ISIS is advancing as a “violence-spreading gang” and swiftly snowballing into one of biggest problems of the region, world and Muslim Turkey.
Cursing at such an organization and asking for precautions are easy.
The hard thing is figuring out how to deal with this organization and explaining how to compete with them.
This violent organization is controlling an important part of Turkey’s 1200 km-long Syria–Iraq border.
They possess oil income worth a billion dollars, they are using the most advanced weapons left behind by the USA at Iraq and they are being supported by the Arab Sunni tribe who had enough of the Maliki regime. And, by representing the new Islamic radicalism wave, they are attracting everyone from around the world, who would like to challenge the West and people unlike them.
In the 1980s, when Iran had unfurled a similar challenging flag, the situation wasn’t that different in the ranks of the Afghan jihad and the Al Qaida jihad.
An angry politicization style had formed a dangerous attraction center. There is a politicization, which is experienced via religion by exceeding the religious movement, and the political tensions and fights, which this politicization feeds upon. Actually, every great jihad movement had come to life under the sparks created by the friction between West and Islam.
The case is not so different today…
Is it possible to put up a struggle against ISIS without taking these points into consideration?
Of course, in order to stop the violence and prevent ISIS from spreading, a military precaution is essential.
However, is this sufficient?
This is the question.
As long as the chaos in Iraq and Syria continues, as long as these types of organizations find an activity field, and as long as the Assad regime paradoxically turns this chaos and guarantees their existence with the existence of structures like ISIS, the meaning of military precaution will be limited. Violence and ISIS will continue their existence under control.
As the Turkish population, we had been stating the following and making the politics of our statements:
“The liquidation of a moderate structure like the Muslim Brothers, who can produce a possible pluralism in the Arab world after the collapse of dictatorships and who was declared a terrorist organization by Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, England and the USA, had paved the way for stern and radical salafi structures like ISIS. Before the democratic re-structuring happens in the region, before the road is paved for moderate structures, this chaos won’t come to an end…”
This is really one of the essentials of the matter.
The segments, which had been politicized around the AK Party hostility, are not interested with this aspect of the matter.
Even the possibility of encountering ISIS at the 1200 km long border is not interesting them and their formula is simple:
“AK Party is sectarian, and following Sunni policies, this is the reason why they are not taking a stand against ISIS or joining the coalition…”
They are deepening this formula with the USA media organs, which are representing the USA government who is annoyed with the fact that Turkey will not be giving military support to the coalition in question. The representative of the Obama government, the New York Times, who possesses qualities like being the warning siren that shakes its finger from time to time, representing official policies with headers and forming a public opinion around this, had formed an obvious example in this matter.
Is it really necessary to discuss the contrived perspective or the perspective that will be created via the news, which is developed by simply picturing Tayyip Erdoğan at a mosque exit in the Hacı Bayram district in Ankara, and the accompanying words stating that there had been global participations in ISIS?
In the Saturday copy, the same newspaper was writing that Turkey had provided a market to ISIL’s illegal oil, and this had not been stopped especially so government officials might be getting an unearned income.
But how did they write this? By referring to what basis?
What’s worse is, as soon as the article is published, the sworn AK Party oppositions and the Gülen congregation’s newspapers, which had become references for the assumptions of the New York Times reporter and their Turkey-related news, were producing new and deep bases for the sectarian formula by referring to the New York Times.
If Turkey’s foreign policy stance paves the way for provocations, which will open the doors for critics, than there is no doubt that, these circles will be beating time for coups.