Being Ready for the Future Wars Awaiting Turkey

For war history buffs, the air force, which has gained a special meaning and importance in the field of operations since the Second World War, is an interesting reading subject. If we look at how the air force planned its operations, we see that it operated in waves. For example, in the first wave, these attack aircraft, these missiles and these auxiliary elements will hit these targets. In the second wave, the following missions will be assigned to this number of attack aircraft with this number of fighters. In the third wave, this and that will happen. Afterwards, the aircraft returning from the first wave, having completed their refueling and ammunition supply, will take off again for the following missions...

It is a thought that has been circulating in the corridors of my mind for a long time. Thousands of years of land warfare tactics and hundreds of years of naval warfare strategies have naturally found an echo in air warfare. However, in our age marked by speed and dynamism, I think it should be expected that air warfare strategies and tactics will also find an echo on land and sea. It is even natural that this will find an echo in the fields of asymmetric and hybrid warfare. The mind's eye should look for these echoes and even imagine them. This is why I plan to write a series of articles covering these issues, starting from the macro scale and extending to the micro scale.

In this first article, let us look at the macro scale. Let's break down the waves of military threats against our country and take a look at them one by one. In this way, if a wave-by-wave war chain is planned, let us create a logical basis for the order of the waves.

Turkey - Greece: 

I will not go into the problems we have with this country and their historical roots. I will also stay away from Greece's allied (?) relations with the US, EU and Israel. Since my focus will be on the Turkish-Greek conflict, the first thing to note is the following: Whose initiative will determine the timing of the outbreak of war, the geography in which it will take place, the scale and depth of the damage it will cause?

In international politics and in world public opinion, we are all aware of the high weight that comes with being the aggressor and the first to open fire. It was for this reason that the US started the first Gulf War and the chain of interventions that followed by encouraging Saddam to invade Kuwait. The Middle East and Near Asia have been plagued by wars and bloodshed for decades, using 9/11 as an excuse. In other words, even the world's sole superpower chose to build a victimization, an aggressive policy based on the motive of self-defense. But military logic inspires the opposite.

He who dominates, dominates. The early bird catches the worm. Along with many other sayings like this, we should also remember the tactics of warfare inspired by our history. We Turks, who have always been a minority and had to fight against armies and alliances of many, acted with the strategy of acting without hostility and defeating the allied forces one by one. Applying this strategy in the 21st century requires a much more serious mind and courage. It is important to remember that all decisions and actions taken, or not taken, on the battlefield, including taking or not taking the initiative, come at a price in blood and lives.

Turkey - Syria: 

No matter what anyone says, it is a concrete fact that Turkey has become a part of the war in Syria. Due to the massive influx of refugees from Syria, the Syrian war has become an internal dynamic in Turkey. In short, all developments in this country are of first-hand interest to our country and have a special meaning and importance for our survival.

The word "quagmire" is often used to describe the extended and altered battlefield in Syria. Because this war, which was not concluded with a decisive battle by a decisive power, was transformed into a swamp under the guidance of international actors, and was probably designed to serve this purpose from the very beginning. There are many dynamics to be taken into account in this quagmire. However, the possibility that the terrorist structure based on Kurdish ethnic identity, which is being shaped within the framework of a new school and functioning, may find a response among the romantic Kurdish nationalists in our country when the necessary conditions and circumstances are created should not be ignored. 

The Syrian arena can only be stabilized to some extent by the intervention of a decisive and decisive foreign power like Turkey, taking into account the high casualties. The planning, execution and aftermath of such an operation will create a very high risk factor for the implementing power on many other fronts and all other elements of national power.

Turkey - Iraq:

Thanks to the terrorism that has been shaped to spread like a cancer in eastern Turkey, this country has become an external dynamic with strong links to the interior of our country decades before Syria. For years, the PKK and its affiliated organizations have made this country their base and organized all their movements from here. Over the years, this situation has taken on a more complex identity with the interventions of other external actors such as the US, Israel and Iran, which have found a unique field of action. In parallel, the ISIS organization, which operates in both Syria and Iraq, has directed the fate of the country towards a more blurred future with Syria.

For all rich and oppressive Arab regimes, the Iraq and Syria line is a guarantee/defense against Turkey. It is an object of desire that we sink into this quagmire and lose as much energy as possible. Threats to our internal integrity are the icing on the cake. In the world of tomorrow, the use of all the fresh waters originating from Turkey, outside of Turkey's initiative, is of strategic importance for the entire Arab world. The entanglement of the Iraqi and Syrian problems could turn a potential operation in these countries into an official and ideal pretext/ground for intervention for the Arab world. This situation also creates an ideal "proxy war" potential for global foreign powers.

Turkey - Iran: 

You may have read a lot about the old borders between these two countries. However, the roots of the tension and struggle between the two countries are much more ancient than the lifespan of the borders. Throughout history, whether under Turkish or Persian rule, these two countries have never made peace. Assuming that you are sufficiently interested and knowledgeable on the subject, I will move on to the potentials without going into details.

The brotherly atmosphere between Turkey and Azerbaijan inevitably affects Iran as well. Iran has been under the yoke of wars, economic hardship, injustice and oppressive regime for a very long time. Throughout all this time, the Azeri Turkish ethnic identity, which constitutes nearly half of the country, has never displayed a rebellious attitude and has never harmed the unity of the country despite all the injustices it has suffered. But we can foresee that this situation will start to change.

Whether caused by internal or external dynamics, a turmoil in Iran now has the potential to directly involve Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia and other countries. At this point, the quietly tense fault line is encouraging all possible sides of the front, including Iran, to intervene in an environment where the military front is becoming increasingly heavy. The main factor keeping the peace between Turkey and Iran in this regard is the belief/acceptance that both countries cannot overpower and defeat each other. Both countries are also concerned that a possible war would have medium and long-term effects, deeply affecting the future and stability of their respective countries. 

These worries can be dismissed by factors such as: open wars on other fronts, new allies to be found, civil war and deep turmoil, etc. It is clear that both publics, especially Iran, are intensifying their processing of this scientific prediction. 

Turkey - Russia: 

After the end of the Cold War, the ties between these two historic rivals and enemies have taken on a very different and dynamic identity. However, the dynamics that have not changed throughout history show that the biggest obstacle in front of Greater Russia is Turkey. As a natural consequence of the geography we live in, neither country has the power or the means to change this. For this reason, I will not elaborate on this subject, which will leak/contain volumes of information even when the cover is opened, let alone analyzed.

Turkey - Ukraine: 

The areas where the Ukrainian war will and will not affect Turkey are more or less known. However, it should not be overlooked that on the front of the relations between the two countries, elements that could serve as an excuse for a third country are constantly accumulating/storing. By this third country, I do not only mean Russia. This factor, which also applies to the US and Europe, never loses its importance and weight. In other words, with each passing day, Ukraine's value as a military pretext rather than a military subject increases. 

Turkey - Egypt: 

Let us look at the issue from the perspective of a dictator sitting in Cairo. Whether we turn our heads west, south or north, it is certain that we will have to deal with Turkey. It is also an absolute necessity that this struggle should have a military dimension, whether through proxies or directly. Moreover, how can it be acceptable for this country to be dependent on a few pennies from tourism when all the other brotherly Arab countries are rich in oil and gas? Therefore, when we look at Egypt through a dictatorial lens, exploiting the natural resources of Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean, destroying the water threat on the Nile, and clashing with Turkey for this purpose emerges as an obligation and natural right.

Egypt, of course, does not want to start a direct war with Turkey. If there is going to be a war, it wants not to be alone against Turkey. It is seen that Egypt has made all of its military preparations in the following two ways: In a war involving Turkey, in the first wave, direct military intervention in Libya, Ethiopia, Sudan and other regions where we have military presence and interests. In the second wave, to engage directly with Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Cyprus region, and to wear down and squeeze the country through air and naval warfare. It is considered that this country is shaping all national power elements and propaganda mechanisms in this direction.

NATO, the US and Turkey:

Thus, we have listed the main possibilities for a potential conflict with Turkey. Of course, there are also numerous secondary possibilities. To mention all these elements in the Balkans, Caucasus, Mediterranean and Central Asia would turn this article into a long and difficult to read text. I should also emphasize that Israel has been deliberately left out of the scope of this article. Instead, I would like to draw your attention to an important point.

Turkey has been a member of the NATO alliance since the beginning of the Cold War. Therefore, theoretically, it can be said that it has NATO guarantees against an attack by a third country. It is also covered by the NATO nuclear protection shield provided by the United States. In other words, it has additional protection against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The main source of these defense elements is the United States. If you were in the US's shoes, if you decided to wear Turkey down through a chain of wars and to block its future in line with American expectations, criteria and orders, what course of action would you follow?

Looking at the issue from this perspective, one can see how desirable an object a Turkish-Greek war would be for the United States. Because Europe, already frayed by the war in Ukraine, would not be able to withstand a conflict within the NATO alliance. In fact, this situation will continue with an important debate on the future, security and form of the NATO alliance. During these debates that will last for years, Turkey, despite being a member of the alliance, will be de facto excluded from all security protection and frameworks of the alliance. Thus, whether it is Egypt, Iran, Syria or Iraq, it will be left alone and helpless / without solutions / without allies on all fronts.

In the meantime, I would like to emphasize one point. A conflict within NATO does not collapse it or render it dysfunctional. It will start a philosophical debate that will last for years. In this process, Europe will suffer the most. The quality and quantity of NATO intervention in all conflicts that develop during these years will be left entirely to the US initiative. When the debates are over, a NATO security organization with a more global scale and global ambitions may even emerge, perhaps with the inclusion of countries such as Japan and South Korea. Turkey may be left in a vulnerable situation while going through a special process in which it will be kept both in and out of the alliance. It may (desirably) be divided and disintegrated. In the end, it would be forced to give up its national interests and goals completely, almost as a subordinate.

Conclusion

I believe that the foreign military plans being developed against Turkey are not being planned by a land general or a naval admiral, but by an air general who has also been a pilot and has devoted his life to the air force. Because I sense that we are confronted with an agile, dynamic chain of battles, planned in waves, full of speed and surprises. To be caught unprepared for one thing while dealing with another, to be squeezed on one front while fighting on the opposite front. This kind of chaotic intervention planning reeks of the intelligence of an aviation staff. Therefore, I believe that for the Turkish Military Staff, which is shaped by the land school, it carries an identity that is more difficult to understand.

Turkey does not have a war risk. It risks a chain of wars and struggles. Turkey does not have a single enemy. It has many enemies waiting for their turn. The two and a half war strategy of the past has turned into a discourse that is far from being able to meet our real needs. I would like you to look at the problems we are facing from this perspective.