Should Turkey join the coalition? - ALI BAYRAMOĞLU

Should Turkey join the coalition?

Obama announced his fight strategy against ISIL. The first step in the strategy is the systematic airstrikes. The second step is the support to opposing powers. The third step is the prevention of economic, intelligence and warriors" intervention. As for the fourth step, it"s the humane assistance.

Then what will be Turkey"s position in this? Or where should Turkey be?

Let"s watch it from Yeni Safak Newspaper"s news:

"At the National Security Mechanism that gathered in Ankara, the decision had been made to stay away from the "Core Coalition" and the "passive support" idea had become prominent…"

Fighting against ISIL doesn"t absolutely mean interfering in ISIL.

The position of Turkey taken against the Saddam regime, without joining the military coalition, Turkey"s political support in Iraq"s purification from Saddam, which was necessary to be, was a strategy which had given positive results in regards to the country.

The case is not that different in the ISIL matter.

In many aspects…

Turkey is ISIL"s next-door neighbor because of its hundreds of kilometers-long border to Syria and Iraq. Turkey"s active role in a military operation can easily transform Turkey into a country that is in the primary rank of a hot conflict.

The decision made by the state commission, which had gathered under Davutoglu"s presidency, is extremely point on in this sense.

This decision is also positive in a strategic sense.

However, in order to keep structures like ISIL under control or to annihilate them, a political view and structuring is required. As for absolute military precautions, they will provoke these types of structures as in the Afghanistan and Iraq examples, and reinforce representational qualification.

This is exactly the side ISIL wanted to call Turkey"s and the West"s attention to, and it is the political importance and political precautions part. I don"t think that there is no human mind and conscience that will object to the fact that ISIL is a horrid structuring, which exceeds the "terror" emphasis with the instruments it uses, demonstrations it conducts and its objectives.

Besides, the struggle with ISIL requires addressing the reasons that gave birth to ISIL, observe the platform it grew and turn a hand there.

In this sense, the first important point is this:

This jihadist structure is pointing at the new shape and language of this radicalism, and forming a new attraction center. The weather, Afghan jihad, Al Qaida and ISIL phases, which had been formed after the Iran revolution, had appeared as a series of "challenging movements" in which each of them involves new elements. Those challenges had also fed on the reactions shown to that period and Islam and the Muslim world via the organization which had represented that period.

The attraction words should especially be underlined. The magnitude of participation to ISIL from various Muslim countries is showing clear signs in this matter. Other than North Africa, it"s impossible not to be aware of the fact that the participation from European countries, immigrant policies in the West, is the results of the approach towards Islam after September 11.

As a "challenge movement", it seems that ISIL had replaced Afghan jihad by carrying the foundation claim within certain borders. It"s important for the West to take lessons from this. Likewise, it doesn"t seem possible to stop the participation to ISIL via bans and the present Muslim-security relation, as long as the volunteering is at this level.

As for the second point:

ISIL is the result of the wrong strategies, which surrounds the West and regional countries, against the "Sunni activity", which had appeared under the Arab Spring name.

The phase, which had been opened after the collapse of dictatorships, was the phase of contact between religious masses or Islam and politics, and this phase had pointed at two axes.

While the first axis includes moderate structures like the Muslim Brotherhood, which can produce a possible pluralism in time, the second axis includes stiff and radical salafi structures like ISIL and the like. In countries like Tunisia and Egypt, the transformation had given hope and the Arab Spring"s first phase had been welcomed with excitement. However, the second phase, which had started with the beginning of the old regime in Egypt and continued with the declaration of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorists in many countries, had changed the equilibriums and paved the way for salafi structures. It didn"t only pave the way for organizations, but also formed a gravitational pull and attraction line towards salafis.

Without a doubt, the reaction gap in the Syria matter, had contributed in this development and gave an activity field to the Salafi organizations. Even though Turkey"s support towards ISIL against Assad, with a bad prediction, is regarded as a serious problem and paradox, the essence of the issue is hidden in the previous discussion and Turkey"s policy is principally correct.

If we need to underline, everyone sees there is a far bigger situation and policy here that exceeds Sunnism. Let"s hope we will take lessons from the past…


    Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.