|
Turkey: A northern Iraq operation: Domestic policy or foreign policy? |
21 June 2007By M+£MTAZ'ER T+£RK+ūNE
Among Turkey's most important recent developments were the prime minister's statements on terrorism earlier in the week and the relationship between these statements and a possible northern Iraq operation.
During a press conference on April 12 the chief of General Staff asked the government to authorize a military operation in northern Iraq. "If it is necessary it will be [authorized]" the prime minister said, to which the chief of General Staff responded via the media, requesting written authorization. When the government delayed its response to the latter military request, people began asking questions. The looming cloud over politics brought by the April 27 military memorandum was presented as a reason for the government's silence. Then there were debates over the allegation that the operation was in principle an attack on public diplomacy. The military operation threat was supposedly intended to encourage the Iraqi government, northern Iraqi politicians and, naturally, the US to be more aware of the PKK terrorism issue, and silence from the government was intended to support this aim.
But this scenario was short-lived, as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan revealed to the media -- a method of communication preferred by the General Staff -- that a military operation was not required in northern Iraq. With a stern tone Erdoğan asserted that a military operation would not contribute to the fight against terrorism and that Turkey should first resolve the terrorism problem within the country. It was obvious the prime minister was targeting the military during his speech, given that the military is the direct force in fighting terrorism.
Under today's circumstances there is still no clear and definite answer as to what the right thing to do is. It is unclear whether discussion of a northern Iraq operation is strictly targeting terrorism or if it is a part of efforts to justify a military intervention, whose process started with the April 27 military memorandum. Another common concern is whether the operation would be being used as an excuse to declare a state of emergency, cancel the elections, deepen democratic instability and remove the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) from government.
Is an operation necessary?
Amid such heated debates the director of the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK), Professor Sedat La+šiner, an eminent Turkish expert on terror, spoke to well-known Radical reporter Neşe D+-zel. During the interview La+šiner made strong criticisms about the Turkish Armed Forces' (TSK) fight. His strongest criticism was against fighting terrorism with disciplined military units. La+šiner claimed that deploying large numbers of soldiers to regions predominantly controlled by PKK terrorists would lead to more Turkish deaths. Certainly La+šiner's criticism was not surprising for the TSK, which has enough officers for an asymmetric war. His insight into the future suggested that the increase in military deployment to the region was not against the PKK but instead northern Iraq.
"Have we eliminated terrorists inside the country?" La+šiner asked, posing the same question as the prime minister. After the interview a change was recorded in political debates about terrorism. But it was around the same time that USAK revealed a critical report that brought the military operation alternative back on the table.
The report will remain a topic of discussion because it will influence domestic political dynamics. It includes the views of 100 experts and offers bold and structured insight into military interventions in line with national interests.
In addition to the analyses the 63-page report provides important information. Here are a few pieces of striking information and suggestions:
An operation should be launched before all other alternatives fail. Other alternatives include persuading US and northern Iraqi administrators to cooperate. The issue is not solely a military issue. Even if the northern Iraqi military operation is very successful and many terrorists are eliminated, it will encourage other terrorist groups to form and gain power. The source of the problem is not northern Iraq. The fight against terrorism and the fight against terrorists are being confused. Fighting terrorists is a comprehensive issue with different dimensions. The targets of a cross-border operation are not clearly defined.
There are benefits in the region for Turkey that are beyond the PKK. Such an operation does not have groundwork. There is insecurity and lack of communication within the country in the fight against terrorism. The option to cooperate with Iran, although it is an unreliable player, must be re-evaluated. The very fact that this operation has been debated for such a long time contributes to the PKK's dynamics. In addition the operation carries the risk of becoming permanent. If Turkey is forced to continuously launch cross-border operations, Turkey's relations with Iraq will turn into war. Turkey might take on a similar role to that of Israel in the region. But without enough US support Turkey will enter a quagmire that it will not be able to extract itself from.
The Kurdish issue could start on an unfavorable path. Northern Iraq and Turkey's southeast might unite because of the Turkish security forces. This operation could threaten Turkey's solidarity. But most importantly an unsuccessful operation will empower the PKK.
Domestic policy
Another important issue in the report was the link between the operation and the general elections. It recommends delaying such operations until after the elections so the operation is not weakened by political debates. This point also shows the costs the currents debates have on Turkey. Is an operation like this really necessary before the elections? Is such an operation wanted for reasons of reorganizing domestic politics instead of fighting terrorism or regional interests?
The correct answer is this: Given that there is a problem in northern Iraq, it is rational to think of a military operation as an alternative to resolve that problem. This in return makes it valid to debate a military alternative. But many politicians believe this military alternative is also a tool to interfere in democracy to change the political balance. The prime minister's harsh stance suggests he understands that there was an effort to kill two birds with one stone, in other words interfere in domestic policy while launching a cross-border operation. The underlying force behind all these debates is the difference in views between the military and the civil front in terms of fighting terrorism.
The military vision uses psychological warfare to combat this clash. But psychological warfare needs enemy bases. A fight is required for the hero and guards to manifest themselves. To hold this fight with psychological warfare techniques ideologies are targeted. Those who enter the fight eventually suffer from ideological blindness. Those who try to confine the world to narrow ideological patterns begin to live in a world that is far from reality.
Today Turkey is witnessing debates over a northern Iraq military operation and dark debates targeting the July 22 general elections. The operation has two fronts. The prime minister is trying to resist the front that is attacking domestic policies. To continue the resistance the government will need to seek diplomatic solutions to resolve the problems that are listed as reasons for the operation. Successful diplomacy will most likely prevent a military operation, which has questionable results, and a blow from being struck to democracy.
16.06.2007
Todays Zaman |
21 June 2007
By M+£MTAZŌĒÖER T+£RK+ūNE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOST VISITED NEWS (DAILY) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
