Former chief of General Staff of Turkey’s Intelligence Department, Lt. Gen. İsmail Hakkı Pekin’s claim that “Mehmet Şevket Eygi was tasked by the Special Department of Warfare,” initiated a very important discussion due to its topic, not the people involved. This discussion may – and should – also reveal all of Turkey’s covert relations during the Cold War era.

What’s more, this discussion may – and should – clarify the roadmap for our country’s future. Because Turkey cannot draw a right path aimed at the future before going through this showdown. It is particularly impossible for the conservative circle to build a future before an internal showdown in this area. If this showdown does not happen, the pro-tutelage circles of the old will be renewed and new covert organizations will be established, which I believe is currently being done. This is why I attach more importance to debating plans for the present and the future rather than questioning the past.

The actual subject of discussion is what the “Special Department of Warfare” was doing back then, who it was in cooperation with, and according to whose agenda it was operating. But let us skip this for now and state that Eygi’s response to this claim was pretty harsh. His response to Pekin included harsh adjectives. He said, “I will repeat seven adjectives that will be my attributes if you prove your slander, or yours if you cannot: scumbag, disgraceful, despicable, slanderer, liar, sellout, dishonorable, dirt bag, scoundrel, aggressive dog, and troublemaker.”

Abdurrahman Dilipak, who has been making “contrary, surprising” outbursts of late, joining in this discussion with the article he published with the title, “Hepimizi Kullandılar” (They used us all), further expanded the topic. Of course, there is plenty we can say about these approaches. But like I said, discussing the subject itself rather than discussing it through people will give more correct results. And that is what we are going to do.

Frances Stonor Saunders has a study titled, "Who Paid the Pauper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War," which has been translated to Turkish with the title, "Parayı Verdi Düdüğü Çaldı." He discusses whom the CIA "used," how it used, tasked and promoted them during the Cold War era.

Numerous authors such as Jackson Pollock, Irving Kristol, Andre Malraux, Reinhold Niebuhr, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Spender, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Arnoldo Toynbee, Vladimir Nabokov, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Herbert Spencer are claimed in the book to have been financed by the CIA within the context of the operation carried out in parallel with the Marshall Plan. The book also discusses how newspapers, magazines, books and radio stations were used by the CIA, how Encounter magazine was published between 1953 and 1990 with the CIA's funds, how Orwell's books such as "1984" and "Animal Farm" were printed and distributed by the CIA, how the CIA used "democratic left" groups against communism and financed these groups' publications, how massive amounts of money were poured into the cinema industry, how dozens of magazines were published, how culture centers, and the cinema and theater were supported to encourage American food culture, fashion, songs and art. There are striking examples in the book about how many well-known names on the left and communist front were made CIA "apparatuses."

I wrote two articles on the books and the subject in 2004 and 2010. When reading these, I had made three notes: Whom from among the conservative/Islamic groups in Turkey and Muslim countries did the U.S. and CIA use in this manner at the time? Who is going to write the Muslim intelligentsia, politicians, and opinion leaders’ version of "Who Paid the Pauper?" Will a "Who Paid the Pauper?" book be written about Islamists two or three decades later?

These questions were important. The world was reshaping, Turkey was rising once again after a century, trying to complete its systematical transformation; it was turning into a history and geography basin, and right at that time, a new covert tutelage organization was attracting attention.

We saw the gravest example of this with the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) and on July 15, 2016, and were shaken. We came to understand that this is a perpetuity issue. But did these men, the CIA or the pro-Atlantic circle work within the state only? Did they cooperate with just FETÖ and strengthen it? What other circles and individuals were within such a structure, such an "assignment"?

For a decade, there has been a major struggle ongoing intensely in Turkey to escape "tutelage." Left, neo-nationalist or liberal circles were held subject to harsh criticism and questioned in this sense. But why was no single word uttered or a single question asked about the aspect of this "tutelage" associated with conservative/Islamic circles? Was there none?

Even FETÖ was not investigated from this aspect before the Dec. 17-25, 2013 judicial coup attempt. No organization, circle or individual other than FETÖ is being investigated about this matter today. Is there none? Did these guys never cooperate with conservative/Islamic circles since World War II? With whom did they cooperate; whom did they bring to the fore; whom did they put in the limelight in the eyes of Islamic circles, and to whom did they assign roles and give power?

These are dangerous questions, I know. But nobody can say there is no such thing. And since they cannot, then continuing to hide something will result in placing this country and our nation's future under lien once again. Turkey cannot possibly become a history and geography basin without this showdown.

As many as 70 percent of the names on FETÖ's "consultation committee" in the 1990's were also on the officially-prepared Masons list. That same Masons list contains surprising names. There are even the names of figures which the conservative community respect and consider leaders. Where will we place these?

This means that they did not work through FETÖ alone. They invested in other circles as well. If we disregard possibilities other than FETÖ today, we may face similar interventions again. Because Turkey's struggle to rise is not an issue for Turkey but a global-scale power struggle. Then, the front is everywhere. There is no Islamic or non-Islamic circle to this, or any ideological discrimination. This is a showdown of history, of the region and power.

There is a vein, a tradition from the pro-mandate/pro-tutelage structure during the last period of the Ottoman Empire that extends to today. There is a strong chain, bond between the pro-tutelage circles of that time and the pro-tutelage circles of the Cold War era and those who are trying to be reshaped again today.

Whatever they were defending back then, so is it today. Whatever they were against back then, they are against it today as well. Whomever was used in what way in the Cold War era, others are being used in the same way and being restructured today.

Turkey's future march cannot be completed before conservative/Islamic circles produce a powerful liberation discourse for Turkey and the region. Unless these circles put themselves through the nativity test, unless they are mentally and organically taken away from pro-tutelage roles, new FETÖ threats will stand in front of this country.

For example, those who take position against Turkey's nationalization, transformation and historic rise these days, their pro-tutelage connections they hide under opposition against Erdoğan, can become a threat for this country. The existence of a pursuit, an action, and an operation in this direction is obvious.

Those wanting to open this country up to a new multinational intervention are certainly not independent, native, and they are serving the agenda of others. This is what I have been trying to explain with "conservative opposition" and "conservative intervention" for the last two years. This is a discussion within the context of an attempt to build a new tutelage axis. Just as some groups used this in the past, substitute circles are using it today in the same way.

Compare well the last period of the Ottoman Empire, the Cold War era and this period, in which Turkey is fighting to escape tutelage. Take a careful look at who is standing where. You will see very striking examples.

This subject cannot be reduced to personal debates. Because this is Turkey's perpetuity matter and that is how it should be handled. You cannot build a future before settling scores with the past. If this settlement of scores does not happen, the same resistance points and "native invaders" will stand against Turkey again with a new structuring. Such an operation is already

There is already a major operation in this direction in politics, media, the business world, and nongovernmental organizations.

Let us clearly expose who and which circles were used for what purposes in the past. If we do not do this, we cannot see the present and the future. Then, we will discuss the pro-tutelage organization of today three decades later!