Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 12, 2011

Neocons Want Turkey To Invade Syria

As Sec State Clinton calls President Assad of Syria "not indispensable" the neocons and the Israel lobby want Turkey to invade Syria. Reuel Marc Gerecht writes in the Weekly Standard:

Ideally, we should want to see the Turks establish a buffer zone or safe haven on the Syrian side of the border (Ankara sometimes did this in Iraq to counter nefarious Kurdish activity). Such a Turkish intervention, which would likely be backed by the French, would be convulsive inside Syria and would signal to the military that Ankara had irreversibly chosen sides.

Soner Çağaptay, a resident at the an Israeli lobby think tank Washington Institute, opines in Hürriyet:

[W]hen reacting to the unrest in Syria, the instinct of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government in Ankara will be to avoid conflict and opt for a buffer zone inside Syria to manage the likely flow of refugees on Syrian territory. But if that does not work, Turkey could take matters into its own hands, sending troops into Syria. Did I just say Turkey might invade Syria? Yes. And what a can of worms such an intervention would open, humanitarian though it would be.

For those writers the aim of this plot is to move Syria away from Iran and to tie down Turkey in the "western" fold.

Turkey's foreign minister is currently in Tehran and it does not sound like he has any intention to further incite a conflict in Syria:

“Syria is a close friend of both Iran and Turkey, which has close relations with the two countries. It is important for us that there are no more civilian deaths and that the country starts work on reforms as soon as possible,” Davutoğlu said.

Davutoğlu added that Turkey has expressed its position on this to the Iranian side and listened to the Iranian side, adding that both countries agreed on the “inevitability of [the] reform process in Syria and that the process should be completed without instability.”

So it is very doubtful that Turkey will do anything with regards to Syria. But that will of course not stop the usual suspects to lobby for another war.

Posted by b on July 12, 2011 at 01:12 PM | Permalink

Comments

The Neo-Cons are behind the curve here. The issue was being discussed a week or two ago, but seems to have gone quiet now.

The Turks never showed any enthusiasm. The problem for the Turks, as you realise, is that they are deadly afraid that the Syrian revolution will spread over into Turkey. All those (hundreds of) thousands of Syrian Arabs in Hatay province might want to join their Syrian brethren, and reunify Hatay with Syria - a perfectly legitimate desire. It was stolen illegitimately in 1939 through a rigged referendum.

The Neo-Con idea would only provoke that danger.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 12, 2011 4:32:00 PM | 1

Turkey's foreigh policy is not run by juveniles or by airheads. They will do what they can to stabilize the country.

Posted by: Bernie | Jul 13, 2011 11:49:46 AM | 2

why are the 'usual suspects' allowed to freely lobby for war? why dosent anyone do something about them?

Posted by: brian | Jul 13, 2011 6:06:14 PM | 3

why are the 'usual suspects' allowed to freely lobby for war? why dosent anyone do something about them?

Posted by: brian | Jul 13, 2011 6:06:14 PM | 4

"For those writers the aim of this plot is to move Syria away from Iran and to tie down Turkey in the "western" fold."

And how is that any different from your position of supporting (implicitly) the Syrian regime? Your position is basically this: No matter how repugnant and audious the Syrian regime is, no matter how subservient it is to imperialism and Israel (the the Syrian border with Israel being the safest one. AFAIK, Not a single incident has happened since 1973), no matter how many Syrians die in the recent crackdown on the demonstrators, YOU will continue to post pro-regime propaganda simply because Syria gives Iran some strategic "depth" in its confrontation with US/EU. Implicitly that is the essence of your position. So while the Neo-cons want to use the Syrian uprising to move Syria away from Iran, you want the Syrian uprising to be crushed inorder to keep Syria close to Iran. In that sense, both you and the Neo-cons are against the majority of the Syrian people, ie, the Sunnis/non-connected/impovrished/humiliated people of Syria.

Posted by: ndahi | Jul 16, 2011 4:21:35 PM | 5

Your position is basically this: No matter how repugnant and audious the Syrian regime is, no matter how subservient it is to imperialism and Israel (the the Syrian border with Israel being the safest one. AFAIK, Not a single incident has happened since 1973), no matter how many Syrians die in the recent crackdown on the demonstrators, YOU will continue to post pro-regime propaganda simply because Syria gives Iran some strategic "depth" in its confrontation with US/EU.

What nonsense. Where did I say so?

I would like Syria to have a real democratic government and I am convinced there are peaceful ways to get there from the current state. I believe that a democratic Syria would take a stronger stand against Israel and keep an alliance with Iran. Unfortunately the current unrest has some not peaceful but quite brutal participants and as such is likely to lead to large scale sectarian fighting if not suppressed. That would be another Iraq. No one should wish for that.

Posted by: b | Jul 17, 2011 12:56:25 PM | 6

I support b here. I think everyone would prefer a democratic Syria.

There are two issues. 1) the danger of Syria falling into sectarian confusion, as b mentions.

2) what the majority in Syria appear to want at the moment. As far as I can see opinion is pretty evenly split right now. It was with the government, but things have moved.

The problem is that there is very little analysis of what is happening in Syria. I can recommend the article of Alastair Crooke as worth reading: Unfolding the Syrian paradox.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 17, 2011 4:13:35 PM | 7

@ndahi - "Implicitly that is the essence of your position"

this refrain that if you oppose western imperialism than you must a friend of the mullah / ayatollahs / dictators / etc, it's getting boring

it's a mental short circuit, based on ideas deeply engrained in our minds, often unconsciously:
1) we are a superior and benign civilization
2) the "others" are too primitive and inferior to "liberate" themselves, or appreciate our superior values, without our "help"
3) we have a duty to impose our "universal values" (our "true religion") on the rest of the world
4) we are true to our superior and benign values precisely when we generously commit to our responsibility to "spread the word" (today, "export democracy")

this kind of paranoid mental bullshit started with the crusades but in its modern form grew with European colonialism in the course of the XVI century; it had a climax in the years preceding WWI but declined after WWII; but then the collapse of the Soviet Union gave an irresistible force to the return of the myth of western (and particularly Anglo-Saxon) superiority and mission; we must thank the neocons for its quick unraveling

b @6 - "I would like Syria to have a real democratic government"
alexno @7 - "I think everyone would prefer a democratic Syria"

I'm beginning to think that even this is going too far, and conceding too much ground to the modern crusaders / imperialists

I would like for Syria a system that fits its peoples' desires and necessities, and the best chance for them to attain it is by minimizing external interference (especially the good-intentioned ones!)

Posted by: claudio | Jul 18, 2011 2:08:20 AM | 8

Israel wants Turkey to invade Syria? Wow, maybe you should read the mainstream newspapers instead of creating your own anti-jew propaganda.
The Israelis lose either way, either with IRan or the Muslim brotherhood. And what is going on in Syria is a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Alewites.

Posted by: Observer | Jul 24, 2011 6:01:16 AM | 9

The comments to this entry are closed.