Turkey Downs Russian Plane, Joins With Islamic State: U.S. Should Drop New Ottoman Empire As Ally

[Ichingcarpenter]

FORBES



Turkey’s rash decision to shoot down a Russian plane for allegedly violating its airspace isn’t likely to trigger World War III. But Ankara has demonstrated where it stands. With the Islamic State and against the West. The justification for Turkey’s membership in NATO and America’s defense guarantee for Ankara long ago passed. Turkey’s irresponsible action proves that it is no U.S. ally.

The Obama administration’s war against the Islamic State is turning into another interminable conflict that serves the interests of other nations far more than America. U.S. policy has been impossibly incoherent, attempting to do everything: oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, shove aside next door Iran, defeat vicious jihadist insurgents, promote ineffectual “moderate” forces, convince the Gulf States to act against the extremists they’ve been supporting, promote diplomacy without participation by Damascus and Tehran, and convince Turkey to serve U.S. rather than Islamic interests.

While Russia’s September entry into the war outraged Washington, Moscow showed clarity and realism. Russia simply sought to bolster Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad against insurgents dominated by radical Islamists. Ironically, this approach was far more likely than the administration’s confused policy to advance America’s core interest of defeating ISIL and al-Qaeda affiliates such as al-Nusra. The U.S. had little choice but to accommodate Moscow, despite nutty proposals from some Republican presidential candidates to shoot down Russian planes.


However, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan played the fool when his military downed a Russian aircraft, involved in striking territory controlled by al-Nusra. The two governments’ accounts conflict, but no one believes the Putin government had the slightest hostile intent against Ankara. Downing the plane was gratuitously provocative and not necessary for Turkey’s defense. The objectives likely were to interfere with Moscow’s operations against Islamic radicals and/or discourage future Russian strikes against Ankara-backed Islamists. The action obviously was contrary to Washington’s interest, which would be caught in any escalation between Russia and Turkey. Yet NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that “we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally, Turkey.”


THREE PAGE ARTICLE

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2015/11/25/turkey-downs-russian-plane-joins-with-islamic-state-u-s-should-drop-new-ottoman-empire-as-ally/


Home alone

[DetlefK]

1. Corrections:

- But Ankara has demonstrated where it stands. With the Islamic State and against the West.
While Ankara indeed gave ISIS a pass in the past, they did so, because they wanted to see ISIS do the dirty work for them and oust Assad. Ankara isn't an ally of ISIS. They simply don't regard ISIS as a threat. (Let's see how the Ankara-bombing will change that.)

- Moscow showed clarity and realism. Russia simply sought to bolster Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad against insurgents dominated by radical Islamists.
Russia simply sought to save the blood-thirsty dictator who started this civil-war. And why? Not for the sake of Syria but for the sake of russian geopolitical interests.
Russia isn't fighting ISIS either. The minute ISIS stops being a threat to Assad's regime, Moscow will lose interest.

- involved in striking territory controlled by al-Nusra
They were actually bombing a turkmen rebel-group in Syria that is allied with Turkey.

- Downing the plane was gratuitously provocative and not necessary for Turkey’s defense.
But there has to be a point where a country says "This is our air-space. You do not enter it without our permission."

- Yet NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that “we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally, Turkey.”
BECAUSE THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF NATO IS BASED ON THE IDEA OF COUNTRIES STANDING TOGETHER IN WAR-TIME.

[Chan790]

2. Really, the pro-Russian bloc is getting silly.

I suggest they lay off the pipeweed for a while.

Turkey is not on Daesh's side. Turkey, more than anybody, has skin in this game...they have both ethnic Turks within Syria and Turkish citizens much more vulnerable to Daesh than any other NATO nation, they're on the front-line with an enemy that openly states its intent to conquer them and put them to the sword--if there comes a ground-war being fought by other than Syrian rebels, it will likely be fought by Turkish forces; I'm prone to giving them leeway on how they choose to engage that enemy. Turkey is already doing heavy lifting in other ways...virtually the entirety of NATO uses our base at Incirlik to launch sorties against Daesh in Syrian. Russia is not on anybody's side but Assad's and isn't actually fighting Daesh. I'd go so far as to say Russia is more enemy than ally in the Syrian theatre.

The only part of that shootdown now with all facts out that is problematic to me is the rebels machine-gunning the descending pilots. You're allowed to shoot down aircraft committing incursions against your air-space. Russia's done it before, in a much more hostile manner, taking down a passenger jet. They may have played a part in allied rebel forces in Ukraine doing the same thing last year as well. Russia has received repeated warnings over the past week about incursions and what Turkey's response would be if they continued. (If I tell you "I'm going to punch you in the face if you don't stop violating my personal space and touching me." after I've asked you not to, then the only person you have to blame for your black eyes and busted nose is yourself.) Was Turkey bellicose in shooting in the case of a <17s incursion? A bit. Is it perhaps a bit more understandable in light of the 3+ minutes of total incursion on 12+ incidents in the past week? A bit.

Of course Gen. Stoltenberg is going to say that. It's his job. Further, he's not wrong. If Russia retaliates against Turkey...NATO and the US can and should respond with force...but not against Russia. It's time we start making serious play to take Assad off the map--if Russia wants a multi-party shooting war, then it is utterly acceptable to make efforts towards the capture and disposition of Bashir Assad, their proxy in Syria. We know where he lives, we can bomb it. Let's see how that grabs Putin. Put the solution Russia wants in a box; it's a terrible solution anyways.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. We are at war with Russia?

The "whole concept" of NATO was a mutual DEFENSE pact, not a mutual AGGRESSION pact, and that whole concept became obsolete when the threat NATO was defending against, the Soviet Union, disappeared. Now NATO has no real charter other than to be a fig leaf of international approval for aggression against other nations in pursuit of US global hegemonistic ambitions.

Our policy in Syria is FUBAR. We are nominally fighting sunni jihadists while actually arming and training sunni jihadists as our primary goal is to depose Assad, and ISIS is simply an inconvenience to that end and not a serious target.

There was a moment last week where there could have been a real coalition of all military powers with a single objective: destruction of the IS. That has now been wrecked by Turkey's odd action and our apparent tacit support for it.

[DetlefK]

4. Russia allegedly violated Turkey's airspace. The plane was shot down in defence.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Turkey was not attacked. But you think we should rush to Turkey's defense?

[DetlefK]

6. The NATO-treaty says that its members have to aid its members.

It makes no sense to lambast a fellow NATO-member for what happened when another country violated its airspace. Not in your capacity as a NATO-spokesperson.