Turkey and Syria exchanged mortar and artillery fire last week. The dispute need not involve United States, yet NATO membership risks dragging America into yet another unnecessary war, this time in the guise of defending its Turkish allies.
Last week, several errant Syrian mortar shells fell in the Turkish border town of Akcakale, killing five residents. (Some Turks blamed the opposition Free Syrian Army, which may want to provoke Ankara into joining the conflict.) The Erdogan government responded to what it termed “this abominable attack” with artillery strikes in Syria. The Turkish parliament authorized cross-border military operations. The two nations’ militaries exchanged mortar fire for the next two days.
Nadim Shehadi of the London-based Chatham House suggested that “Turkey is using this to tell NATO, ‘Wake up, we are a member and we are being aggressed.’” The organization held an emergency meeting and criticized Syria’s “flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its allies” and promised to “stand by Turkey.” A Pentagon spokesman denounced “the depraved behavior of the Syrian regime.”
Tensions similarly rose last June when the Syrian military downed a Turkish reconnaissance plane. The circumstances were unclear. Damascus said the aircraft was hit in Syrian airspace; Ankara admitted that the plane had mistakenly entered Syrian territory but claimed the jet was in international airspace when shot down.
Ankara pushed for stronger allied action then. The Erdogan government requested that NATO develop contingency plans to establish a no-fly zone to “protect” Turkish territory. Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc advocated that NATO invoke Article 5 and treat the incident as an attack on all members. However, while the alliance criticized Syria, members made clear that they did not want a military conflict. For good reason.
Depraved the Syrian regime and its behavior are, but that’s no cause for war. There are many awful governments around the world. Nor, as the Bush administration found in Iraq, is it possible to ensure that good follows evil in war irrespective of Washington’s intentions. Americans are best served by remaining at peace, not joining someone else’s civil war. And while Turkey is technically in the right this time, Ankara’s claims of innocence ring hollow. For instance, the downed reconnaissance plane may have been on an official surveillance mission.
Moreover, while the Syrian conflict is “spilling over” the border, the Erdogan government, once allied with Syria, has invited the war into his nation. Ankara is hosting Syrian opposition activists, allowing the Syrian Free Army to operate, perhaps training SFA soldiers and likely serving as a conduit for weapons to regime opponents. Turkey also is urging UN creation of “safe zones” within Syria for the opposition to operate militarily against the Damascus government.
In short, Turkey has initiated a low-grade war with Syria. And Damascus has noticed. Information Minister Omran al-Zo’aby complained that the two nations’ border “is being used for smuggling weapons and terrorists.” The Turkish government has knowingly turned its people into targets. If Ankara wants to do so, it should do so at its own risk. And Turkey is capable of defending itself, says its government; “Turkey is a country which is capable of protecting its people and borders,” said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
So it is. Even before fighting erupted in Syria early last year, Turkey’s military was much larger and more capable than that of its neighbor. Since then Syria’s military has been in almost constant action, with its most elite (typically the most trustworthy) units used the most. There would still be hard fighting in any conflict, but Damascus surely recognizes that it almost certainly would lose.
The fact that Ankara’s greatest security threat is posed by a civil war next door (along with the long-standing Kurdish insurgency) demonstrates NATO’s lack of modern relevance. Washington’s security guarantee served a purpose during the Cold War, when Turkey faced a potentially hostile Soviet Union. With that threat removed there is no plausible justification for the U.S. promising to defend Turkey. Indeed, Washington long was embarrassed by Ankara’s brutal anti-Kurdish operations, which relied on U.S.-supplied weapons. At least that campaign did not threaten to drag America into an unnecessary conflict.
Even though the Turkish people appear to oppose war with Syria, Prime Minister Erdogan declared that the two nations are “not far” from war. His government might decide that the public could be carried along in a burst of patriotism. Ankara also might consider provoking an incident in an attempt to force events and invocation of Article 5. Or war could be sparked by another incident, even if unintentional. A seemingly minor spark lit the fuse for World War I. In any case, having routinely intervened all over the world where few important U.S. interests were at stake, Washington could not easily remain aloof from a violent challenge to such a long-standing ally.
The original NATO was directed against a common outside threat, the USSR. The importance of confronting such a large, existential danger caused Washington to take on its allies’ burdens. Indeed, the United States was even willing to back its friends when both sides’ interests were not perfectly aligned. But none of the original circumstances survive today. There’s certainly no reason to backstop Turkey if it decides to forcibly oust Assad.
Comments
Turkey’s aim is to dominate the Sunni Muslim world. To do that it must first end the Shiite challenge and western presence. Turkey wants to redesign the area to suit its imperial ambitions driven by its nostalgia to Ottomanism. Turkish officials have made that crystal clear but, the problem is that American officials fail to see that for many reasons. Turkey, Saudi, and, Iran are involved in Syria is to advance their own geopolitical interests. The Saudis want to end the Shiite threat to their rule and, finish off the Shiite “heresy that dilutes Islam.” Qatar wants to increase its weight in the International arena by supporting and financing the MB and, to protect itself against an Islamic spring. Iran wants to maintain its reach, spread the Shiite faith at the expense of Sunnis, and to maintain the ability to counter Sunnis. Iran also has imperial designs of its own. Over and above, Turkey treats its alevi and Kurdish minorities like dirt, Saudis do the same to their Shiite minority and, Iran to their Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Therefore, nothing can be expected from regional players. They are using the Syrians’ rights as an excuse to drag others into doing their dirty laundry. Inside the US, some argue that the US must intervene in Syria and live up to its moral values. These people err when they present the Syrian conflict as a conflict between oppressed people and their dictator, i.e. they present the Syria conflict as good people vs. bad. There is not a clear end game for what is going on in Syria. There will be more violence and more bloodshed after the fall of Al-Assad. Unfortunately and sadly, thousands of Syrians will die at a higher pace once Assad is toppled. Of course, this does not mean that Assad must stay but, it means that we must move beyond the futile argument: To arm or not to arm. Arming the rebels will only usher Syria in another era of conflict. Massacres will continue. There is a reason why non-Sunni Muslims and Kurds are mistrustful of the opposition and have not joined them. Some argue that toppling Assad will harm Iran. True, Iran will suffer a strategic setback. However, the logic behind the need to defeat Iran is defeated by creating a far more capable and hostile force in the heart of the ME. The rise of Sunni fundamentalists cannot be the answer to containing Iran. However, the opposite can be true. The west, by supporting the rise of Sunni fundamentalists, will create a far larger anti-western force with greater resources, geographic scope, and numbers. What the US should do must be based on proper understanding of what is going on in Syria and, not on childish mischaracterizations of good vs. bad. So, the administration, foreign and security policy experts must move beyond discussing whether or not to arm one side against the other. They should start to think outside the box. It is must be crystal clear that what is going on in Syria is not pro-democracy protest. There is a sectarian, fundamentalist Sunni vs. fundamentalist Shiite war that is going on in the ME and, Syria has become the main front. Shiites are a minority in the Muslim world—approximately one sixth of Muslims controlling 3-4 states out of 56 Muslim states—and Sunnis are the majority. If Sunnis win, then, countries governed by fundamentalist Sunni regimes (Egypt, Ghaza, Syria, possibly in the future Jordan also) with very close ties to Turkey will be the new geopolitical reality in the Middle East. That jeopardizes vital US interests. Therefore, maintaining the Sunni-Shiite balance is vital. Only then, can America maintain the ability to shape events in the ME. Inside Syria, Alewites, Christians, and Druz are supporting Assad because their existence will be threatened under his opponents. Syria’s Alewites, Christians, and Druz are supporting Assad because their existence will be threatened under his opponents. They know this as they have been living in these areas for centuries and were subjected to various kinds of discrimination and were treated as inferiors by the majority. They do not buy the talks of a democratic Syria because they know better than westerners. The Kurds are unrecognized and prosecuted by the successive regimes in Syria. The opposition (SNC) also, so far, marginalizes the Kurds and sidelines them. To stop Syria’s civil war the administration must focus on making the groups that support Bashar Al-Assad feel safe to stop supporting the status quo and accept change. Therefore, self-determination must be a pillar of any strategy dealing with the revolutions in the ME in general and in Syria in particular given Syria’s diversity if, long term stability is what we seek; i.e. the Kurds must be recognized and given an autonomous region and, the Alewites must also have an autonomous region. Other minorities, judging by where they stand today, will chose to live with the Alewites. Both alewites and kurds could be allies of the US and, they could even be allies of Israel to balance against their newly found enemies. This will also keep Syrians occupied and, will prevent them from stirring problems. The US does not need to take sides in the sectarian war. It can get closer with parties from both sides and this will give the US tremendous leverage.The only hope for a soft landing and lasting peace is: A Syrian Union and the right of Self-determination granted to Syria’s components. This must be the US administration’s strategy. Otherwise fundamentalist regimes will form the new geopolitical reality in the ME and it would be very difficult to check, contain, and balance against emerging hostile regimes in the ME.
Mr. Bandow’s argument against US involvement into the Syrian civil war is, at best, spurious. From the beginning, we have been involved. As reported in the New York Times, we had already provided electronic equipment to Bashar al-Asad’s opponents as well as instructions for their use. Using our allies in Jordan and Turkey, we positioned both military and intelligence sources to monitor. Leading the coverage, the Western media was blanketed with all sorts of stories about the Syrian rebellion. Some proved accurate, but others such as blog of lesbian Syrian which turned our to be an American male or the death of teen which turned out to be alive, to name just two, were taken for fact. As the violence escalated, this coverage highlighted the brutal acts of the Syrian government while ignoring those of the rebels. The rebels seldom came under serious scrutiny. With US collusion, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have provided millions of dollars to feed the rebellion. In addition, Arab Gulf arms shipments to the rebels have enabled the slaughter to expand. Far more troubling is the presence of radical Islamists including al-Qaeda. Money and arms are finding their way to these elements. General knowledge of modern day Syria is not a strong point in the West’s control of the narrative. Prior to 1970, Syria was noted for its change of governments and overthrow of regimes. The various Arab states were also much involved in Syrian politics--money, arms and participants. Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were major players in Syria in the twenty-five years since its independence in 1945. The United States alongside Britain and France also stuck their noses in Syria’s domestic policies--including plots of regime change. Only the rise of Hafez al-Asad ended that state for Syria. Through brutal means as well as efforts to involve a wider spectrum of Syrians, Syria moved from battleground to a state that played a major role in the Levant. But what is spurious about Mr. Bandow’s article is that the destruction of the Asad government is not new. It is at least two decades old. When drawing up their grand plan for the Mideast, the neocons included Damascus as a prime target. In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, attention was turned to Syria. Accusations of Alawite support for Iraqi Sunnis opposed to America’s occupation was used. Cross border actions as well as provocative attacks from Israel failed to draw Bashar into providing the necessary excuse. General Clark has made the rounds on YouTube stating that he was informed by Defense personnel that Syria was targeted for destruction in the next ten years. Gore Vidal in his 2004 book Imperial America recognizes that President Bush was preparing for war in Syria. The neocons who played such a central role in President Bush’s administration have mostly kept their influence in Obama’s. Turkey which has had numerous discussions with London, Paris as well as Washington is not acting alone. For all of Ankara’s saber rattling, Turkey will act when we give them the green light.
World's Best Recruitment agencies in Pakistan, Recruitment Vacancies Agency in Pakistan candor consultancy Group (Pvt) Ltd. candor manpower Recruitment Business Management Outsourcing Group Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and business functions, and extensive research on the world's most successful companies, Candor Group is one of the staffing companies which collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and Governments. candor services Group (Pvt) Ltd. professionals prepare a confidential candidate assessment report, which is then presented to the client for review. We are competing with staffing companies in the world. Human are the most important tool in Candor Recruitment Group Pakistan. Resourcing & Recruiting the most suitable manpower is the crucial part for companies.