Turkey Rejects Participation In Another American Military Intervention

[CidanSultan]

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, has said it was "not appropriate" for Iran to join talks on confronting Islamic State militants, as he appeared to play down how fast countries can commit to force or other steps in an emerging coalition.

 

Mr Kerry met Turkish leaders to try to secure backing for U.S.-led action against Islamic State militants, but Ankara's reluctance to play a frontline role highlighted the difficulty of building a willing coalition for a complex military campaign in the heart of the Middle East.

 

As he tours the region to gather support for President Barack Obama's plan to strike both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi frontier to defeat Islamic State Sunni fighters, Kerry said Shi'ite Iran should have no role in talks on how to go about it.

 

Accusing Iran of being "a state sponsor of terror" and backing Syria's brutal regime, Mr Kerry said it would be inappropriate for Iranian officials to join an Iraq conference in Paris on Monday to discuss how to curb a jihadist movement that has seized a third of both Iraq and Syria. Tehran has described the coalition as "shrouded in serious ambiguities".

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

"Under the circumstances, at this moment in time, it would not be right for any number of reasons. It would not be appropriate given the many other issues that are on the table in Syria and elsewhere," he told a news conference in the Turkish capital Ankara.

 

Faced with disparate interests and goals among the region's often squabbling nations, Mr Kerry said it was too early to say publicly what individual countries were prepared to do in a broad front to cut off funds to the militants, encourage local opposition and provide humanitarian aid.

 

The Secretary of State won backing on Thursday for a "coordinated military campaign" against Islamic State from 10 Arab countries - Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and six Gulf states including rich rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

 

But it remains far from clear what role individual nations will play. While he confirmed France's commitment to use military force in Iraq, he declined to say whether France would join strikes in Syria.

 

That follows conflicting reports in key ally Britain over its potential role, with David Cameron on Thursday saying he has not ruled out military action in Syria after his foreign secretary said Britain would not take part in any airstrikes there.

 

"It is entirely premature and frankly inappropriate at this point in time to start laying out one country by one country what individual nations are going to do," said Mr Kerry, who travels to Cairo on Saturday, adding that building a coalition would take time.

 

"I'm comfortable that this will be a broad-based coalition with Arab nations, European nations, the United States, others," e said. "At the appropriate time, every role will be laid out in detail."

 

Turkey, which has the second-largest armed forces in the NATO military alliance after the United States and hosts a major U.S. Air Force base at Incirlik in its south, has so far conspicuously avoided committing to any military campaign.

 

Mr Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Prime Minister, who did not join the news conference with Mr Kerry, told Turkish television hours after their meeting that U.S. action in Iraq would not be enough on its own to bring political stability.

 

U.S. officials played down hopes of persuading Ankara to take a significant role in any military involvement, saying Friday's talks were focused on issues including Turkey's efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters crossing its territory and its role in providing humanitarian assistance.

 

"The Turks have played an extraordinary role on humanitarian aspects of the situation ... and they are going to play and have been playing a pivotal role in our efforts to crack down on foreign fighter facilitation and counter terrorist finance," a senior U.S. State Department official said before the talks.

 

President Obama's plan to fight Islamic State simultaneously in Iraq and Syria thrusts the United States directly into the midst of two different wars, in which nearly every country in the region has a stake, alliances have shifted and strategy is dominated by Islam's 1,300-year-old rift between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

 

Islamic State is made up of Sunni militants, who are fighting against a Shi'ite-led government in Iraq and a government in Syria led by members of a Shi'ite offshoot sect. It also battles against rival Sunni Islamists and more moderate Sunni groups in Syria, and Kurds on both sides of the border.

 

From the early days of the Syrian conflict, Turkey has backed mainly Sunni rebels fighting against President Bashar al-Assad. Although it is alarmed by Islamic State's rise, Turkey is wary about any military action that might weaken Assad's foes.

 

It is also concerned about strengthening Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Turkey's own Kurdish militants waged a three-decade insurgency against the Turkish state and are engaged in a delicate peace process.

[Mooge]

there is like 50 Turkish hostages ISIS is holding. if I were them, I wouldn't participate any kind of attack against ISIS until I secure release of the hostages. what is in it for them? nothing. ISIS will behead all of them and is shown they don't care. they can behead hostages any minute if you piss them off.

[DoctorKenney]

ISIS is nothing like Al Qaeda.

 

Al Qaeda is a shadowy group full of secret operatives and they're never really out in the open.

 

ISIS has a different method. ISIS is an actual terrorist army. They have tanks, armored vehicles and heavy artillery. They're visible. So waging a direct war on ISIS would be far easier than it would be to wage a direct war against Al Qaeda. You can't actually see Al Qaeda. They operate in secrecy so they're practically invisible. But you can see ISIS. ISIS is out in the open, so they would be easy to kill. Turkey and all the rest of the Middle Eastern countries should directly go in and fight ISIS. It would be just like the Gulf War in 1991.

 

The Kurds have been fighting ISIS for a while now and they're gaining ground, winning several battles, but the Kurds have extremely little resources. Imagine a country like Turkey with it's immense firepower and huge number of troops fighting against ISIS. ISIS would be driven back and maybe even go underground. In the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's army in 1991 was destroyed in Kuwait, because of the immense firepower the Americans and their allies. So I don't see why it can't happen again.

[Mooge]

DoctorKenney, niyoow just imagine ISIS without the beheadings, terror, Yazidi killing and the wild massacre videos they recorded of themselves? they could have become actual Caliphate.

 

they were never serious about rule of Islam because I believe they are run by secret Western agents behind the scenes. ISIS would be unstoppable if they stood on the path of righteousness, fairness, justice and Islam. They could have expanded to the whole middle east easily. they destroyed themselves because they were never a serious group. they were terrorist group set up by the MOSAD to give Islam bad name. it a joke niyoow.

[DoctorKenney]

Mooge, the Prophet warned us in at least 10 separate Hadiths about groups like ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, etc. He warned that in the future, groups like this will arise and to be wary of them. They're called "Khawaarij" for a reason. They claim to follow Islam but they are the FURTHEST from Islam wallahi.

 

Had these people been men of truth, then nothing could possibly stop them. The masses of people in the Middle East, Nigeria, and Somalia would rally to their cause and they could establish Islam in the land, fearing no one except Allah.

 

Quran 3:110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah"