Damascus Punishes Erdogan
A strategy based on nostalgia in the realm of political action will have catastrophic consequences. Today's crisis in relations between Turkey and Syria is the result of such an outlook. There is no doubt that Syria is faced with fundamental developments and change is unavoidable, but the reason behind this development and its posture is questionable. Turkey looked at Syria's developments as an opportunity that could be considered as the starting point for a Neo-Ottoman revival. This assessment results from the doctrine of Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s Foreign Minister. In his book entitled "Strategic Depth", he states that Turkey must connect the realm of its political geography to the realm of its historical influence. On this basis, it is natural that Turkey views Syria as the first entrance gate in achieving this goal. Basing historical past without considering today's conditions and capabilities has turned the Syrian opportunity into a serious threat for Turkey.
Exactly a century ago and during the last days of the Ottoman Empire, the young Turks took a measure to save the ailing empire which not only did not revive the empire, but it also expedited its collapse. This was while the component of power of the young Turks was, in major parts, the result of internal capacities. Today, with Davutoglu's doctrine, Turkey seeks the revival of a dream which is not in conformity with domestic, regional, and international realities. Turkey, with its capacities, can neither achieve a position to change regional equations, nor is it given permission to do so. The powers that attempt to turn Turkey into a model for the region will not allow this country to gain such power to be able to act independently.
If we view regional issues with a more general outlook, we will see that Turkey has not been, and is not, an independent player in regional developments; it seems that it is supposed to accompany and facilitate the West's objectives in these developments. If, in some areas, Ankara is given permission and opportunities to maneuver, it does not include strategic measures. Its dependent economy on global assets and even membership in NATO are controlling leverages which can, at any time and without Ankara’s control, change the conditions to Turkey’s disadvantage. Besides, the West's double standard on the issue of the Kurds and Alawis in Turkey, has, for years, created social unrest in this country, the dimensions and complications of which the Turks themselves are well aware.
A politician who bases history as the foundation of his political actions instead of learning from it will not only damage his own country but all of humanity. In Davutoglu’s view, the Assad government would have been finished in three months, and according to Turkish leaders, last year, the opposition were supposed to perform the thanksgiving prayer along with their Turkish friends. And today, twenty months have passed and not only has Assad remained in power, but the clashes have also reached Turkey's borders from Damascus and Aleppo. Training camps of the opposition in Turkey have been transformed into points of influence for the PKK and radical elements of Al-Qaeda, and this development, by itself, has become a serious concern for Ankara and, in one dimension, for the West.
It will be an act of simple-mindedness to analyze Syria's developments without understanding the bigger picture which is forming in the region. The fact is that, from a broader perspective, Syria has become the place for reformation of alignments of regional and international powers. At the present time, people's demands, democracy, resistance, etc. have been left in the shadows of conflicts in which each power seeks its own objectives based on its interests. In fact, Syria has been turned into the border of reformation of a cold war which, along with a warm war, can impose huge costs on the people of Turkey, Syria, the region, and, in general, the entire world. The Russians have seriously returned to the Middle East through the issue of Syria and the Chinese do not want to be left out of this competition. From a regional aspect, the reasons and concerns of the alignment of Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, on one hand, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, on the other, are quite obvious. Egypt and Jordan have stood in a position where they could be close to either consequence of future developments.
Geopolitical competition behind the scenes of Syrian developments and its related games are among the important factors for the continuation of a crisis in which religious literature, democracy-seeking, independence-seeking, and resistance, to a certain degree, have been used instrumentally.
Despite the prevailing war atmosphere in the region, it should be borne in mind that developments and the crisis between Syria and Turkey have not reached a level that will lead to war with a simple decision made by Damascus and Ankara. International and regional conditions and, most importantly, internal conditions in Turkey in social, economic, political, and security dimensions are not ready for a war.
The crisis emanating from a mortar attack on Turkish soil, like the downing of a Turkish fighter in the Mediterranean Sea, will fade over time. Receiving the authorization for military operations from the Turkish Parliament, dispatching commanders, forces, and equipment to the border, combative statements by Turkish political leaders, etc, regardless of being preventive measures, seem more like moves to calm the Turkish public opinion. At present, Turks ask their government why it considers Syria’s internal developments as its own, consequently creating problems for them.
It should be borne in mind that statements by political leaders in crises are designed to address the incited feelings of the population. When a military crisis takes shape, political leaders are forced to use heroic literature in order to convince public opinion. However, they know better than anyone else that the operationalization of even a segment of these threats would have tremendous costs.
Today, the fire ignited by Ankara is gradually being transferred from Syria to Turkey and, as a result of the intensification of conflicts between the Turkish military and the PKK, Turkey has experienced its deadliest year in the past thirteen years. When Turkey considers it a right for itself to intervene in Syria, it gives Damascus the right to use its tools to not only change the game, but also to change the situation to its advantage.
Most of the assessments with regard to today’s developments in Syria are that no major changes will occur in this country until the US elections are held. After that, geopolitical concerns and concerns over the vague future of Syria do not draw a clear picture. If we accept that democracy is not something to be exported, but rather the result of a process, we can be hopeful about reaching a political solution in Syria by taking prudent measures based on collective interests and using peaceful means.
Many in Turkey believe that Turkey is not the model and leader of changes in the Middle East, but rather it is this country itself which is the center and main issue of change in the region. Playing the Kurdish and religious card is the most important sign of the dangerous game which has been displayed in the crisis between Ankara and Damascus. Not comprehending this strategy and closing our eyes on the point that sometimes the objective of small conflicts is to introduce bigger ones for huge changes will be catastrophic.