It turns out that Syria's policy of leaving the Kurds to their semi-autonomy in the north may have opened a door for the Americans, but it also set a time-bomb for Turkey, with a big, flashing display: "If we go, Kurdistan comes." The longer that went on, and the stronger the Kurdish forces and mini-polities got, the more Turkey felt threatened by faits accomplis. America may find it useful to instrumentalize Kurdish nationalism against state structures in Iraq, Syria, and Iran (to come), but Turkey, which has ruthlessly suppressed any hint of ethnic autonomy, takes that as a threat to its national integrity, and Turkey must be re-assured.
Of course, (though it will go on pretending it does where convenient) the U.S. has no principled concern for Kurdish national aspirations, and will resolve this conflict of interest in favor of its NATO partner. When Erdogan and Biden together now promise to uphold the "territorial integrity of Syria," they're really saying: "There will be no independent Kurdish state." ("For the moment, at least," mentally reserves Catholic-schooled Joe.)
This military adventure also reveals, again, the utter incoherence--in terms of the ostensible goals of fighting ISIS, regional stability, or even rational American self-interest--of the savage multi-proxy war the U.S. has been directing in Syria. As the NYT reports, the American-supported Turkish campaign "pits two American-backed Syrian forces against each other": jihadi groups--backed by the CIA, "allied intelligence agencies," and now the Turkish army and the U.S. Air Force, against Kurdish militias--backed by the Pentagon and American troops--that have been the "most reliable partner on the ground in the fight against the Islamic State." As one rebel leader expressed his confusion: "We weren't planning to open a front with them [the Kurds]...I don't know who is bombing whom." The Vice-President proclaims his full support of the Turkish campaign one day, and the next day a Pentagon spokesman "want]s] to make clear" that the inevitable "clashes," which are the whole point of the campaign, are "unacceptable." The frenemy of my frenemy is my frenemy, seems to be the operating principle of reliable-friend America.
What's the upshot of the Turkish invasion? It's bad news for everyone. It won't end well for the Kurds; for Syria, for Russia, for the America (considered in terms of its people's interests), for the world--or even for Erdogan.
Let's consider the options, remembering that Erdogan is as fickle an ally as they come. Although, post-coup, he is politically quite strong, having been "propelled to semi-divine status among his supporters," that advantage is fragile. You can't close thousands of schools, charities and other institutions, fire a third of the judiciary, and detain 15,000 people--including 10,000 soldiers and over a third of the general staff (124 or 358)-- while pointedly dissing the pro-Kurdish opposition party (HDP) that supported you against the coupsters, without exposing and exacerbating serious faults in the political ground on which you stand. Turkey's involvement in the war on Syria has been unpopular at home for some time, and the increasing number of horrific bombings attributed to ISIS--a group the Turkish government has been supporting--isn't helping. Can Erdogan afford to double down on that involvement?
Option one is that Erdogan stays with a minimum program, keeping to a limited territory in northern Syria in order to prevent the emergence of any Kurdish statelet, and making no moves toward challenging the Syria-Russia alliance directly over the ultimate fate of the Syrian state. If he confines himself to that, he will probably get away with it--in the near- to medium-term at least.
This is, first of all, a military conquest. The only force that could reverse it right now is Russia, and that would require a full-on confrontation with air power, tanks, and ground troops. Turkey and the U.S. know this, and it is a willful provocation. With this action, Erdogan has taken on, for the Americans, the burden of daring Russia to react. Since the Turkish intervention avoided direct conflict with Russian forces, it is highly doubtful Russia will take the bait, which would require directly engaging the Turkish army, supported by U.S. armed forces. Putin will certainly not commit thousands of Russian ground troops.
Despite the ridiculous portrayal of Putin in the Western media, he has been very careful. He also knows, as The Saker has pointed out in detail, that Russian forces cannot match American and NATO forces in a full-on conflict in the Syrian theater. If anything, Russia will bring this to the United Nations, and try to resolve it on the basis of international law--which won't work, of course, but will allow Russia to defer, probably forever, any military response.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
