Turkey pulled its troops out of a NATO military exercise last week over an insult to the Turkish Republic's founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and current President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Being the second largest military force in NATO, Turkey made the decision after it was revealed that an image of the "enemy" used in the mock exercise was actually a photo of Atatürk and that a fake social media account in the name of Erdoğan was depicted as sending anti-NATO messages.

The Norway government and NATO secretary general issued apologies, while it has been reported that the person, a Norwegian citizen of Turkish descent, who is a civilian contractor hired for the exercise, was immediately removed from his position, and an investigation has been launched. In March, Norway granted asylum to four Turkish officers and their families. Oslo's decision caused fury in Ankara as the officers in question were linked to the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ), which is behind the failed 2016 coup attempt. It is widely known that FETÖ members have been trying to sabotage Turkey's relations with its Western allies.

Either a Gülenist or someone else is behind the scandal in Norway, it is clear that the goal was simply to start a new crisis between Turkey and NATO. I say "new," as it is the latest attempt in a row but not the first; Turkey-NATO relations have been getting tested for a while.

Right after the coup attempt in July 2016 when Turkish authorities began to detain and dismiss suspected FETÖ members, the Washington Post reported that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Turkey's actions could have consequences for the NATO alliance if it went too far. As it drew a huge rebuff, the U.S. Embassy in Ankara had to deny the report.

Then again, upon growing public pressure on Washington to extradite FETÖ leader Fetullah Gülen to Turkey, the New York Times' Editorial Board, taking the risk of facing opposition from the people of Turkey, alleged in August 2016 that Turkey's "new wave of anti-Americanism that, combined with a sweeping government crackdown against enemies real and imagined, poses a serious risk to NATO." NATO sources had to say that the New York Times' opinion does not reflect the truth.

During Erdoğan's Washington visit in May 2017, the Washington Post published an op-ed with the signature of Gülen, claiming false allegations about Turkey and asking NATO to put pressure on Ankara.

Not only Gülenists but also some Westerners in think-tank circles are attacking Turkey's NATO membership. I cannot count the number of articles I have read calling on NATO to kick Turkey out of the alliance. Since no member can be kicked out of NATO without its will, one suspects some are trying to push Turkey to leave the organization. It is almost the same with respect to Turkey-U.S. or Turkey-EU relations, as some have put pressure on Turkey through the media whenever Ankara differs with the U.S. or European countries on any subject.

Turkish society has long been fed up hearing at every turn that Turkey might not be a part of the EU, especially when it is related to Turkey's internal matters, sovereignty and security concerns. Turks no longer have the ambition to join the EU because of such threats. Likewise, Turks have started to discuss if NATO membership is really necessary. Following the revelation of the scandal in Norway, Ankara's decision to pull its troops out of the NATO exercise has been welcomed by the majority of the Turkish public from all strata as well.

Let's say Turkey is out of NATO, as the circles in question want so badly. Who will benefit? In terms of the geostrategic perspective, Turkey is crucially important for NATO, maybe more than NATO for Turkey. Turkey joined NATO in 1952, even before European countries like Germany or Spain. The decision to make Greece and Turkey members of NATO at that time in the first NATO enlargement stemmed largely from Cold War strategies against the Soviet Union. The membership of Turkey, which is still a strategic ally at the most eastern end of NATO's territory today, was previously connected with the construction of İncirlik Air Base and the signing of a joint use agreement in 1954. Now, however, there is more than that.

At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, NATO leaders adopted a new strategic concept to serve as the alliance's road map for the next 10 years. The strategic concept involved an action plan that would make NATO more agile, more capable and more effective against new modern threats and new challenges. It was an inevitable move after former Warsaw Pact member countries of Eastern Europe joined the EU, and NATO's former concept was unable to respond to emerging threats like terrorism. So Turkey's membership in NATO became more important after the adoption of the new strategic concept as a matter of realpolitik and military power because of its geostrategic position.

While Turkey today houses tactical nuclear weapons under NATO's nuclear burden-sharing agreement, which provides a bargaining chip to pressure Russia and a deterrent tool against non-state actors in the Middle East, it also agreed to host the X-band radar of NATO's ballistic missile defense system under the action plan, taking the risk of deteriorating relations with its neighbors. The X-band radar, which provides instantaneous data if there is an emergence of a ballistic missile threat to Europe, is a primary asset of the physical infrastructure of NATO's missile defense system due to its sensor capabilities. It is located at the Kürecik radar base in Malatya. Turkey is also one of the key members in the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), which is NATO's spearhead force that was formed following the decision to enhance the NATO Response Force (NRF) in 2014.

So Turkey's membership is crucial to NATO, as it has a vital role in confronting threats from the east and the south, pressuring Russia and protecting Europe, despite the fact that NATO members repeatedly fail to help Turkey when its security is at stake, even though they have a commitment to defend one another against threats.

Today, there is fear in Western capitals as NATO-member Turkey is getting closer to Russia than ever before, but to be honest, it is not Turkey's fault. If you alienate a country, which is geographically close to emerging threats, it is inevitable that it will start to evaluate other options. In addition, the anti-NATO countries will try to fill the gap with respect to the needs of the country in question, as its geostrategic position means a lot for them as well. Turkey's S-400 anti-aircraft missiles purchase might upset its NATO allies, but what should it do after such moves like the withdrawal of the Patriot air defense batteries in 2015 from Turkey's Syria border right before the start of deadly terror attacks inside the country? So it is easy to shout "Kick Turkey out of NATO," but one must first ask: Who benefits from a NATO without Turkey?