US- Turkey alliance is resilient: rely on each other for too much
James 9 (Jeffery, Ankara ambassador for the US, Embassy of the United States, “Ask the Ambassador”, http://turkey.usembassy.gov/ask_ambassador_jeffrey.html)
Turkey and the United States have been friends since 1923, and allies in Korea and NATO for fifty-eight years. Ours is a special partnership, a relationship that is important to both Washington and Ankara. It’s a partnership that has undergone significant change as the international political landscape has evolved. It is a far broader relationship than I experienced during my first assignment here in 1983. Then, security concerns dominated. Security cooperation is still an important dimension of our partnership, but now we work closely on issues as wide ranging as energy, trade, fighting international drug trafficking, and promoting ties between Turkish and American universities. The strains that developed over our Iraq policy are a less welcome change in the Turkish-American relationship. The downturn in Turkish attitudes about U.S. policy and the United States has been a source of deep concern to policymakers in the U.S. and to me personally. I believe that we’ve made some progress in reversing this trend since President Bush and Prime Minister Erdogan opened a new chapter in counter-terrorism cooperation last year. We share the same view of the PKK. It’s a terrorist organization that’s a common enemy of Turkey, the United States and the broader international community. We have backed up our verbal commitment to assisting Turkey in its efforts to counter the PKK threat with deeds. We’re sharing information and supporting Turkey’s political and economic steps to counter the PKK’s propaganda. We have a lot more work to do to expand Turkish-American cooperation and further improve our relations. I’m committed to doing this and I’m interested in talking to you about how to go about doing it. I’m interested in your ideas about how we can better understand each other and work together. Close friends will always disagree on some issues, but the U.S. and Turkey cannot and will not let such differences stand in the way of cooperation that serves both our countries. The Turkish-American relationship is too important and offers too much promise for doing good in the region and beyond. Relations resilient- both countries support each other despite challenges
Muhammad 9 (Jenin, staff writer, Hurriyet, Obama says Turkey is a critical ally; declares not at war with Islam, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11376078.asp)
"Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet ('Yes' in Turkish). Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time," Obama told in his 45-minutes-long speech. The U.S. and Turkey had disagreements time to time, but the two countries have stood together through many challenges over the last sixty years and because of the strength of this alliance and the endurance of this friendship, both America and Turkey are stronger, and the world is more secure, Obama added. "So in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free. Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union. We speaknot as members of the EU, but as close friends of Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in transatlantic and European institutions. And Turkey is bound to Europe by more than bridges over the Bosporus," Obama said in his speech. Obama praised Turkey's reforms in its EU accession bid but urged more steps to be taken. He urged for the reopening of Halki seminary and the strengthening of minority rights. The two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges, Obama said and defined them as an economic crisis that recognizes no borders; extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men, women and children; strains on our energy supply and a changing climate; the proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapons, and the persistence of tragic conflict. Messages to the Islamic world The president declared that the U.S. is not at war with Islam and it will never be. "In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a violent ideology that people of all faiths reject. But I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaeda. Far from it. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect," he added. He pledged to be respectful, even when there are disagreements and to convey America's deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better. "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them," he added.
The Aff’s error in thought by focusing on the nuclear arms race feeds the paradigm where society thinks weapons matter. This “weaponitis” benefits the profiteers in the arms race.
Schwartz and Derber 90 (William and Charles, Professors at Yeshiva U and Boston College, Nuclear Seduction) PR
Weaponitis persists, while the real sources of nuclear peril are ignored, partly because of an error in thought—the incorrect diagnosis of the arms race as the main danger of the nuclear age. The error, however, is useful; weaponitis serves important interests of the parties to the nuclear debate. Weaponitis most obviously benefits those who profit from the continual arms buildup it legitimates:
the huge defense corporations that build the weapons, the military bureaucracies that buy and control them, and the professional military strategists and intellectuals who make their livings and their reputations by rationalizing and planning the arms race.To acknowledge that the arms race no longer matters to the security and power of the United States would be bad business for military contractors and bad politics for the military. Corporate executives want to increase, not undermine, the market for their products, just as military officers want to command more, not fewer, nuclear weapons systems and new ones rather than old ones. Similarly, to dominate the nuclear debate after existential deterrence took hold in the 1950s, the experts on throw weight, hard target kill capability, and the like had to make it appear that such matters continued to be important. They erected an imposing edifice of deterrence theory and related historical lore that only the specialists can fully master and that makes the details of the hardware seem vitally important. Looking at the nuclear problem from a different, more political, point of view would cede the issue to other intellectual approaches—and to other intellectuals. Moreover, if intellectuals in government, private think tanks such as the Rand Corporation, and academia want to stay friendly with the powers that be and remain on their lucrative contract lists, they must frame inquiry into the nuclear issue, like other issues, in an ideologically acceptable manner. Weaponitis does the job nicely, even when disagreements about technical details emerge within the paradigm. Denouncing, say, road-mobile ICBMs in favor of rail-mobile ones may at worst annoy government officials holding a different view.
Denouncing American foreign policy, beyond narrow limits, can get one blacklisted.