organizations were “no longer able to clean up the mess.”

“U.N. agencies, NGOs, the Red Cross — we no longer have the capacities and the resources to respond to such a dramatic increase in humanitarian needs,” he said.

Turkey overtook Pakistan to become the nation hosting the most refugees in the world with 1.59 million people currently displaced within its borders. Guterres praised Turkey’s willingness to keep its frontiers open and called on richer countries to do more.

“That has a special meaning in a world where so many borders are closed or restricted,” he said. “And where new walls are being built or announced.”

TIME Turkey

Former Turkish President Demirel Dead at 90

Suleyman Demirel
Burhan Ozbilici—AP Former Turkish President Suleyman Demirel speaks to the media at a polling station in Ankara, Turkey, on Oct. 21, 2007

He served as Prime Minister seven times

(ANKARA, Turkey) — Suleyman Demirel, one of the dominant figures in Turkey’s politics for the past half-century, died early Wednesday, hospital officials said. He was 90.

Demirel died at 2:05 a.m. Wednesday at Ankara’s Guven Hospital of heart failure and a respiratory tract infection, doctors at the hospital said in an announcement broadcast on Turkish television.

Demirel served as president from 1993-2000, the culmination of a four-decade career that saw him serve seven spells as prime minister — two of them ending in his government’s overthrow by military coups.

Demirel believed that his governments of the 1960s and 1970s deserved much of the credit for a deep transformation of Turkey’s economy and society, which saw a largely agrarian society transformed into an increasingly industrial and urban one, bringing higher living standards for most Turks.

But critics say Demirel symbolized a culture in which power came before principles, and helped entrench patronage and graft. They point to a notorious “family photograph,” which pictured Demirel surrounded by relatives and associates from the business world — some of whom were later jailed for corruption.

“Our respected president who has left indelible traces from the water we drink, to the electricity we use, from the schools we study at, to these hospitals, the damns and the airports has passed away,” said Aylin Cesur, his personal doctor, while announcing his death at the hospital.

Demirel launched his political career in the aftermath of the 1960 military coup that deposed the government of Adnan Menderes. Menderes and two Cabinet colleagues were executed, and many leading figures in their party were banned from politics — leaving a vacuum on the center-right.

Into that gap strode the political unknown Demirel. He had trained as an engineer, and headed a dam-building program under Menderes before leaving for the private sector.

At the age of 40 — youthful by Turkish political standards, then and now — Demirel was a surprise choice as leader of the newly formed Justice Party, a center-right successor to Menderes’ party.

The first leading politician from a younger generation that had played no part in the formation of a modern, independent Turkish state after World War I, Demirel came to power with a landslide win in 1965.

His populist style — Demirel was known as “Sulu the shepherd” because of his village background — and his canny use of the symbols of Islam proved a vote-winner in the conservative countryside, where most Turks lived. His government had to balance the demands of its rural support base with the need to push Turkey into the industrial era.

The balancing act seemed to be working in the mid-1960s, with annual growth of around 6 percent a year as electricity and roads reached corners of Turkey that had never seen either.

But by 1970, Demirel was on the defensive as rising political radicalism brought social unrest. On the left, students and workers groups demanded radical reform, while Demirel was being outflanked on the right by new nationalist and pro-Islamic parties.

When the ideological conflict started to turn violent, Turkey’s powerful military intervened. Generals issued an ultimatum that forced Demirel out of office in 1971 in the so-called “coup by memorandum.”

Successive governments, led first by military-backed technocrats and then by Demirel’s great rival Bulent Ecevit, failed to get a grip on the spiraling violence, which worsened in the 1970s as Turkey’s economy, hit by the oil price crisis, slumped into crisis.

Demirel was back in power in 1975, but his unwieldy coalition — including Islamists and nationalists — couldn’t halt Turkey’s slide into chaos. Many blamed Demirel for turning a blind eye to his nationalist coalition partners, who openly incited violence that saw dozens killed weekly in clashes between left- and right-wing gangs.

Turkey was heading toward another military coup, which arrived in 1980.

According to late journalist Mehmet Ali Birand’s account of the coup, Demirel was on the telephone to his interior minister on the night of Sept. 11, 1980, when the line went dead. Looking out of the window of the prime minister’s residence, he saw that his usual bodyguards had been replaced by armed soldiers.

“It is a pity, a pity for the motherland, a pity for us all,” the outgoing premier said, before packing his bags for prison.

Demirel was banned from politics, but the ban was repealed in the late 1980s. He became prime minister again in 1991, and president in 1993 on the death of Turgut Ozal.

As president, Demirel fostered ties with the Turkic republics of the former Soviet Union, and took credit for brokering the peaceful ouster from power of an Islamist government under pressure from the secular-minded military in 1997, at a time when many feared a coup. The ouster was later dubbed Turkey’s “postmodern coup.”

A favorite slogan of Demirel’s, used to counter critics who accused him of U-turns and inconsistencies, is often quoted by Turks discussing the pragmatic leader’s political strengths and weaknesses.

“Yesterday was yesterday — and today is today,” Demirel was fond of telling journalists.

Demirel’s wife, Nazmiye, died in May 2013. The couple had no children.

TIME Syria

Kurdish Fighters Seize Large Parts of ISIS Border Stronghold

Refugees Continue To Pour Into Turkey From Syria As They Attempt To Escape IS Violence
Gokhan Sahin—Getty Images A Turkish soldier watches the Kurdish People's Protection Units fighters and Free Syrian Army fighters as they gesture together in the northern Syrian town of Tel Abyad on June 15, 2015

The seizure of Tal Abyad threatened to flare tensions between Kurds and ethnic Arabs

(BEIRUT) — U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters captured large sections of a strategic town on the Syria-Turkish border on Monday, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Islamic State group, which lost a key supply line for their nearby self-proclaimed capital.

The seizure of Tal Abyad threatened to flare tensions between Kurds and ethnic Arabs, who accused the Kurdish militia of deliberately displacing thousands of people from the town, which has a mixed population.

Redur Khalil, a spokesman for the main Kurdish fighting force, known as the YPG, said Kurdish fighters entered from the east and were advancing west toward the town’s center amid fierce clashes with pockets of IS resistance.

“We expect to have full control over Tal Abyad within a few hours,” he told The Associated Press by telephone. A few hours later, the YPG announced on its Facebook page that it had liberated the town.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed the Kurdish fighters had “almost full control” of Tal Abyad by Monday evening, and had taken command of the border crossing with Turkey. It said some 40 Islamic State militants were targeted by U.S.-led airstrikes as they tried to flee south.

An AP photographer in Akcakale, on the Turkish side of the border, saw several dozen YPG fighters waving their yellow triangular flag and flashing victory signs. Earlier, several dozen Kurdish gunmen were seen running up a hill, moving west.

A few people on the Syrian side of the border were seen raising the green, white and red flag of the Free Syrian Army before being apprehended by Turkish security after they broke a hole in the border fence. A contingent of Free Syrian Army fighters is battling alongside the Kurds in an effective alliance against the Islamic State group called “Burkan al-Furat,” or Volcano of the Euphrates.

The loss of Tal Abyad, some 50 miles (80 kilometers) north of Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic State group’s self-declared caliphate, is the extremists’ biggest setback since Kurdish fighters took control of the Kurdish border town of Kobani near Turkey, after fighting IS for months.

A Kurdish victory in Tal Abyad deprives the militant group of a direct route for bringing in foreign militants and supplies, and links the Kurds’ two fronts, putting even more pressure on Raqqa.

An anti-IS media collective based in Raqqa said the extremists set up checkpoints in the center of the city on Monday and installed security cameras in a main square.

Earlier, Kurdish units marching west from Kobani and others marching east from the Kurdish town of Ras al-Ayn met up in the village of Qaysariyeh, some two miles (three kilometers) south of Tal Abyad as they encircled the town from three sides, leaving Turkey as the only outlet.

As with the Kurdish victory in Kobani, the YPG fighters’ advance under the cover of the U.S-led air campaign highlighted the decisive importance of combining airstrikes with the presence of a cohesive and motivated ally on the ground — so clearly absent in Iraq and other parts of Syria.

With most of Syria now controlled by either Islamic State militants or forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, the U.S. has found a reliable partner in the YPG, a group of moderate, mostly secular Kurdish militiamen driven by revolutionary fervor and the desire for self-rule.

Since the beginning of the year, they have wrested back more than 500 mostly Kurdish and Christian towns in northeastern Syria, as well as strategic mountains seized earlier by the Islamic State group. They have recently pushed into Raqqa province, an IS stronghold where Tal Abyad is located.

The Kurdish advance has caused the displacement of more than 16,000 people who fled to Turkey in the past two weeks. On Monday, up to 3,000 more refugees arrived at the Akcakale border crossing, according to Turkish state-run TRT television. An AP photographer saw large numbers of people at the border and thick smoke billowing as U.S.-led coalition aircraft targeted IS militants in Tal Abyad.

As Kurdish fighters push deeper into Islamic State strongholds in northern Syria, tensions with ethnic Arabs and Turkmen in the region have risen.

On Monday, more than a dozen Syrian rebel groups accused the Kurdish fighters of deliberately displacing thousands of Arabs and Turkmen from Tal Abyad and the western countryside of predominantly Kurdish Hassakeh province. In a statement, they accused the YPG of committing “ethnic cleansing” — a charge strongly denied by the Kurds.

The accusation, which was not backed by evidence of ethnic or sectarian killings, threatened to escalate tensions between ethnic Arabs and Kurds as the Kurdish fighters conquer more territory in northern Syria.

“YPG forces … have implemented a new sectarian and ethnic cleansing campaign against Sunni Arabs and Turkmen under the cover of coalition airstrikes which have contributed bombardment, terrorizing civilians and forcing them to flee their villages,” the statement issued by rebel and militant groups said.

The 15 rebel groups, including the powerful ultraconservative Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam, said the alleged ethnic cleansing was concentrated in Hassakeh province and in Tal Abyad, and was part of a plan by the Kurdish Democratic Party, or PYD, to partition Syria. The YPG, or People’s Protection Units, is the armed wing of the PYD. The movement is affiliated with the Kurdish PKK, which has waged a long and bloody insurgency in southeastern Turkey.

The statement echoed comments last week by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“On our border, in Tal Abyad, the West, which is conducting aerial bombings against Arabs and Turkmen, is unfortunately positioning terrorist members of the PYD and PKK in their place,” Erdogan said.

Khalil, the YPG spokesman, strongly refuted the claim, and seeking to calm nerves, said the YPG is a Syrian national group whose battles are directed solely against the Islamic State group.

“We say to residents of Tal Abyad, there is no reason for you to cross to another country (Turkey). Our towns are open to you, you are our people and you will return to your towns, villages and properties,” he said.

He pledged that the YPG will not interfere in administering Tal Abyad once it falls, leaving it to civilian committees.

TIME Turkey

Here Are 3 Good Things That Happened in the World This Week

Bulent Kilic—AFP/Getty Images Young supporters of pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) celebrate in the streets the results of the legislative election, in Diyarbakir on June 7, 2015.

Turkey, Nigeria and the E.U. all saw positive stories in a week when most of the news was depressing

Follow the news these days, and it’s hard to be an optimist. Ukraine’s ceasefire is a fiction. ISIS is capturing new ground and drawing new followers. The U.S. and China seem at odds in the South China Sea. The Greeks sometimes seem determined to stumble their way out of Europe. The list goes on. But with the real exception of Ukraine, these risks are exaggerated, and there are positive stories out there that deserve more attention. Here are three:

1. Turkey

Start with last weekend’s election results in Turkey. Not so long ago, this country was considered a major emerging market success story. That’s mainly because then-prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had helped unlock much more of the country’s growth potential by empowering development and entrepreneurship in the country’s Anatolian heartland. Under his leadership, per capita income tripled in a decade.

Unfortunately, Erdogan, now president, has drawn comparisons with Russia’s Putin by shifting focus from economic gain to a bid for lasting political dominance. To corner his enemies and expand his power, he has compromised the independence of Turkey’s courts, police forces, and central bank. His foreign policy has become a mix of nationalist paranoia and anti-Western resentment. He has also polarized his country.

But Turkish voters reminded us on June 7 that Turkey is not Russia, and Erdogan can’t become Putin. His Justice and Development Party, known by its Turkish initials AKP, earned another victory, but not the supermajority Erdogan needed to rewrite Turkey’s constitution to give himself more power. In fact, for the first time in 13 years, the AKP didn’t even win a simple majority and will now have to form a coalition government.

Make no mistake: Turkey will be a mess for some time to come. Expected intensified political infighting over the next couple of years, but the big news is that there are still checks on Erdogan’s ambitions, even within his own party. It’s a step back for Erdogan–and a step forward for his country.

2. Nigeria

After years of corruption and stagnation, Africa’s largest economy needed new political energy. March’s presidential election provided exactly that. After 16 years of one-party rule following the country’s shift from military control to democracy in 1999, opposition leader Muhammadu Buhari won a clear victory and a strong mandate. The incumbent accepted defeat, and power changed hands peacefully. That’s crucial in a country where stability depends on a delicate political balance between Christians in the south, Muslims in the north and various ethnic groups and provincial factions.

With majorities for his APC party in parliament and governorships, Buhari brings energy for reform. A capable economic policy team is now settling into place. A badly needed revitalization of the oil sector is underway. Government spending restraint will earn greater investor confidence in Nigeria’s enormous potential. Buhari, a Muslim and former military commander, will more aggressively target Boko Haram, Muslim militants based in the country’s northeast, than his predecessor did.

3. Europe

Even in Europe, despite intense media focus on the risks of Grexit and Brexit—Greek and British exists from the E.U., respectively—there is cause for optimism. Last week, the Pew Research Center released a report detailing evidence of a revival of public faith in the broader European project. Pew surveyed 6,028 people in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK, countries that make up 70% of the EU population and provide 74% of its GDP. Though many of those questioned still say their economies are in rotten shape and won’t quickly return to pre-crisis levels, they do sense improvement—and credit the European Union for it. Despite the rise of Euro-skeptic parties like Spain’s Podemos, Britain’s UK Independence Party and Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, public support for the EU within these member states has actually risen since 2013. In Britain, support for exit from the EU trails support for continued membership by 55 to 36 percent. Interestingly, majorities in Spain (70%), Britain (66%), Italy (58%), and Germany (50%) say the rise of “non-traditional” parties is a “good thing,” perhaps because they provide a useful check on the power of European institutions.

There’s no doubt that Ukraine’s conflict will deepen, tensions with Russia will rise further, Greece has a long way to go and the Middle East will burn hotter for longer. But add reform momentum in India, Italy, and Mexico, and there are still plenty of good news stories beyond the headlines.

Bremmer is a foreign affairs columnist and editor-at-large at TIME. He is the president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy, and a Global Research Professor at New York University. His most recent book is Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World

TIME Turkey

Elif Shafak: What Turkey Urgently Needs Now

Shafak is a leading Turkish novelist and the author of nine novels, most recently The Architect’s Apprentice.

The Turkish novelist reflects on the recent election and what comes next

In a University of California, Berkeley study of students from more than 200 countries, aiming to measure the degree to which respondents had found life “unpredictable, uncontrollable and overwhelming,” those coming from Turkey scored among the highest on perceived stress. Had the researchers come to Turkey and talked with the people prior to the parliamentary elections on June 7, however, they would have probably assessed a world record for collective stress—most of which was triggered by politics.

No doubt this was the most stressful Turkish election in recent memory. Many voters felt like they were casting their votes not only to choose who represents them, but also to decide the future of the regime for many decades to come. In no other ballot had so much been at stake! In no other election time had there been this much pressure on the citizens to make fateful decisions. The primary reason for this was no other than President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who seemed determined to confuse democracy with majoritarianism and to turn the vote into a springboard that would launch him into an all-powerful position. Erdogan’s target was to make his Justice and Development Party, known by its Turkish initials AKP, obtain the necessary majority in the parliament to change the constitution and thus replace the parliamentarian system with a presidential model. For this purpose he campaigned relentlessly, even though the President has to be neutral and remain at an equal distance from all parties. As to the new system that he wanted to introduce, no one quite knew what would its bounds be, but it was clear it would be closer to the Russian than the American model of presidency.

As a writer, a woman, a democrat, a feminist, I do not want anyone in Turkey to have too much power. Because whoever attains power wants more and then even more power! It is never enough. It was never enough for AKP. Separation of powers was thrust aside, rule of law ignored, media freedoms and freedom of expression endangered, all in order to consolidate power in the hands of the same people, year after year. I am not sure any other party would have behaved any differently had they remained in power for so long. That is why I find separation of powers, free media and the existence of a rich civil society far more important for the sustainability of Turkey’s democracy.

It is one of the biggest ironies of Turkish political history that the Kurds—once belittled by the elites as a “backward culture”—have become the major progressive force in the country. Today many Turkish liberals, democrats, intellectuals, secularists and Kemalists are happy that the Kurds exist. It has been a massive mental shift!

Selahattin Demirtaş, the co-chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), has played a crucial role in this sea change. Getting more than 13% of the votes across the country, HDP managed to gain 80 of the 550 seats in parliament.

His charismatic personality and all-inclusive electoral campaign helped him in his endeavor to transform HDP from a regional party into a national one. Instead of using divisive or sectarian talking points, Demirtaş consistently chose an all-embracing language. He talked about the rights of not only Kurds, but Turks, Alevis, Armenians, women and gay people, uniting discontents under the same umbrella. HDP also had the highest percentage of women candidates. The party implements “a one man, one woman co-chair model” in its national, regional and local units. Interestingly, there were supporters of the main opposition party (Republican People’s Party, or CHP) and even the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) who voted for Demirtaş because they wished the Kurds would pass the 10% threshold needed for parliamentary representation—a barrier introduced by the army after the 1980 military takeover mostly to limit the Kurds’ entry into the Turkish parliament.

Demirtaş’ positive attitude towards diversity, inclusiveness and democracy is notable. We must hope that he won’t lose these values once he is deeper into the whirl of daily politics—and nor will HDP. It surely will not be an easy road. There are “hawks” inside the Kurdish movement, just like there are hard-liners in MHP, AKP and CHP. But Turkey has suffered enough from hawkish, exclusivist, power-driven masculinity. What we urgently need now is to restore the rule of law and reinforce democratic rights for everyone, equally.

Surrounded by extremisms and undemocratic regimes, Turkey does not exist in an easy region. Despite all its shortcomings, it is remarkable that it has enough experience in democracy and secularism to be able to renew itself through democratic means. There will be a coalition and, before that, a lot of uncertainty. But for now there is visible relief. After months of tension and fighting, people from different walks of life—including many AKP supporters who feel loyal to their party but do not necessarily want to see President Erdogan become even more powerful—are experiencing something strange, something unusual in their bodies: A decrease in the amount of perceived stress.

Read next: The Election Loss for Turkey’s Erdogan Is a Victory for Democracy

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Military

Fight Against ISIS Militants Lags Because They’re Nimble … and the U.S. Isn’t

“We have met the enemy, and it is us,” Obama seems to say

President Obama rattled off a list of what has gone wrong in the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria during a wrap-up press conference Monday following the G-7 summit in Germany. Although he didn’t come out and say it, he made clear that while ISIS militants are “nimble and they’re aggressive and they’re opportunistic,” those fighting them — led by his Administration — are not.

Reading between the lines, he also suggested that responsibility for the poor showing thus far can be blamed on the Pentagon, Iraq and Turkey — but not him or his White House staff. It was a deft example of blame shifting that also has the consequence of relegating the presidency to the status of an also-ran.

“We don’t yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis,” Obama said, in words that quickly ricocheted around the world. The comment unfortunately echoed one from last summer that sent aides and Pentagon officials wincing: “We don’t have a strategy yet,” he had said in August.

Obama’s remarks generated predictable ire from Republicans. “I fear his incomplete strategy has only emboldened ISIS and put our national security at greater risk,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), a veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

More critically, it also sparked concern among retired military officers, increasingly echoing what some of their active-duty counterparts are saying privately. “Did anyone tell him that it’s his job to develop a strategy?” wonders Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine.

The U.S. has been debating its anti-ISIS strategy longer than Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War that drove his forces out, says David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who planned that 38-day air campaign. “In about the same period of time, Saddam had invaded Kuwait with half-a-million forces, and the U.S. had devised a strategy, deployed the required forces to execute it, and eliminated the Iraqi military as an effective force, removing them from Kuwait,” Deptula says. Noting Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s recent complaint that Iraqi forces did not have the “will to fight” for the western Iraqi city of Ramadi, Deptula adds that “it does not appear that our Commander in Chief does, either.”

Read More: Obama Says ‘No Complete Strategy’ for Training Iraqis to Fight ISIS

Obama spoke of ISIS’s resilience following thousands of air strikes led by the U.S. (Monday’s listed here), where ISIS is defeated in one place only to surface in another. “We have made significant progress in pushing back [ISIS] from areas in which they had occupied or disrupted local populations,” Obama said. “But we’ve also seen areas, like in Ramadi, where they’re displaced in one place and then they come back in in another. And they’re nimble and they’re aggressive and they’re opportunistic.”

Obama went on to contrast those characteristics with the sclerotic response of those battling ISIS. It was those particulars that proved jarring, a full year (as of Thursday) after ISIS troops drove Iraqi forces out of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, and 10 months after it began beheading American hostages:

One of the areas where we’re going to have to improve is the speed at which we’re training Iraqi forces … We’re reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the number of Iraqi forces that are properly trained and equipped and have a focused strategy and good leadership. And when a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people.

Bottom line: the Pentagon is the bottleneck.

That is not the way to win friends in uniform. True, the Pentagon has no desire to get involved in another ground war in the region. The recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq killed 6,849 Americans, will cost at least $3 trillion, and have achieved few of the goals set by their U.S. architects in exchange for that blood and treasure. In that way, though, the U.S. military is no different from Obama, who was elected promising to extricate the U.S. from those conflicts. Their co-dependency has created a tepid war plan, half-heartedly carried out.

We don’t yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis as well about how recruitment [of Iraqi troops] takes place; how that training takes place. And so the details of that are not yet worked out … One of the things that we’re still seeing is, in Iraq, places where we’ve got more training capacity than we have recruits.

Bottom line: blame the Iraqis.

Iraq remains a deeply divided society, pitting Sunnis against Shi‘ites against Kurds. With mistrust and bloodlust rampant among them, creating a unified national army to fight ISIS may not be possible in the short term. There was a realpolitik reason Washington tolerated what it often calls autocrats in polite company (known elsewhere in the world as dictators and tyrants) in Egypt, Iraq and Libya. Even when anti-American, they brutally tightened the lid on their sectarian pressure cookers. If the U.S. has decided it’s not wise to keep such potentates in power, it should hardly be surprised when the lids blow off.

The other area where we’ve got to make a lot more progress is on stemming the flow of foreign [ISIS] fighters … We are still seeing thousands of foreign fighters flowing into first Syria and then, oftentimes, ultimately into Iraq … A lot of it is preventable, if we’ve got better cooperation, better coordination, better intelligence, if we are monitoring what’s happening at the Turkish-Syria border more effectively. This is an area where we’ve been seeking deeper cooperation with Turkish authorities, who recognize it’s a problem but haven’t fully ramped up the capacity they need.

Bottom line: it’s the Turks’ fault.

Turkey has performed poorly as the one NATO ally bordering Syria and Iraq throughout the anti-ISIS campaign. But with its own restive Kurdish minority, and fearing Syrian strongman Bashar Assad more than ISIS, it has been content to remain largely on the sidelines.

So there’s a germ of truth in each of Obama’s claims. But that shouldn’t keep the Commander in Chief from looking in the mirror when it comes to assigning culpability for the timorous anti-ISIS campaign and its lackluster results.

TIME Turkey

The Election Loss for Turkey’s Erdogan Is a Victory for Democracy

Young supporters of pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) hold Kurdish flags as they celebrate the results of the legislative election, in Diyarbakir in Turkey on June 7, 2015.
Bulent Kilic—AFP/Getty Images Young supporters of pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) hold Kurdish flags as they celebrate the results of the legislative election, in Diyarbakir in Turkey on June 7, 2015.

Before power went to his head, Turkey's president empowered the voters who in Sunday's election abruptly blunted his rise

Turks dealt a staggering blow to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday in the only language he understands: votes. The invigorating result was to reaffirm the exciting changes that Erdogan engineered in Turkish society when he first emerged as the nation’s leader a dozen years ago—the same changes that Sunday’s result showed Erdogan failed to properly appreciate. He thought it was all about him.

The great and historic success of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, known by the Turkish-language initials AKP, was in empowering the heartland voters the country’s governing elite had never quite trusted. Built as a parliamentary democracy, Turkey was crippled through most of its first eight decades in existence by the paradoxical unwillingness of the people in power to abide by the wishes of the electorate.

Again and again, the country’s military grabbed power whenever things were going in a direction the generals deemed dangerous. Each time, their excuse for seizing power was safeguarding the “secular democracy” put in place by the nation’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the charismatic former officer who shaped a modern state from the remains of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Ataturk died in 1938, but the paternalism of his early state lived on. It even had a name: Kemalism, a kind of governing rigidity, hostile to religious expression and deeply invested in “the state,” that critics said Ataturk himself would have disowned for stunting the growth of a mature democracy.

And that’s what AKP’s 2002 ascendance appeared to announce. For most of its first decade in power, Erdogan’s party made Turkey’s democracy credible. Each election brought it a larger share of the vote for the party, and with it, the political clout that allowed AKP to finally sideline the generals. The party did so partly by governing moderately, despite Erdogan’s earlier embrace of political Islam. Under AKP, sharia was cast not as a replacement for electoral democracy but rather the a moral force that informed one party’s politics—not unlike the Christian Democrats of postwar West Germany, as Erdogan liked to point that out.


Another thing Erodgan liked to point out was that he constituted the personal embodiment of this morality. Unlike previous Turkish leaders, he was a working class son of the land, the self-described “black Turk” who took the country back from the elitist secularists known as “white Turks.”

The only problem: He did not govern as a democrat. “He thinks democracy is winning elections, period,” Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkey program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told me last year. To Erdogan, a thumping victory at the ballot box is a mandate to do as you please, and he brooked no dissent, either within AKP or from outside. Famously thin-skinned (on the night of his first election, he took umbrage at a simple question by threatening to have me declared an enemy of the state), he not only sued journalists, but made Turkey what Reporters Without Borders called “the world’s largest prison for journalists,” with 42 then behind bars in 2013, the year Freedom House shifted its description of Turkish news media from “partly free” to “not free.”

As a majoritarian, Erdogan acted on the same presumption that doomed the Muslim Brotherhood—an Islamist party he admires—in Egypt, where the military had not yet been defanged. In Turkey, Erdogan sailed on, riding out mass protests over his high-handed style of governing, and a corruption scandal that produced a tape of him instructing his son to move tens of millions of Euros out of a home safe. Last August, 52 percent of Turkish voters made him him president, a largely ceremonial office that Erdogan made clear he had plans to expand. Erdogan set out to restructure Turkey’s entire system of governance to suit his opinion of himself—a presidential system, with powers as vast as the $615 million presidential palace he built in Ankara in anticipation of victory: 1,150 rooms, including space for five official food testers.

But to alter the constitution, AKP needed to win a supermajority of the 550 seats in the Grand National Assembly in the June 7 election. At the start of the campaign, Erdogan asked the public to give his party 400 seats—a super-duper majority. He fell a bit short—the 256 seats AKP won was not even enough for a simple majority. For the first time since 2002, AKP will need to find a partner in order to govern. None of the other parties say they want to serve as junior partner, including the Peoples’ Democratic Party, or HDP, the upstart whose 13 percent of the vote cost AK its majority . HDP is a Kurdish party, long linked to the guerrilla movement that fought a separatist war on behalf of the country’s largest minority, which Kemalists refused to recognize as an ethnicity. In the election, however, HDP campaigned on peace, and drew not only from the Kurdish southeast of Turkey but also the substantial population of ethnic Turks who no longer feel threatened by a minority identity in the land. And surely many who oppose Erdogan.

Led by a former human rights activist named Selahattin Demirtas, the campaign signaled a healing of the Turkish body politic that only a few analysts, such as Cagapty, saw as inevitable, given the forces that the rise of AKP had set in motion — from the empowerment of the electorate, to the economic boom that, though fading lately, nonetheless created both new wealth and new expectations of governance.

“I think Turkey’s future is it will be governed by liberals,” Cagapty said last year. He reasoned that Erdogan’s days were numbered by the “large, liberal middle class” spawned by economic growth in the Anatolian heartland that the elite had long ignored. “So he’s in fact created his own political nemesis.” And in the process, accidentally produced a bit of good news in a region where authoritarianism is rising unchallenged almost everywhere else.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com