We are encountering a situation similar to the case when – prior to its Iraq invasion – the US imposed on Turkey a memorandum in 2003. At that time, due to the rising voice of the public conscience and the pressure reflected in the parliament and despite the compelling preference of the politics, the memo was not passed.   
If there had been no public reaction, Turkey might have gone under a very severe “fine”.  In these circumstances when a common good becomes prominent, that is, not wearing out the political authority against the international pressure; it nevertheless primarily weakens the bargaining capacity of the political authority.

The US and the western world, which until now have simply been watching the events,  are now launching an intimidation show of military force once again by using the pretext of avoiding the terror only after the things became chaotic in Syria and Iraq with the new situation.

The mystery concerning the reason the US administration designed such a strategy other than its ostensible one remains unsolved. However, what is known is that the US and NATO coalition allies find airstrikes sufficient for the operation. Another thing is that the current inputs indicate that the US is not willing to send any troops to the region.

At first glance, it seems that the US wants to design the region without sending its own troops and assumingly speaking, it is quite aware of the fact that this approach will be inconsequential. Therefore, questions concerning the purpose of the operation and its scope are following one after another. And what remains as the only alternative in this situation is to use the military capacity of the other countries, and of course, the first signal of this will be that the Turkish parliament via the motion, which is prepared by the government, is going to approve of sending the Turkish Army abroad.

Even though it is stated that the government has made this decision on account of the pressures from the US, we may also assume that it could be the concern of Turkey to be actively involved in the upcoming events. Since the onset of the crisis in Syria, the reasons of those, who have argued that Turkey must be involved with its military power, were in line with such perspective, too.  However, the question pops up: Can Turkey really be an effective power in such a region where every moment new alliances and complex power equations are being established?  Or would that entrap Turkey into a chaotic situation?  The way the perception/expectation that Turkey can be involved at any time in the Syria equation would be effective can only be understood looking at the result.

In this new scenario, which the US designed in a way that it is not understood as a direct invasion, just as the significance and consequences of the TSK (Turkish Military Force) sending troops into the region is not properly discussed, we do not even hear a weak voice being raised against its likely consequences. The discourse about having  hands on the Middle East seems to have pleased the Turkish conservative community a lot.

The underlying reason for the silence in the conservative society or even finding support is majorly the exaggerated injection of the Ottoman heroism in their minds. It is clear that the time has come to explain that the price of the deafness to the Middle East is not passing through the Imperial dream in a nation state format or being fascinated by it.

One of the most hazardous points that was eluded in the 2003 March memo was the permission of the American troops to Iraq through Turkey and their deployment over there in Iraq. If you think about, having a foreign military power consisting of 50,000 to 60,000 soldiers in your territory even – if they are your allies – is a menacing situation, because it makes you a potential target. Even if they serve other purposes, this intensive deployment of the US military forces will create a certain influence on politics.

Unless a final change takes place in the last minute, the following word in the text of the memo which is going to be discussed in the parliament today are vital: “With the condition of having same common goals, the existence of foreign military forces in Turkey and the utilization of these forces in accordance with the principles based on the governmental decision along with taking every possible caution to avoid the risks and threats”

As it is clear from here, what is proposed on the table is the permission of deploying the foreign military forces in Turkey and their passage from Turkey.
In that case, certain issues must be clarified.
If the US will not send its troops to be involved in the situation in Syria and Iraq, what is the need felt behind inserting this item to the memo?

Since inserting this item was felt as a need, can we mention an unexplained B plan of the US?

As stated, if the US will not send its troops, then which country`s troops will use our soil or be deployed here? And what will be the capacity, amount of these foreign troops?  Also, what is going to be the estimated time of permission for their stay in Turkey?

Politically and morally speaking, it is in favor of the region, Turkey and the offer-maker political-authority to raise these questions and discuss them publically.

�lgili Yaz�larEnglish