ISIL cannot end without a ground operation
Turkish troops in Syria’s al-Bab are fighting on ground against the evil that has been a trouble for the entire world. They are fighting a war at fronts facing traps and ambushes. This is a war against all kinds of evil.
However, when we look at al-Bab there are no other forces fighting on ground other than Turkey. Al-Bab is where we can break the backbone of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Apparently, the Pentagon had also observed this. A short while ago it said they would contribute to the air strikes in al-Bab.
While Turkey had launched its ground operation from the north of Syria toward al-Bab, it was expecting the coalition forces to support them with air strikes. However, somehow, for whatever reason, while Turkey was fighting on the ground, the U.S., which was expected to strike from the west, suddenly retreated.
And ISIL redirected its forces it had transferred to the west to the north, where the Turkish troops are.
This was an unexpected situation that happened in the Euphrates Shield operation. Our casualties increased as a result.
Now this crazed and monstrous group is attacking Reina and Dolmabahçe in Istanbul because it has gained time meanwhile.
I am writing these because I want to elaborate on the words that were uttered by an expert in Ankara, the expert had said “Without a ground war, ISIL cannot be finished only by air strikes.”
In other words, NATO should also share some responsibility. NATO should now redefine itself. It should redefine its job description.
The justification of NATO’s existence, which was once formed to combat the Soviet Union, should now be changed. NATO was formed because the Soviet Union was regarded as a threat to the “free world.” Now the name of this threat is global terror.
The front of freedom
Isn’t this backward-minded terror network, hiding behind a religion mask, openly threatening the free world? They attacked people who were preparing to celebrate Christmas in Berlin, they attacked Nice and then they attacked Istanbul and its people’s right to live freely.
It is a bloody attack targeting people’s free choice of living. NATO should acknowledge this front and undertake its duties. This is Ankara’s expectation.
Well, has this expectation been conveyed to the necessary places diplomatically? Yes, it has been conveyed at the utmost level.
Right at this point, isn’t it strange that after the Reina attack, Obama is offering to “help Turkey”?
This “help” promise from the U.S., doesn’t it stand dangling in the air after leaving Turkey face-to-face with an unexpected situation because they have not done the air strike they promised in al-Bab?
For this reason, the significance of this sentence that I filtered from Ankara multiplies: If you are going to help, then take responsibility. ISIL cannot be finished without ground operations.
There are of course other associated questions: Could it be that the U.S. has promised the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) a canton from the Afrin to Manbij line toward al-Bab? For this reason they are uncomfortable with the presence of Turkish troops there? Could it be that they have stopped the air strike for this reason?
As far as I see, from the three “could it be” questions, three answers involving “of course it could” are easily drawn.
The military power of the free world, NATO, should now be doing something against this bloody front that has waged war against people’s right to live freely. Otherwise, the craftiness of “Our children should not die. Let the Turks, Kurds and Arabs there die,” as a sick thought left from the colonial times, will take humanity to more painful days.
For this reason, these words coming from Ankara should find its place, “Without a ground operation, ISIL cannot end.”