"Last year, Chief of General Staff Isik Kosaner resigned along with three force commanders in protest at the arrests. That puts even more pressure on the current Chief of Staff General Necdet Ozel, who is already under pressure because of the arrest of a former Chief of Staff, Ilker Basburg. Basburg has been accused of being the "chief of a terrorist organization". Another former Chief of Staff Hilmi Ozkok is expected to appear before the Istanbul criminal court today [Thursday]."

Ozkok has since pleaded that he was indeed aware of two possible coup plots hatched against the elected government by the Pashas during the period 2003-2004. But he went on to rationalize: "When the AKP [Erdogan's Justice and Development Party] came to power, the Turkish Armed Forces staff, including me, had concerns. Taking into consideration the [AKP officials'] statements in the past, we were worried about whether Turkey would roll back to old days [read Islamism]. We began discussing these issues. In the army everyone expresses their opinions even if they think differently from each other, this is normal, but they obey the chief of General Staff's orders in the end."

Erdogan has a formidable challenge on his hands - he is being exhorted by Obama for taking quick military action to expel Bashar, while the Turkish army itself is sinking into a morass, as Ozkok's testimony gets played out in the coming days and weeks in army barracks across Anatolia.

Meanwhile, Kurdish separatists watching from mountain hideouts have opened another front near the remote eastern town of Sendinli located in the tricky tri-junction between Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Turkish army has been fighting there for a week.

Concurrently, the incipient political rift between him and incumbent President Abdullah Gul (who used to be his deputy in the AKP), surged last week. Gul dropped a political bombshell by letting it be known Monday he probably would have an open mind about seeking a second term as president in the 2014 election.

Gul reset the kaleidoscope of Turkish politics. A riposte came from Erdogan camp within the day when AKP's deputy chairman and a confidante of Erdogan, Huseyin Celik reminded Gul that he owed his job as president to Erdogan and it was time to reciprocate goodwill by stepping down and opening the road to the presidency for Erdogan.

Gul himself responded Wednesday that there is still a lot of time to talk about what Celik said. Indeed, two years is a long time in politics and Gul is right, nothing is ever a done thing in politics. Both Gul and Erdogan are charismatic figures and the expectation among Turks was that they might opt for a Russian style switch of roles in 2014. But then, there is also an "ideological" content to the Gul-Erdogan rift.

Gul has some definite views about the shortcomings of the kind of constitutional reform that Erdogan is presently seeking, which is a presidential system with greatly strengthened executive powers. To quote prominent political commentator SemihIdiz,

"Gul is opposed to the kind of presidential system the AKP wants … Gul believes the present parliamentary system should be cleansed of its shortcomings and improved in order to further enhance Turkey's democracy… Neither the AKP nor Erdogan have talked about the checks and balances that would exist in the presidential system they desire. This is what is worrying for many, especially given Erdogan's well-known authoritarian tendencies."

But does the war in Syria come into all this? Sure it does. Both Obama and Erdogan are agreed that the Syrian crisis should end soon. Obama seems to think that if Erdogan can be persuaded to "do more" - to borrow from the US exhortation to Pakistan - the civil war will end and a "new Syria" can take shape. Just like that.

But Erdogan has a problem here. He has an "operational" problem, given the disarray in the Turkish military, and increasingly, perhaps, a political problem as well.

Turkey's military machinery needs to be toned up first, which takes time, and now Gul has opened a dicey political front. Syria is becoming a dangerous minefield for Erdogan. A perceptive and experienced Turkish security analyst, Nihat Ozcan, recently peered into Syria through the looking glass:

"In my opinion, we need to ask four questions to understand how the Syria model will be at the end of the process. Firstly, what does the changing character of the war mean in analyses? Secondly, how does the proxy war affect political development and the time period? Thirdly, how does the deep sociological division among the people in Syria shape the problem? Fourthly, if there is no authority or sufficient power and desire to end the interference, how will Syria turn out?"