While Davutoglu and the foreign policy elite oscillate between whether to accept loneliness and what kind of loneliness suits them best, some pundits went as far as to argue that Turkey is in a “precious or splendid isolation.” However, it may be a good idea to take a step back and analyze what this all means.

Al-Monitor contributors have elegantly explained why and how Turkey is alone in its Middle East policy. Davutoglu has accepted the feeling of being “alone” in his struggles, arguing there is pride in standing up for your principles, if you must. During his latest interview he endorsed the term “precious loneliness.” Social media beamed with arguments on how “strategic depth” evolved into the concept of precious loneliness.” Of course, Davutoglu joked during his interview that he is so busy with his international travels and phone calls, that, “How can we be deemed alone when case after case at the UN General Assembly has voted for the causes Turkey has championed?” He then reiterated that it is better to be alone and principled then standing on the “wrong side of history” without dignity.

Davutoglu provided details on how Turkey has tried its utmost to generate a resolution of the Egyptian crisis, explaining how hard he worked with both his European counterparts and the Qatari government. His stated goal was to demonstrate that Turkey does not only talk about a principled foreign policy, but also acts on it. He concluded that the criticism toward his administration is not “fair.”

During this two-hour interview, Davutoglu focused on Turkey's “principled” foreign policy toward Syria and Egypt. He expressed his resentment and surprise on the inaction of the international community. He said he was the first foreign minister to visit deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, and broke the news that the chief of Turkish National Intelligence Agency (MIT), Hakan Fidan, met with Morsi about 10 to 15 days prior to the coup. This revelation made the headlines, and surely deserves further questioning as to why and how MIT is involved in Egypt?

On Aug. 21, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu gave a TV interview . His first sentence was on the Syrian humanitarian crisis: "Today, while watching the videos our intelligence agency (MIT) captured in Damascus, we Justice and Development Party (AKP) members could not hold our tears back." Davutoglu was referring to the latest chemical attack in Syria.

Discussing the depth of the isolation may not be the most useful way to analyze Turkish foreign policy toward the Middle East at this point. Should we not gauge the success Turkey has obtained through its policies?

It is true that during the AKP era, and especially under Davutoglu’s leadership, there has been commitment to the “principled stand.” It is rather difficult to argue against Davutoglu’s high morals. Davutoglu yearns and works for a world where “no innocent” blood is spilt. No one doubts Davutoglu’s good intentions and hard work, but is it realistic? Over and over again, the answer has been no.

Success is based on power in international politics. Is there too much chatter on morals in Turkish foreign policy, and not enough explanation of concrete policy achievements? Should we not talk more about what has been achieved and how it benefits Turkey? If Turkey had been successful, the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria would have collapsed, civil war would have been averted and a new democratic order would now reign. Similarly, in Egypt, if Turkey was successful in its efforts, Morsi would be out of jail and the army would not have attacked protesters.

These were Turkish goals as stated by Davutoglu, but they did not happen. Yes, Davutoglu has worked hard for these goals, but his efforts do not guarantee success. This is not due to the fact that Turkey is isolated, hence the counter argument cannot be that it is “better to be alone and honorable than part of a shameful system.” No, it is time we call it by its real name: failure. This is just failed policy. Unless we can call it failure, we cannot make adequate changes. Oddly enough, failure is more common in foreign policy than success.

In Syria, Turkey should have learned that it cannot control the civil war, and that it must manage the repercussions of the war inside its territory and on its border. Davutoglu and the AKP took the “principled” stand to heart and mobilized its base to condemn the Assad regime. Several foreign policy issues have become passionate battlegrounds for domestic consumption. There was one point when many Turks labeled those who did not “condemned Bashar” as Baathists. This is mind-boggling when you consider the fact that the Baath party stands for Arab nationalist ideology. I am not sure how big of an impact an ordinary Turk sitting in Istanbul condemning the Assad regime is going to have on stopping the bloodshed. Either way, all Western powers and Israel have officially condemned the Syrian regime, yet the atrocities of war continue.

Similarly, in Egypt, Turkey risks its investments, financial assistance and losing a crucial point of influence in the Arab world. It is understandable that the Turkish government does not want to be part of the Egyptian coup legitimization process. However, it is a step further to turn this into a major domestic issue for Turkey. Now, it has almost become a crime to not refer to the situation in Egypt as a “coup.”

Aydin Unal, chief adviser to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, tweeted on Aug, 20, "When you face hardship, while you try to escape what you call as 'suicide,' but we willingly prefer martyrdom. This is our difference." He was writing in response to the question of a Turkish journalist: “Would not marching against tanks and soldiers be committing suicide,” which is against Islamic teachings.

We have not yet seen how effective this passionate “stand with Morsi at all costs” campaign has been for the goals of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, but pundits from Gulf countries have voiced their concern that “Erdogan crossed many red lines and his statements [have incited] violence in some Arab countries.” Many Turks support the AKP because Erdogan has promised not to remain silent in the face of atrocities, which is commendable. However, not all Muslims applaud Turkish enthusiasm and good will.

The civil war in Syria and the coup in Egypt have been important landmarks in Turkish foreign policy. In both instances, Turkey stood on slippery ground, exhibiting high-risk behavior and making rather grandiose promises. These goals were almost impossible to achieve from the beginning, and Turkey has failed to achieve them. Rather than blaming the “others” for their lack of ability to stop the bloodshed in “Muslim” countries, and fanning the flames of aching Muslim hearts, would it be a wiser decision to stop and question how can we revise our foreign policy methods to accomplish our goals?

Pinar Tremblay is a doctoral candidate at University of California, Los Angeles, in political science and an adjunct faculty member at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. She has previously been published in the Hurriyet Daily News and Today's Zaman. On Twitter: @pinartremblay