West prepared to sacrifice Turkey for security

ONCE thought of as a key ally of the West Turkey is becoming the scapegoat for all America and Britain's own fears.

While politicians in London and Washington wring their hands and promise increasingly sceptical and war weary electorates that they will not send in ground troops they have little compunction about demanding that Ankara does just that.

In a stunning display of arrogance and lack of foresight American lawmakers in particular have condemned Turkish government reluctance to provide support for Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists.

The lynchpin moment has become Kobani, a town on the border of Syria and Turkey which has been pushed to a position of prominence in global politics its inhabitants would once have considered impossible. 

The French author Bernard Henri Levy wrote a widely published piece questioning whether Turkey should be allowed to remain in NATO if it does not deploy ground forces to protect the embattled holdout. 

At the same time the United Nations Security council held back from issuing a place on the Security Council, something which may have demonstrated that it was prepared to acknowledge that there were long term strategies for combating ISIS, in favour of that well known bastion of stability Angola.

While liberal thinkers may be happy to condemn Turkey for not throwing its full military might behind the West and its institutions they seem oblivious to the the implications for long term Turkish security, or the hypocrisy of claiming that American airstrikes can only do so much without Turkish ground troops. Not British, American, French et al but Turkish soldiers on the ground risking their lives in a battle they are being bullied to take part in.

From a realist position Turkey must focus on maintaining its own security. While international institutions such as NATO and the UN may be seen as necessary it is the authority of the state which is the highest authority in the international system. 

At present ISIS is unlikely to launch an attack directly against Turkey, although it undoubtedly has the ability. Alternatively Kurdish terrorists from the PKK have long made it clear that they are prepared to do just that. 

From a security position Turkey would at most risk individual acts from ISIS, which it could easily control with its experience of handling terrorists incidents, if it allowed its allies to use its airbases to launch airstrikes. If, however, it was to expand military forces and equipment in a ground war in Syria and Iraq it would spread itself across the region to protect the interests of its allies while weakening its ability to fight a longer term battle for its own internal security. By supporting Kurdish fighters against one threat officials in Ankara run a significant risk of giving them legitimacy which could lead to internal splits within Turkey further down the road.

Despite allowing Kurdish fighters to cross its borders to engage with ISIS this is no enough for Western powers who, in a stunning display of hubris, have yet again only seen the need to combat an immediate threat without any thought of the long term implications.  

The West needs Iran against IS

AMID the chaos of the Islamic State assault on the Middle East the meeting of Britain and Iranian leaders offers a moment of historic potential.

The meeting in New York between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and British Prime Minister David Cameron will be the first time that leaders of the two countries have held official meetings since 1979. 

For the millions of people under constant threat in Iraq and Syria the news of potential cooperation between the state, once considered one of the most dangerous in the world, and the rest of the allies opposing the threat of the IS the news cannot come soon enough.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are flooding into Turkey as the fighting in Syria heats up and the first time since the start of the conflict American airstrikes have been used against IS forces in Syria. It is clear that the battle against the group is entering a dangerous new phase, far beyond that of the murder of western hostages.

At the weekend former British Prime Minister, and current Middle East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair released a 6500 word article on his Faith Foundation website calling for a ground incursion against fighters in Iraq and Syria. 

Laying out a seven point plan to combat the threat of global extremism Mr Blair makes repeated attempts to link unrest in China with a common problem of extremist Islam in the Middle East. As such he argues that it is only through joining with China that the West can show they are not the only ones fighting rising fundamentalism. His plan hinges on demonstrating that it is a global battle against such groups.

Mr Blair missed talking about how much more successful this plan would have been if it involved Iran in operations. Instead he did call for arguments about human rights in Egypt to be quietened down as we link arms to fight against terrorists. 

Working with Iran is only contentious due to historically imbedded ideals. Relations are already thawing and while talks on nuclear programmes have not met desired results for either side they are still continuing.

Potential cooperation has become all the more important as Turkish involvement in the fight against the state remains understandably cool. Unlike the West Turkey must look at the terrible prospect of IS success in the region. 

For Turkey the fight against IS has long term consequences no matter the outcome. Clashes with Kurds at the weekend are yet more evidence of the tenuous position its government is in. 

For the West arming and supporting Kurdish fighters seems a way of avoiding placing its own ground troops in harms way. For Turkey, however, it poses long term security implications as Kurds demand more autonomy from Ankara.

By bringing Iran into the battle all out Turkish involvement may be avoided while still demonstrating that this is a war not against Islam but against evil. 

ISIS aren't just another terror threat

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a stark warning that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has planned six terrorist attacks in Europe.

His warnings come as sources close to the security services revealed that they have identified the insurgent known as Jihadi John, believed to be responsible for the murders of American journalists James Foley and Stephen Sutloff.

In a statement to MP's Mr Cameron said: "The point I would make even today to the British people is: be in no doubt about the threat that so-called Islamic State poses to us. We have already seen something like six planned attacks in the countries of the European Union from [Isis], including of course that appalling attack in the Brussels Jewish museum, where innocent people were killed. That flows directly from this organisation."

While ISIS, which is also known as Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), may be planning attacks against the West it would be far too simple to think of them as just another terrorist organisation.

ISIS may have started out as an offshoot from Al-Queda, however, it has now morphed into something all the more dangerous and insidious.

"This is not a terrorism problem anymore,” says Jessica Lewis, an expert on ISIS at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. “This is an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain.”

"We are using the word encircle,” Lewis tells TIME. “They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don’t know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq.”

ISIS's metamorphosis creates an issue in the way in which the British government, and nations as a whole, need to combat them. Traditional methods of dealing with a terrorist threat has involved cutting off supply and removing leadership. In the case of ISIS these are unlikely to work though. Due to the territory it has taken and the armaments it continues to capture it has essentially become self sustaining in terms of supply. While it has a powerful leader in the form of  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi it is increasingly clear that his removal would have little impact on the long term effectiveness of the group with a replacement likely waiting in the wings. 

The British government has already confirmed that it will supply arms to Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi government waging a war against the spread of ISIS.

The Prime Minister has said: “I have always said we would respond positively to requests from them for the direct supply and we are now prepared to do that and so will be providing them with arms, as the Germans and others will.

“Also with allies, we think it’s right to step up our training and mentoring efforts and so we’ve said we would be willing if they would like to train a battalion of Peshmerga fighters because they are doing such a vital job.”

As the conflict continues though more may need to be done. While another military intervention in the Middle East is less than palatable it may become necessary as the group becomes viewed as an occupying army rather than a terrorist group. 

A threat to journalists is a threat to freedom

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron is set to chair a meeting of the government's emergency response committee COBRA in the aftermath of the brutal murder of another journalist.

A video purporting to show the beheading of 31-year-old American journalist Stephen Sotloff has created anger across the world. It follows the video released last month of the killing of fellow journalist James Foley.

Mr Cameron released a statement following the release of the video:  “I’ve just seen the news. It’s an absolutely disgusting and despicable act and I will be making a statement later.”

At the end of the video the masked terrorist warned that a British journalist would be next unless the United Kingdom stays out of the battle in Iraq and Syria against the group, which calls itself the Islamic State.

In the video entitled "A second message to America" the man, believed to be the murderer of Mr Foley, threatens to continue killing unless the United States ceases airstrikes against IS terrorists in Iraq.

"I'm back, Obama, and I'm back because of your arrogant foreign policy toward the Islamic State ... despite our serious warnings," the fighter says. "So just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people."

The video highlights the risks to foreign correspondents posed by terrorist groups. By utilising social media outlets the group has been able to maximise the impact of the killings has had, and subsequently made them seem more attractive to terrorist organisations.

Michelle Stanistreet, National Union of Journalists general secretary, released a statement in a August in which she warned of the dangers faced by journalists around the world.

"This summer's events in the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa have produced a dangerous and lethal climate for foreign correspondents and journalists in the field reporting on bloody conflicts and for the local journalists recording events in such dangerous territory. It is deeply alarming to see that journalists are becoming direct targets and their lives are being put at risk...

"It is a simple fact that freedom of the press and free expression are not possible where journalists face extreme violence for doing their job."

Playing on public opinion and feelings of horror allows the criminal gangs spreading bloodshed to feel that they are able to prevent governments from intervening to prevent further substantial losses of life.

It is the bravery of journalists such as Mr Sotloff and Foley who refuse to be cowed which undermines their insidious aims. Through the threat of death many more are still operating, reporting the news and bringing the publics attention to the very acts which the killers want to be allowed to continue. 

Liberty and security, a tightrope balancing act

CONTROVERSY over social media surveillance has hit new levels following confirmation of monitoring by British security services.

In a statement released by Charles Farr, the Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, GCHQ is legally entitled to intercept UK residents’ Facebook and Google communications 

because they are defined as ‘external communications’.

The news comes as concerns rise over the systematic use by terrorist organisations, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), of social media to spread propaganda and recruit fighters.

"ISIS is making effective use of startling images depicting their operations, notably including mass executions of Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit last week. Their fearsome reputation, bolstered by such images, has translated into success on the battlefield, with Iraqi security forces fleeing strategic towns and cities rather than engage the militants directly," Jordan Perry, an analyst at risk advisory company Maplecroft, has been reported as saying. "It is very likely that intelligence agencies in Europe, the US and elsewhere are monitoring the online chatter of Islamist groups – including Isis – very closely indeed."

The balancing between privacy rights and the need to forestall potential terror campaigns is not a new issue. Following leaks by former United States intelligence analyst Edward Snowden concerning the level of government surveillance observers have questioned how much liberty can be sacrificed in the name of security.

In his statement Mr Farr says: "Any regime that … only permitted interception in relation to specific persons or premises, would not have allowed adequate levels of intelligence information to be obtained and would not have met the undoubted requirements of intelligence for the protection of national security."

Meanwhile privacy rights campaigners and politicians have hit back, calling for an overhaul of the 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA) to block, what they claim, is an attempt by security agencies to circumvent the law.

Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, was reported by the Guardian newspaper as saying: "Mr Farr's statement is the best argument I have seen for a thorough overhaul of surveillance law to bring it into the modern age. When Ripa was enacted, social media didn't exist.

"It is fatuous to pretend that elderly laws can cope with modern communications, as Mr Farr convincingly demonstrates. No doubt our intelligence agencies take their legal duties seriously, but the problem is that those legal duties fail to address the 21st century. We need new laws to counter new threats, carrying public confidence with them."

The debate over how much access to people's private information often overlooks certain considerations, however. The open nature of access to social media and the unfeasible prospect of monitoring millions of different accounts are often quoted as reasons for people not to fear scrutiny of their individual accounts.

So long as groups, such as ISIS, continue to expand their use of social networking sites to recruit impressionable young members it seems unlikely that any restriction of abilities to stop widespread terror attacks will gain the needed momentum to bring about a significant change in the law.

"I think it was obvious very early on that they (ISIS) launched their offensive with a social media campaign well planned in advance. This wasn't an afterthought. This wasn't something that they made up as they went along," said American analyst John Little, who monitors national security, conflicts and technology at Blogs of War.

Blair's blame game

AS THE conflict in Iraq escalates comments made by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have caused outrage among observers.

Reports of mass killings of Iraqi soldiers by members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added fuel to calls for the international community to take action in the violence ridden state. Aid groups have warned that America and Britain need to intervene to prevent a wide scale humanitarian crisis emerging, telling leaders that they must take some responsibility for leaving the country ill-prepared to deal with threats following the 2003 invasion.

Meanwhile Mr Blair, who was made United Nations envoy to the Middle East in 2007, told the British Broadcasting Corporation that the current situation was inevitable and the West cannot be held accountable.

Claiming that the concept Iraq would be more stable if former leader Saddam Hussein had been left in power was simply not credible".

"Even if you'd left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened - and you had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria - you would have still had a major problem in Iraq," he said.

"Indeed, you can see what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened with Assad now. The problems don't go away."

Mr Blair's statement has been heavily criticised by politicians, aid agencies and former military and diplomatic officials.

Writing in the Telegraph on Monday London Mayor Boris Johnson said: "I have come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad. He wrote an essay on his website on Sunday that struck me as unhinged in its refusal to face facts. In discussing the disaster of modern Iraq he made assertions that are so jaw-droppingly and breathtakingly at variance with reality that he surely needs professional psychiatric help.

Tony Blair now believes that all this was “always, repeat always” going to happen. As an attempt to rewrite history, this is frankly emetic"

The British Ambassador to the United Nations at the beginning of the American led 2003 invasion, Sir Christopher Meyer,  was reported as saying: ""We are reaping what we sowed in 2003. This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule."

Both Britain and America have ruled out sending ground troops to support the embattled Iraqi forces of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. 

Mr Blair's blinkered approach to the situation may further inflame anger that his role in the 2003 invasion has not been fully investigated, and that reports on the war remain partially obscured to the public's eyes.

Threat to US and Britain on doorstep following Iraq escalation

WITH America and Britain unwilling to become involved in the escalating conflict in Iraq fears have arisen of home-grown terrorists joining the fighting in the Middle East.

Concerns have started to grow that British and American nationals have been recruited by fundamentalist groups to fight in Iraq and Syria.

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating allegations that approximately 15 men travelled to Syria to join up with groups against the hardline forces of President Bashar A-Assad. On Thursday a spokesman from  the FBI’s Minneapolis office, Kyle Loven, was reported as saying that the bureau had received information indicating that 10 to 15 men from the region's large Somali community had travelled from the Minneapolis-St Paul area to Syria.

While it has been known for some time that both British and American nationals have been joining with terrorist groups in the Middle East fears that some may have linked up with the ultra-radical group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added a new dimension to the nature of international interference in the region.

According to a statement from the office of British Prime Minister the insurgency in Iraq is part of an “arc of extremism” which is starting to engulf the Middle East. The British Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, suspects that approximately 500 British citizens have travelled to Syria to take part in the campaign, and may now have joined up with ISIS in Iraq.

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman was reported as saying: “Our Security Services and all the relevant agencies will be monitoring those types of risks very closely. Clearly there is a very porous border between parts of Syria and parts of Iraq.

“As the PM has said, the greatest extremist activity and jihadist threats to the international community are in Syria. We need to keep these things under very close watch.”

While America and Britain have claimed that they have no intention of re-engaging in Iraq to combat the growing insurgent threat both countries may find that the conflict is brought to their doors.

Turkey may force action in Iraq

AS ISLAMIST insurgents gain ground in Iraq America may find its hand forced if Turkey takes action.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has taken control of Iraq's second largest city Mosul and the home city of former dictator Saddam Hussein, Tikrit. The group, led by former Al Qaeda hardliner Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi, has also announced intentions to push on to Baghdad and beyond.

During the taking of Mosul insurgents kidnapped 49 members of the Turkish consulate, including three children. The attack follows the taking of 31 Turkish lorry drivers on Tuesday in the region.

 Turkish officials have threatened severe consequences if any of the hostages are harmed. 

"All those involved should know that if our citizens are harmed in any way, they will be the subject of harsh reprisals," Turkish media quoted Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu as saying at the United Nations in New York.

As a member of the United Nations Security Council Turkey's actions may have wider implications for the growing conflict.

In a statement UN officials said that they "strongly denounced the taking of hostages at the Turkish Consulate and insist on the immediate and safe return of all personnel.  They condemned acts of violence against diplomatic and consular representatives, which endanger or take innocent lives and seriously impede the normal work of such representatives and officials."

Meanwhile United States Ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers said that she "strongly condemned attacks in Mosul by the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant and its efforts to turn back clock on Iraq's progress."

Turkish influence may put pressure on American President Barack Obama to take a firm stance against the terrorist campaign being waged in Iraq. 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has informally called on the United States to provide air and drone support as ground forces attempt to repel the rebels. Battle weary America has not made any signs it will seek to become engaged in another conflict in the country, from which it withdrew troops in December 2011, preferring to provide aid to Iraqi forces to maintain its own security. 

Some American officials have already expressed concerns about becoming too involved. Instead they blame Prime Minister Maliki failure to include the Sunni population in politics for the current crisis. 

"He's obviously not been a good prime minister," the Associated Press reported Senator Bob Corker, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as saying. "He has not done a good job of reaching out to the Sunni population, which has caused them to be more receptive to al-Qaida efforts."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been hesitant to become embroiled in the situation, releasing a statement in which FCO Minister Hugh Robertson said: "We fully support the Iraqi government in its fight against terrorism, and call for the safety of all civilians to be ensured. It is vital that all Iraqi authorities co-operate to tackle the challenges Iraq faces, and we call for a new Iraqi government to be formed quickly to allow political leaders to work together to tackle the causes of insecurity in Iraq."

With the situation looking only to escalate and Turkish involvement plausible Britain and America may find that they are forced to do more than condemn and instead take action.