Ahmet Yavuz writes: 5 important issues regarding the fight against terrorism

Our pain is great, very great indeed. But it was not the first, and it will not be the last! In fact, we will forget it shortly; just as we forgot Dağlıca and Aktütün…

I wrote this, conscious that it might be like writing on water, in the hope that it might make a contribution.

First, let us underline five important issues:

First, some have taken the title deed to patriotism and consider it a skill to label anyone who steps outside their narrow world as a traitor. As long as there are crowds applauding their attitude and they continue to be a source of courage, arbitrariness will continue. This situation creates a deterrent effect for many sensible people to freely question and express opinions on the country's issues. Some are afraid, some say 'what do I care!' Intellectual desertification is growing…

Second, those who tore the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) to pieces 20 years ago after PKK attacks now appear to support it unconditionally. This imbalance of hate/love has harmed the TSK the most, is harming it, and will continue to harm it… We do not have two TSKs. We must protect it like the apple of our eye, but we must also question and criticize it when necessary. For what? So that it performs its duty in the most correct way… Will a lesson be learned? I do not know.

Third, when the codes of civil-military relations are broken, the effectiveness of the strategies put forward is crippled from the start. Politics will decide what is to be done, and the military wing will decide how it is to be done! Carrying out a cross-border operation is, of course, a matter for the political wing to decide. The right to determine the limitations to be placed on the operation also belongs to the political wing. However, the timing of the operation, the structure of the force to be used, and the dimensions of the area should be left entirely to the decision of the soldiers. When this relationship is problematic, it forces commanders to obey orders that should not be carried out. This creates distrust in the chain of command. Every military action has a risk of casualties. It is inevitable. But there is an acceptance limit to this. There are some missions where it is known that those who go are going to their deaths and it is accepted from the start because it has a very important return. The necessary risk has been taken. In situations where it is clear that it will cause casualties but it is not clear what it will bring, avoiding casualties is essential. The commander must decide this; if they cannot, it becomes a problem! The recent incident has made it necessary to question this issue. Furthermore, such base areas should be opened and closed at the right time and equipped to be self-sufficient.

Fourth, it is about the drawbacks caused by the abolition of the TSK's military health and military judicial systems with the regulations made after 2016. There is no example of this in the world. The health system of an army fighting heroically has been destroyed, and no proper system has been put in its place. In addition to causing an increase in casualties, it is also a factor in terms of morale. It is impossible to understand what logic this serves. It has no place in patriotism. And nobody cares. It is very sad and shameful. For example, it is understood that while there used to be doctors at the battalion level, there are none now. Health support should be restructured to the level it used to be. No one has the right to leave this task for tomorrow.

Fifth and perhaps most importantly, it relates to the importance of the internal front. The fight against terrorism is the primary duty of the state. Doing this out of concern for votes harms the struggle. The AKP has been doing this since the end of the 'Solution Process' (Açılım). We saw a bad example of this in the last elections. While the government sees no harm in putting voters of regional origin who do not vote for it in the same pot as terrorists, the CHP management also adopts an attitude far from the responsibility of being the party that founded the country, out of concern for winning votes. Administrative changes do not seem to have made a difference in this regard either. As a result, just as accusing those who have no organic ties to terrorism harms the bond of affection between the state and the citizen, establishing harmonious relations with those who approach terrorism with tolerance has a weakening effect on the internal front. It makes the job of the foreign power that hopes for help from terrorism easier.

Let us come to the strategy of the fight against terrorism…

There are three threats:

One is inside, in the countryside and in the cities. Thanks to the effective use of UAVs and armed UAVs, it is no longer possible for the PKK to be effective in the countryside. What is important is to be able to stop participation in the terrorist organization from within. The steps taken are appropriate.

The second originates from Syria. It is the primary threat. The fundamental mistake in this regard is the failure to show the will to come together with the Syrian state. Everything done without taking this step serves the US plan to turn the PYD, i.e., the PKK, into a state in the region. This situation makes it mandatory to give strategic priority to the Syrian operational area in the fight against terrorism. Success here is of a nature that will reduce the importance of the PKK presence in Northern Iraq. The connection of the issue with Israel's desire for expansion should not be overlooked. The reckoning with the US is also in this area. The territorial integrity and political unity of Syria are as much Turkey's issue as they are the Syrian state's. It requires taking a big step.

The third originates from Northern Iraq. The threat in this region and the TSK's presence in this region are not new. However, what is new is keeping a larger number of troops across the border and in winter conditions. It had been stated previously that reaching Qandil and the base areas opened were part of this strategy. What needs to be questioned is whether it is correct to keep so many troops at such depth and in winter conditions. If there were no Syrian dimension, this strategy might have been a correct choice. However, after the situation that emerged in Syria and thanks to the capabilities gained by UAV technology, the importance of the region has become secondary. The benefit to be gained by keeping forces across the border in the region is limited. Instead of doing this, the establishment of base areas in winter should be abandoned or their number should be reduced. Border units can be reinforced with the increased forces. It can be kept under control as much as possible by the air forces.

It is not possible to be strong everywhere at all times. Realistic prioritization must be done. The success of the struggle, which is carried out with great devotion, depends largely on correctly applying this principle. In its current state, there are problems.

We are facing a separatist organization, and unfortunately, it evaluates regional developments well. The struggle is long-term. One should act not with the rhetoric of "until not a single terrorist remains," but with the principle of "being in a determination to fight no matter how many terrorists there are." We should not deceive ourselves or others.

The great threat, however, stems from the US's regional policy. This power, which destroys everywhere it enters in the region and cannot establish order in any of them, must take more consistent steps for the region in the coming period for the sake of its competition with China. Developments point to a future where it will need Turkey, towards which it has adopted hostile attitudes, more. Patient and consistent steps are important. Instead of inauthentic heroism played for the domestic audience, a relationship based on interest must be conducted from state to state. It is difficult, but not impossible.

Small calculations are harmful calculations.

There is no difficulty that those who turn pain into honey cannot overcome. As long as the scientific perspective and moral stance are returned to their course…