Turkish refusal to invade Syria to protect Kobani is not unreasonable.
Turkey would be committing an act of war against Syria (and not in self-defense, making it illegal under international law), unless it received permission from Assad (not going to happen), and would be in combat against Islamic State as well, which has the ability to commit bombings and retaliation in Turkish cities. Unlike the US, Turkey can't attack other countries for free.
And what would happen afterwards? Would it keep forces in Syria to protect Kobani or fight inside Syria? Would it become an occupying army? Would it fight with Syrian army forces who are likely to fight back against invaders? How does NATO respond to an ally at war -- a war of choice here? (hint: not well)
The Turkish position is really untenable, they simply can't intervene here, even if they wanted to.
This analysis is dated. All you say is correct until around 2011.
PM Erdogan has banned alcohol in beyoglu last month, banned 29 October Ataturk celebrations last year, banned May 1 Taksim marches (but allowed May 2 Galatasaray celebrations), shut down a TV series down he didnt like, closed many alcohol-serving restaurants and bars (I know them personally) and done many other arbitrary, unpleasant acts that people can feel directly in their daily lives. He was elected by 51%, but chose to act as if he was elected with a 99% margin. He is trying to reshape the constitution to create a massively powerful presidency for himself right now.
Get over AKP as a reformist party. They have been in power for 10 years and become thoroughly corrupt and unpleasant. Look at the PMs inability to even address the mass unrest in the streets over the last two days.
Stop just pointing out some sore loser Kemalists and do some real thinking and reflection. Things have changed since 2002, or 2006 -- AKP really has become the devlet they rebelled against.
Turkish refusal to invade Syria to protect Kobani is not unreasonable.
Turkey would be committing an act of war against Syria (and not in self-defense, making it illegal under international law), unless it received permission from Assad (not going to happen), and would be in combat against Islamic State as well, which has the ability to commit bombings and retaliation in Turkish cities. Unlike the US, Turkey can't attack other countries for free.
And what would happen afterwards? Would it keep forces in Syria to protect Kobani or fight inside Syria? Would it become an occupying army? Would it fight with Syrian army forces who are likely to fight back against invaders? How does NATO respond to an ally at war -- a war of choice here? (hint: not well)
The Turkish position is really untenable, they simply can't intervene here, even if they wanted to.
Juan,
This analysis is dated. All you say is correct until around 2011.
PM Erdogan has banned alcohol in beyoglu last month, banned 29 October Ataturk celebrations last year, banned May 1 Taksim marches (but allowed May 2 Galatasaray celebrations), shut down a TV series down he didnt like, closed many alcohol-serving restaurants and bars (I know them personally) and done many other arbitrary, unpleasant acts that people can feel directly in their daily lives. He was elected by 51%, but chose to act as if he was elected with a 99% margin. He is trying to reshape the constitution to create a massively powerful presidency for himself right now.
Get over AKP as a reformist party. They have been in power for 10 years and become thoroughly corrupt and unpleasant. Look at the PMs inability to even address the mass unrest in the streets over the last two days.
Stop just pointing out some sore loser Kemalists and do some real thinking and reflection. Things have changed since 2002, or 2006 -- AKP really has become the devlet they rebelled against.