"Let every free Turkish Muslim who is keen on protecting Islam and his fellow Muslims know that the Turkish forces will serve the Crusader campaign in Afghanistan, which is burning the villages, destroying the houses and killing the women and the children, occupying the lands of the Muslims, fighting the Sharia and spreading lewdness, debauchery and corruption," the speaker says.The video also features the appearance of a purportedly Turkish suicide bomber.
"The Turkish troops will carry out the same operations in Afghanistan that the Jews are carrying out in Palestine, so how would the pious, free Turkish Muslim people accept such a crime against Islam and the Muslims?" the speaker asks.
Turkey has played an important role in NATO's mission, contributing 1,755 troops to International Security Assistance Force, which contributes to training Afghan security forces and reconstructing urban areas. Turkey does not paricipate in combat operations. However, as the Brookings Institution's Omer Taspinar observes in his column in Today's Zaman, more important than Turkey's troop contribution is its soft power over Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Washington understands that success in Afghanistan will be determined in the southern Pashtun belt on the border with Pakistan and that NATO forces desperately need the cooperation of Pakistan’s army to achieve that. Without Pakistan’s help, it would be impossible to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda effectively. This is also perhaps why Turkey’s contribution to the war effort is analyzed by criteria other than a mere contribution of troops.
To be sure, Washington would welcome more Turkish troops in Afghanistan. But what makes a Turkish contribution more valuable is its “soft power” in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is something that secularist hard-liners do not like to hear, but such power is essentially rooted in Turkey’s Muslim identity and particularly the Islamic roots of the current government in Turkey. For instance, the Financial Times reported last week that “NATO officials also often talk of a fuller engagement with Pakistan by using member Turkey, a Muslim majority state, and its diplomats as facilitators in Islamabad.”
Turkey is probably the best envoy the West can find to talk to Pakistan about the need to change its old habits of using Islamist ideology and loyalty to militant group such as the Taliban in order to exert influence over Afghanistan. No doubt, this is easier said than done. But there are some signs that Islamabad is slowly realizing that the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban and militant groups sponsored and abetted to strike at arch-rival India (such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was behind last year’s Mumbai terrorist attacks) are all part of the same threat. Further evidence that the strategy is working is the capture on Pakistani soil of Mollah Baradar. After decades of supporting Islamist groups in neighboring India and Afghanistan, this is the first major sign that there may be a change of heart in Pakistan. After all, the Taliban was in some measure a creation of Pakistan as it sought to expand its influence into Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War.
. . . .
At the end of the day, what both Afghanistan and Pakistan need is better governance. This requires not only security and stability but also some modicum of economic development with jobs and services. This is another area where Turkey’s soft power comes into play. Most analysts agree that Turkish companies and construction firms are the first to take serious risks in the region in order to improve infrastructure projects.
1 comment:
This is nothing new, really, OBL has called us 'dogs' before.
There's another domestic dimension to this, though. I'll re-quote what you have quoted:
To be sure, Washington would welcome more Turkish troops in Afghanistan. But what makes a Turkish contribution more valuable is its “soft power” in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is something that secularist hard-liners do not like to hear, but such power is essentially rooted in Turkey’s Muslim identity and particularly the Islamic roots of the current government in Turkey.[...]
I won't touch the 'secularist hard-liner' swipe, but I will point out that some people here might work on the aversion people already have against the use of Turkish troops and Turkish 'soft' power for US/NATO ends they don't quite understand and turn it into a bottom wave of dissent (some like candidates who'll cook this up are in jail now, but there are others). I think the US administration understands this and doesn't push the Turkish government for combat troops.
For the same reason, asserting that it is the Islamist roots of the present government here that makes it valuable for the US is politically unwise and probably would put regular folks here on a collision course with the US administration if they came to rely on parties such as the AKP remaining in power.
Taspinar, having written on anti-Americanism here, probably understands this much better than I do but I see no evidence in that article that he's thinking in terms that I tried to outline.
You can test all this by finding a regular Turk and translating the "using Turkey" bit from the FT piece Taspinar uses to back his thoughts up. If you translate is as "Turkiye'yi kullanarak" I bet you you'll find out it'll provoke a reaction.
Having said all this, let me add that if, say, the cemaat goes and helps the Afghans, I personally won't complain and would expect TSK to make sure that the volunteers there are safe.
Post a Comment