Supplying the Syrian rebels with arms won't work

By criticizing Turkey too overtly, Joe at least has taken attention away from the miserable state of the nation. Can't say he isn't earning his check for the administration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well given that Turkey's parliament only passed military authorization a few days ago, I think it a little early to expect Turkish military intervention in Syria. Plans must be made. Troop movements must be coordinated, else you could have Turks killing Kurds and Kurds killing Turks. That wouldn't be good for anyone except ISIS. Turkey isn't Russia and this isn't the Ukraine. Time alone will tell how serious Turkey is about intervening in Syria against ISIS. But I think your judgment is a bit premature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Factually speaking, it's almost certain the Turks could have moved before now. They specify that:

So they're capable of moving, but haven't. Or won't, rather.

 

I thought that Assad wanted ISIS destroyed so why hasn't he done anything to rid his own country of ISIS?

 

Overcommitted, I would guess. But he could just be playing politics.

 

I'm inclined to agree with Bells' skepticism regarding the Turks.

The Turks have moved formidable military forces to points just across the border from Kobane. They certainly could surge across the border, reinforce the town's defenders and repel the ISIS attack. But so far, the Turks have just watched ISIS assaulting the town, while busying themselves preventing Kurdish fighters and supplies from reaching the besieged defenders.

I wonder if they will allow Kobane's defenders to flee into Turkey when their resistance finally collapses. ISIS doesn't take prisoners and there may very well be a mass-murder of captives. ISIS is copying the early medieval practices of the first conquering Muslim armies in the conviction that the awesome history-changing success of those armies was a sign of God's approval and favor.

Apparently Erdogan is suggesting that the West is to blame for his country doing nothing now. We didn't enforce a no-fly-zone for him (ISIS doesn't have an air force to speak of, but Assad does) and we didn't do enough to support the Syrian rebels. In other words, Turkey has its own agenda and it's still focused on Assad. Erdogan's a Sunni Islamist (albeit a 'moderate') and Assad's a secular Alawite. So there's that.

And of course there's the Kurdish thing. Large parts of southeastern Turkey have restive Kurdish majorities, so the whole idea of Kurdish autonomy threatens Turkey. The Turks especially dislike Kurds led by the YPG, allied with the PKK who Ankara has labeled terrorists. So Erdogan might get some pleasure from watching Kurdish butt getting kicked, even if it's being kicked by ISIS.

 

Well it is more than skeptism . Bell's has already convicted Turkey.

 

In this instance, Bells is almost certainly correct. The inactions of the Turks are testimony enough, and they have not even bothered to offer up an excuse. No 'coordination of troop maneuvering' is required; the soldiers are there. The Syrian civilians are there. ISIS is there.

 

So says a person with zero knowledge of what it takes to move an army. Further, there is a long game at play. As I said previously, it is too early to assess the role Turkey will and the impact it will have in the region. While what has happed in Kobanip is tragic, it is just the latest in a long series of tragedies in the region. The crisis in this region didn't develop overnight and it won't go away overnight regardless of what Turkey does or does not do.

 

Turkey was originally of value to NATO because of its position on the Soviet Union's southern flank and because it controls the sea route between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Today, given all the 'clash of civilizations' stuff between the Islamic world and the West, I suspect that having a Muslim NATO member looks good.

It wasn't that long ago, maybe ten or fifteen years, that there was a big push for Turkey to join the European Union. It's a sobering thought that had that happened, the Turkish/Syrian border there at Kobane would be Europe's frontier today, with the 'Islamic State' the EU's belligerent new neighbor. (Along with Iran and Iraq, it's not the best of neighborhoods.)

Turkey might find itself on the receiving end of a torrent of worldwide condemnation should they continue to do nothing, Kobane falls and if ISIS conducts mass executions of captured Kurds. That's what NATO should be telling Ankara right now.

 

The most important missing ingredient necessary for moving the Turkish forces currently just north of Kobane across the border is the order to do so. Even an order to saddle up and get ready to move out would send a message to ISIS, who would see see the Turkish soldiers suddenly preparing themselves and positioning their vehicles.

If the Turks intend to enter Kobane, they probably would have to coordinate with the defending Kurds to learn where the Kurdish and ISIS forces are located street to street. The Turks are certainly capable of doing that themselves (they are a NATO army, after all) and don't need the US to do it for them.

Or alternatively, the Turks could send their armor south on Kobane's eastern and western flanks, taking the local hilltops, cutting off ISIS reinforcements from reaching the town and trapping the ISIS fighters currently there.

And given Turkey's adjacent location, the Turkish air force could probably put a lot more planes over Kobane than the Coalition presently can from long distance, further cutting off the ISIS attackers from support.

In other words, I think that if the Turks decided to move, they could put ISIS forces in the Kobane vicinity on the defensive in a matter of hours.

 

Well, I've served, joe, and as I said before, the Turkish soldiers are already there. Perhaps it was different in your day, but the Turks have a kilometer to go at most to save the town. As I recall, that wasn't so far to go that it required extensive logistical planning. Do you think the Turks just have extremely fuel-inefficient vehicles? Or perhaps their sandwich trucks are very unreliable.

Short version: there's no need to be insulting, and no need for the pretense at special knowledge, joe, and no need to dream up elaborate excuses for Turkish inaction. Period. You recall above when several people pointed out that the Turks were right at the border. As Bells mentioned, they could have fired from place. Or opened their border. It's just that simple.

Yes, the one of general genocide against the Kurds. I agree with the others I expect - as Bells points out - that the Turks are probably only too happy to have ISIS do some of their work for them.

I'm afraid that it is not. Their inaction has been noted.

While the tragedies will no doubt continue, the tragedy at Kobani would certainly have been mitigated by the Turks getting off their hands.

 

Where are the Iraqi military? Where are the Iranian military? I thought these two countries were afraid of ISIS and wanted to destroy them to keep them from spreading more into their countries. No wonder ISIS is strong for no one really gets after them to destroy them until the American military did something. I'd think now it is there turn to step up and America should back away because it isn't really a problem for America but for Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria for they are the ones being invaded today and they want American troops to "lead the way" instead of them doing it together with each other.

 

exactly feels reminecnt to the warsaw uprising. a powerful army just siitting there to ensure things play out the way they want. once the kurds are gone they move in