On War and Politics Relations

Wars have been one of the main elements shaping the world throughout history. However, there are very few works that deal with the subject from a philosophical point of view. For this reason, works such as Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and Carl Von Clausewitz's "On War" are very popular. These works also contain wrong and erroneous approaches.

For example, Clausewitz's statement: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." To tell the truth, this word, or rather judgment, concept and meaning, brought depth to both world wars and many conflicts that followed. However, this saying is nothing but the effort of an author tossed in the chaotic world of wars to make sense of his experiences. So, although I disagree, I have to say to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Yes, the world we know has passed from the civilization of the agricultural age to the age of industry. Between these transitions are processes of change and transformation that take up significant time. We are now in the process of transitioning to the information age. All these civilizations and processes of change change our view of the concept of war. I believe that it is very important to put certain data on this issue and to create some awareness.

The first two world wars, which spread from the old European continent, took place in the form of direct struggle of countries against each other for certain purposes. In fact, this is the first concept that still comes to mind of the world public opinion when war is mentioned. The struggle of two countries or alliances, including all the elements of national power, primarily military. The bottom line is that there is a winner and a loser. But the weapons of mass destruction developed in line with technology and the balance of terror dictated the searches that would change this (direct) identity of war.

With the Cold War, we see that "Proxy Wars" are started in many parts of the world. In other words, two countries, or two different factions within a country, go to war on behalf of two different camps. Apart from this, we also see that asymmetric warfare solutions are put into use. One side wages an asymmetrical war against that country, mostly by using terrorist organizations, in order to disrupt the internal peace and national resistance of another country. Sometimes, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan, one of the superpowers has to be directly involved in this war. Then the identity of the war begins to turn into a "war of attrition".

But as a result, all these types of warfare are based on logic as an extension of a political purpose. All the military efforts are constructed as the continuation of politics by other means, just as Clausewitz said. However, today shows that this trend is in the process of a great conceptual change. I would like to explain this with real life examples.

In the geography of Iraq and Syria, which the USA has divided and confused in a planned and programmed way, Turkey has had to use military force to prevent developments that attack its vital interests from the jugular vein. While this use of military force would achieve a certain political success, the B.A.E. and Saudi Arabia-led states that are ostensibly direct members of the US camp, Russia; persuaded him with the rhetoric of leaving the region in the hands of Turkey. Russia; It has directly projected military power to this geography, where there are complex/undesirable relations such as Iran and the Shiite camp. This situation triggered the change of the entire political structure in the region after the summit where President Obama and President Erdogan got wet in the rain together at the White House and revealed many potential fault lines.

Russia, which sees and evaluates the gaps in the region together with Syria, could not achieve its goals in Libya due to the military power projection made by Turkey alone. To tell the truth, many additional steps, including France and Greece, were flares of a different era in which direct rather than indirect interventions became popular, at the point of paving the way for the political advantages of military power where the limits of politics were not enough. We continue to see this trend strongly in the Caucasus, the Balkans, and in many corners of the world. In short, we are walking towards an era in which the tool precedes the goal, with the classical understanding, and where military actions or movements are decisive and pioneering in politics.

All over the world air force has a tradition that is not talked about much. Minor border violations, reconnaissance, etc. The reflex and ability of the opponents are often measured using elements. This is the essence of the airspace conflicts between China-Taiwan, Baltic and Japan, which we are accustomed to seeing in the news. In fact, in all military setups, the other side's tolerance bases are taken into account. For example, questions during the Cold War are important in this sense: Will the Soviets tolerate the nuclear missiles deployed in Turkey? What will the US do about the missiles in Cuba? In other words, when we approach the issue with a military mind, we see it as a natural process to make different military plans for different developments and radical changes. In the military perspective, an attempt is made to keep a plan ready, even against the most unlikely of contingencies.

But from the perspective of politics; There are different priorities such as maintaining the status quo, maintaining prosperity, continuing trade. For this reason, planners of political movements often involuntarily ignore radical situations and developments. Let's look at this from the point of view of today's superpower (?) USA:

For more than half a century, Israel's security has been the basis, main line, and central point of all US policies in the Middle East. We see that this is actually a black hole that causes a great loss of time and energy apart from trillions of dollars. In fact, the US gains very little in return for these massive efforts. It is a fact that America should concentrate on the most correct and necessary areas for itself, at a time when there are revolts against the entire global system, especially China. Especially when this hot climate has formed between Israel and its ancient enemies, the Arabs, with whom it has fought many times.

When you look at it from a political point of view, the meaning and importance of the steps taken by the USA to reduce its military weight in the region can be seen in terms of its national interests. It is quite possible that he will succeed. Well, let's add a heavy Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and aftershocks to this whole course. Although it is not related to him, it can be thought that all the military and political movements of the USA at the point of exit from the Middle East will be interrupted in the face of this military action of another country. Because threats to Israel's existence may be ignored, but a war directly waged by Israel must have absolute priority in terms of American policies.

Of course, if such a possibility does occur, we can say that its radical effects will also be experienced in the Far East region. Because China will find a more comfortable movement area, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and many other allied countries will develop new concerns and sensitivities. For example, China may not hesitate to use Iran to escalate the war and spread it to the region. Even if the result would lead to the wholesale sacrifice of Iran. Globalization essentially means turning a crisis in one corner of the world into an opportunity in another.

As you can see, the boundaries between military movements and politics are now quite blurred. The approach of one being the continuation of the other by other means has also begun to lose its validity. We see new acceptances and new plans come into play. It's like a trap set for Turkey by Greece.

This resourceless and aimless country is consolidated by the fear of Turkey. They want to be sacrificed by being forced into a military operation. His army is being equipped and renewed. Various military dams are being built, borders are drawn. For example, the USA says that two countries can fight in the air and at sea, but not on land. I am in Alexandroupoli and I am strongly present. You can't get to Greece without chewing on me. You can fight anywhere in the air and target any square, but you have to leave Crete out of the equation. Because I am there too, and I am strongly present. I even brought Israel with me. If you dive in here, I won't be indifferent. Well, since you can't put a limit on an all-out war between the two countries. What will be the state of the war if you put it and eat it?

All these US-led military and political efforts, planning, point to the philosophical identity change of a new structuring. Military power is now equal or superior to political power. In many regions, apart from the proxies, it is evolving into a structure that will require direct intervention. The basis for this is a multi-layered tolerance measurement mechanism.

As someone who has been interested in military matters from a very young age, I used to have this thought. There was a balance of terror created not only by nuclear-armed weapons of mass destruction, but also by conventional weapons. Because the thing called war, taken seriously, would be much more destructive and brutal than all previous wars. For this reason, I thought that the war between the countries could only be realized by triggering a chain. For example, if Japan and Russia go to war, China might dare to invade Taiwan. Or, if Russia (then the Soviet Union) enters the European vacuum, China may also find the opportunity to advance towards Siberia. The chain can likewise grow to include potential areas all over the world and trigger conflicts.
Of course, ages have passed since this high school teenager's thoughts and the world has changed drastically. But even at that young age, I realize that I got the right point in terms of philosophy.

When the ground changes, all plans and movements change. If you have noticed, all today's military and political movements are basically aimed at changing the ground in their favor and directing the events to their own course. In this context, Israel's possible attack on Iran is also a very important and current situation. Because only after a major move at this level can Iran close the Persian Gulf. This closing may also drag the USA into a direct conflict environment. (I leave out the risks and opportunities for Turkey.)

I will speak frankly. Military, political, economic, technological etc. in the world. The valley, where all the power elements struggled, remained under a deep layer of fog and smoke. Yes, wolves love misty weather. But this is because they are equipped to find their way in misty weather and reach their destination. For this reason, it is essential to support and strengthen the think tanks in our country.

For this reason, I would like to meet you with STRASAM articles from now on. I would like to meet you sometimes with military-political articles, sometimes with detailed military issues, sometimes with information and communication technologies, and sometimes with different issues. I would be happy if I could contribute even a small part to the development of our horizon of thought. Best regards…