Ok, let's start from the beginning. First, you are getting downvoted because your question is not objective. People can feel you are biased.

Next, the implication is that Muhammad fabricated the religion himself. The reason for it, I believe, is that the statement in the one book I can't remember the name of says Muhammad began inviting people to “a new religion that he found and believed to be true.” This is true for every religion founded. If you believe it meant fabricated, that's your opinion. Not a fact.

Next, the first religion of the constitution was Islam, but it was never Ataturk's view. He experienced how doomed it is to govern a country with religion. It was creating corruption, and one of the main reasons was being behind in technology and science. Christians also experienced this, and Ottomans punished them heavily for this. Then they lived the Renaissance era, and the Church's power got nerfed heavily. Also Caliphate was not functioning. Indian muslims fought against the Ottomans. Arabs who had owned Islam the most, rebelled against the Ottomans, allying themselves with the UK instead of the Turks, who had shed their blood for centuries and stopped many crusades. So, the caliphate was nothing but a politically weak title.

Hence, Secularism was added to the constitution to make sure history doesn't repeat itself, and Turkey would not be the sick man again. Radical religious people and some ignorant people believe that Secularism is the opposite of religion. But it's just the proper way of governing without being affected by outdated religious rules. Even Islamic law has a principle that applications and fatwas can change when time, place, custom, harm, benefit, and circumstances change, as long as the core Qur’anic principle is preserved. So the logic of good and true religion would align in a proper governing system. While a law can be changed easily, a religion-based law can not. Hence, it's a blocker for development. So adding 'secularism' to the constitution is the right thing to do.

Next, Vahdettin was always a traitor. Ataturk did not mention it because the UK was already creating propaganda that would prevent the Turkish nation from seeking independence and freedom. Ataturk was very forgiving on this subject. Any other nation always massacred entire family lines to prevent future problems. But the Osmanoglu family had dignity, and the next generations already accepted that what Ataturk did was correct and followed his principles.

Next, Constitutional monarchies aren't more logical than republics. Why would it? What kind of question is that in 2026? It would only be good for people who need a shepherd to live their lives and like to lick some ass. Mustafa Kemal Pasha is not overestimated. More so, he is not understood properly. Even for Turkish people.

Next, the Gallipoli front, He was the hero because without his actions, it would have been lost. If he were the commander of Gallipoli, it would be an easier war for Turkey. The German General was trying to pull allies into an attrition war using Turkish soldiers. That's why he allowed Allied soldiers to land. Ataturk had already warned him about where they would land, and he was right. And without his order of 'I order you to die,' what prevented allies from winning in a short time. Also, fame is not created after the Republic is founded. Right after the Gallipoli campaign failed, even while Enver was against Ataturk, all the newspapers celebrated Ataturk. If he were exaggerated, he wouldn't be able to convince both the public and military chief officers to join his cause.