Last year, around this time, the American government felt the need to break their long silence and take the stage again after ISIL captured Iraq's second biggest city, Mosul, and then Tikrit. Obama retired from the stage by saying “There is no justice to Syria, however, let's give you a nuclear agreement with Iran” to the world in the previous summer, after he gave up his intervention plan against Syria in the last minute after Assad crossed the “red line” by using chemical weapons in Eastern Guta. He is now sending U.S. soldiers to Iraq just for training and advisory to the Iraqi army, trying to give the guarantee to the nation by saying, “Don't worry, U.S. soldiers will not fight in Iraq”, and at the same time he was attempting to fictionalize a long-term plan.
This plan, which is focused on the U.S.-led coalition's air attacks on ISIL targets, is not concerning Syria at the beginning, and targets Iran. During these coalition negotiations, in which Turkey was involved, it was being stated that it's irrational to leave Syria out of the equation. At the same time, it was being mentioned that even if they used the İncirlik Base, the air attacks would be insufficient and that the attempt will be impossible without a land operation.
The U.S. had no objection to this; however, Obama, who couldn't still explain the cost of Iraq to the American public and was elected in the U.S. with his anti-Bush stance, was not going to send his own soldiers for a land operation there. Of course, the first candidate to use as deputy soldiers in their stead was Turkey. However, Turkey was persistent on the matter that if the intervention doesn't include Syria, and not just ISIL, but also the Assad regime that got ISIL to grow this big, the intervention will have no results. As for the U.S.; they presented their attitude that they can live with anything, as long as ISIL's mobility area is limited.
As a matter of fact, in those days, we were starting to hear frequent murmurs on the Western front like, “Turkey should be removed from the NATO membership” and “What kind of an ally is that?” We were encountering snobbings like “Are they the only country that has their citizens taken hostage by ISIL?” after 49 Turkish citizens were taken from Turkey's Mosul Embassy as hostages by ISIL. Besides, while emphasizing the necessity of Incirlik Base in the sense of strategic, central position and location, they were answering their own “Then, don't we have any alternatives to Turkey?” question; Kurdistan.
Interestingly enough, while ISIL, who received their popularity in Iraq because of their expression against the existing Shi'ite people's oppression, was expected to steer towards Baghdad, the organization unexpectedly steered towards Erbil and Sincar. Later on, Hüseyin Yayman was going to write down the details in his article on Vatan; how the Northern Iraq Kurdistan Regional Government called Ankara after being hit by that attack in August, how MIT's Erbil Office transmitted the importance of the matter to Ankara, how Ankara couldn't understand that if they told TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) to move the tanks it would intimidate ISIL. (04.01.2015)
The coalition's bombardments started two days after ISIL's move, and simultaneously accusations and verbal attacks like “Turkey is supporting ISIL against the Kurds and Yazidis” started. However, the Barzani administration and Muslim Kurds had failed to be provoked against Ankara. Another player was needed. Following the failure in the first try, they turned their faces to Syria, Barzani and then PYD. Interesting enough, at that time, ISIL seized Kobani. The U.S.-led coalition, who, just two months ago, said that on the contrary to Turkey's theses they will not be entering Syria, were obliged to include Syria in the context. In those days, with their resistance calling against Turkey; who is still opening its borders, putting injured people in Turkish hospitals and providing humanitarian aids, and who allowed the peshmerga to pass to Kobani as the U.S.'s deputy soldiers and provided Kobani with weapons; the PKK/PYD line succeeded in planting the idea of “Turkey is supporting ISIL” even to the minds of Muslim Kurds in Turkey.
In the one year interval since then, while the U.S. was naturally helping PYD grow strong without burning bridges with Turkey, there were many attempts to form relations with the baseless claims between Turkey and ISIL inside and outside; they are still attempting to do that. As a result of the delay in including Syria in the intervention plan, within two years, Turkey has to be careful against ISIL and PYD, as if dealing with the Assad regime was not enough. Similar to how Turkey is also failed to express its humanitarian stance with its open door policy and harboring of more than 2 million immigrants, Turkey has also seen the threat of losing its stabile stance socially. The resolution process is at the edge of finishing despite all this, and following the election results, Turkey is face to face with an uncertainty and instability in the light of their identity politics.
Exactly due to this reason, isn't it necessary to start an operation against ISIL and interfere in Syria? According to Murat Yetkin's, from Radikal newspaper, article yesterday, the government wants this, however the army doesn't. There is information that the Baas regime and ISIL are gathering around the PYD-controlled Haseke. If they attack the west of Mari, in other words the antagonists, then the regime will support them from the air. Due to Tel Abyad, Kobani etc.., we can all see the uncomfortable and unsecure condition in the Southeast. Won't conducting an operation against ISIL purify Turkey from the countless accusations and lies like “Turkish soldiers helped ISIL on the border”, “Turkish military overlooked ISIL militants” and “Turkey is supporting ISIL”? While we still don't have a situation like hostages or crises like the Tomb of Süleyman Shah, won't such an intervention reverse all the discrediting campaigns conducted in the international field against Turkey? Isn't such a move becoming a beginning of a move against all the structures that are threatening the security in the region after ISIL?
The gangrene in the arm should be cut off in order to avoid it from spreading. It's immoral to cut the arm prior to that; however, leaving it to a time when it's too late is also stupidity. Why is the army acting unwillingly when what's supposed to be done is so clear now? Of course, this also raises many questions in people's minds.
