Tweet
WHAT DO STRATEGY AND HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE TELL US?
By Enol Ozbek*
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Nov 1 2007
The history of the Ottoman Empire shows us that despite it being well
into the 1450s and the Turkish army having passed through Kosovo,
Istanbul still remained unconquered.
If the Ottoman Empire had been more focused on the conquest of
Istanbul instead of advancing through Kosovo, the conquest would
have been achieved much earlier. But the Ottoman rulers opted to
launch limited and sporadic attacks on Istanbul and initiated the
last comprehensive campaign only in 1453. The reason for this choice
is obvious -- the Byzantine Empire was first conquered through the
Muslims sent inside Byzantine territory specifically for the spread
of Islam, after which, strategies to hold the city at bay rather than
to conquer it were developed. This is a fact evidenced by the remark
of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, who said, "The defense line of the
country that holds Istanbul is the Danube." The last move to conquer
the city was made when the Danube was taken under control, and even
the clerics of the Byzantine Empire said they would prefer the Turks
instead of the Byzantines. This process was one of the most important
strategies implemented by the Ottoman Empire in its early days.
Thanks to this strategy and its ideological support, communities
from different religions, races and nations coexisted in peace for
centuries under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
We lost local people; confidants of Ataturk
In order for the current rulers of our country to see how the events
of history have affected current strategies, we had to experience
the outbreak of the genocidal campaign in Bosnia. In the end, we
realized that we were actually unaware of the strategies based on
the idea of historical background. While we had to draw lessons from
what happened, put the historical background under a spotlight and
revise our strategies, we failed to do so, ultimately leading to
an ironic situation under which historical background put us under
the spotlight. This is the description of the picture in regards
to terrorism and the situation in northern Iraq. The Turkish state
still deals with the problems associated with the bad decisions and
strategies advanced by the rulers who consider the people who remain
in the northern part of the border region artificially portrayed
by British military officers as Turks and those who remain in the
southern part as Kurds; thus our state leaders remain unaware of the
region's history. Nobody has been able to explain how we would be
able to embrace the far south while we failed to embrace the people
of the southeastern region.
During the negotiations held to discuss the southern border of Turkey,
Ataturk was so confident that the people in the north of Iraq would be
eager to join Turkey that he asked for a plebiscite without making any
distinction between south or deep south. The implementation of this
approach was prevented by way of British political strategies. The
point we have to think about here is that how these people who
should have become Turkey's spiritual citizens considering Ataturk's
confidence in their loyalty to this country turned disloyal.
There is no room for "I wish" or "if only" statements in the life
of a state. But if only Turkey had mobilized its army through the
border when Saddam attacked these people to show its solidarity with
them and its determination that it would not allow something bad to
happen to these people who it considered brothers. If only Turkey had
mobilized its army through the Armenian border when Armenia assaulted
and invaded Azeri territories. In other words, if only Turkey had been
ready in those days. It could not because it lacked such a visionary
approach. It was only a dream at that time to expect Turkey's readiness
for such action because those who made reference to the historical
background idea were accused of being racist and expansionist.
At the current stage, we have to deal with a number of intertwined
problems. Turkey will either resolve these problems with professionals
in light of the strategy, or it will lose impact and power if it fails
to adequately address them. My intention is not to make excessive
and unnecessary warnings. My intention is to detail our current
point. Those who portrayed the terrorists as people who roam the
mountains with their guitars and not guns today assert that Massoud
Barzani should be the real target. More interestingly, despite the fact
that the government insists the target is the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK) alone, the call for targeting Barzani finds support even within
the state. Turkey has been transformed from a country discussing the
reforms to be introduced in the near future, including constitutional
amendments, into a country that is being dragged into a conflict with
the US, and where those who make reference to reason and calmness
are accused of treason.
Mithat Pasha and his friends in 1877-1878
My approach should not be taken as a suggestion for submission to
the US projects and ignorance of the activities of the terrorist
organization in the region. Initiation of a military operation to
address the terrorist threat stemming from another country and taking
the risk of confronting the groups inside that country are completely
different things. It should be pointed out that an operation in a
foreign country cannot be successful unless the groups in this country
support this action. While the validity of this fact is obvious, it
is not understandable to insult the people of the region called the
"Kurdish Autonomous Region." The military operation directed by this
logic and the impact of this operation on the brotherhood between
Kurds and the Kurdish people in this region should also be reviewed.
Turkey is moving toward shaky ground akin to that created before the
1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War -- a move that will disrupt the domestic
balance. Before the war, Mithat Pasha and his friends accused the
sultan who refrained from signing the declaration of war of acting
cowardly and committing treason, further mobilizing the madrasah
students and the public to force the sultan to sign. In the end,
the Ottoman Empire had to deal with its most serious problem by which
its collapse began. It should also be recalled that the same war was
the beginning of the collapse of the winner, the Russian Empire. War
should be considered the last resort under any circumstances.
"Defeating the enemy without war is the highest point of mastery,"
a statement coined by Sun-Tzu, should be always be kept in mind.
Another point that should be underlined in terms of the logic of
the masses is the wrong view that this operation will eliminate
terrorism. The terrorist organization's decision to take a certain
area as its base is of course important, but Turkey's lack of a
comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism is more important.
* ªenol Ozbek is a retired lieutenant colonel.
--Boundary_(ID_Wilf965QJitqC17gVPbe0Q)--
By Enol Ozbek*
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Nov 1 2007
The history of the Ottoman Empire shows us that despite it being well
into the 1450s and the Turkish army having passed through Kosovo,
Istanbul still remained unconquered.
If the Ottoman Empire had been more focused on the conquest of
Istanbul instead of advancing through Kosovo, the conquest would
have been achieved much earlier. But the Ottoman rulers opted to
launch limited and sporadic attacks on Istanbul and initiated the
last comprehensive campaign only in 1453. The reason for this choice
is obvious -- the Byzantine Empire was first conquered through the
Muslims sent inside Byzantine territory specifically for the spread
of Islam, after which, strategies to hold the city at bay rather than
to conquer it were developed. This is a fact evidenced by the remark
of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, who said, "The defense line of the
country that holds Istanbul is the Danube." The last move to conquer
the city was made when the Danube was taken under control, and even
the clerics of the Byzantine Empire said they would prefer the Turks
instead of the Byzantines. This process was one of the most important
strategies implemented by the Ottoman Empire in its early days.
Thanks to this strategy and its ideological support, communities
from different religions, races and nations coexisted in peace for
centuries under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
We lost local people; confidants of Ataturk
In order for the current rulers of our country to see how the events
of history have affected current strategies, we had to experience
the outbreak of the genocidal campaign in Bosnia. In the end, we
realized that we were actually unaware of the strategies based on
the idea of historical background. While we had to draw lessons from
what happened, put the historical background under a spotlight and
revise our strategies, we failed to do so, ultimately leading to
an ironic situation under which historical background put us under
the spotlight. This is the description of the picture in regards
to terrorism and the situation in northern Iraq. The Turkish state
still deals with the problems associated with the bad decisions and
strategies advanced by the rulers who consider the people who remain
in the northern part of the border region artificially portrayed
by British military officers as Turks and those who remain in the
southern part as Kurds; thus our state leaders remain unaware of the
region's history. Nobody has been able to explain how we would be
able to embrace the far south while we failed to embrace the people
of the southeastern region.
During the negotiations held to discuss the southern border of Turkey,
Ataturk was so confident that the people in the north of Iraq would be
eager to join Turkey that he asked for a plebiscite without making any
distinction between south or deep south. The implementation of this
approach was prevented by way of British political strategies. The
point we have to think about here is that how these people who
should have become Turkey's spiritual citizens considering Ataturk's
confidence in their loyalty to this country turned disloyal.
There is no room for "I wish" or "if only" statements in the life
of a state. But if only Turkey had mobilized its army through the
border when Saddam attacked these people to show its solidarity with
them and its determination that it would not allow something bad to
happen to these people who it considered brothers. If only Turkey had
mobilized its army through the Armenian border when Armenia assaulted
and invaded Azeri territories. In other words, if only Turkey had been
ready in those days. It could not because it lacked such a visionary
approach. It was only a dream at that time to expect Turkey's readiness
for such action because those who made reference to the historical
background idea were accused of being racist and expansionist.
At the current stage, we have to deal with a number of intertwined
problems. Turkey will either resolve these problems with professionals
in light of the strategy, or it will lose impact and power if it fails
to adequately address them. My intention is not to make excessive
and unnecessary warnings. My intention is to detail our current
point. Those who portrayed the terrorists as people who roam the
mountains with their guitars and not guns today assert that Massoud
Barzani should be the real target. More interestingly, despite the fact
that the government insists the target is the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK) alone, the call for targeting Barzani finds support even within
the state. Turkey has been transformed from a country discussing the
reforms to be introduced in the near future, including constitutional
amendments, into a country that is being dragged into a conflict with
the US, and where those who make reference to reason and calmness
are accused of treason.
Mithat Pasha and his friends in 1877-1878
My approach should not be taken as a suggestion for submission to
the US projects and ignorance of the activities of the terrorist
organization in the region. Initiation of a military operation to
address the terrorist threat stemming from another country and taking
the risk of confronting the groups inside that country are completely
different things. It should be pointed out that an operation in a
foreign country cannot be successful unless the groups in this country
support this action. While the validity of this fact is obvious, it
is not understandable to insult the people of the region called the
"Kurdish Autonomous Region." The military operation directed by this
logic and the impact of this operation on the brotherhood between
Kurds and the Kurdish people in this region should also be reviewed.
Turkey is moving toward shaky ground akin to that created before the
1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War -- a move that will disrupt the domestic
balance. Before the war, Mithat Pasha and his friends accused the
sultan who refrained from signing the declaration of war of acting
cowardly and committing treason, further mobilizing the madrasah
students and the public to force the sultan to sign. In the end,
the Ottoman Empire had to deal with its most serious problem by which
its collapse began. It should also be recalled that the same war was
the beginning of the collapse of the winner, the Russian Empire. War
should be considered the last resort under any circumstances.
"Defeating the enemy without war is the highest point of mastery,"
a statement coined by Sun-Tzu, should be always be kept in mind.
Another point that should be underlined in terms of the logic of
the masses is the wrong view that this operation will eliminate
terrorism. The terrorist organization's decision to take a certain
area as its base is of course important, but Turkey's lack of a
comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism is more important.
* ªenol Ozbek is a retired lieutenant colonel.
--Boundary_(ID_Wilf965QJitqC17gVPbe0Q)--