The lack of cooperation of Turkey in the fight against the caliphate:

Among the displaced, who are directed from Syria to Turkey, there are a large part of Kurdish ethnicity; this aspect has alarmed the authorities in Ankara, so as to block the border to stop the flow. The Kurds are fleeing from the unremitting offensive forces of the Islamic State, which has concentrated its action in this part of the Syrian territory, in retaliation for the military activity that fighters of Iraqi Kurdistan has been waging against the forces of the caliphate in Iraq. The humanitarian situation is becoming untenable for the Kurdish population residing in Syria, squeezed between the advance of Islamic fundamentalists and the new attitude of Turkey. The reason for this ostracism of the turkish government would be the fear of a unification of the Kurdish fighters, called to arms by the Iraqi side, which could generate new separatist drive in the predominantly Kurdish region in Turkey. The adhesion of the Kurdistan Workers Party, an organization that has repeatedly implemented attacks against the government and the administration of Turkey, to claim the independence of the Kurds in Kurdish territory, the fight against the caliphate, not a little worried about Erdogan, and is the basis for the closure of borders. Turkey is looking pleased at the commitment in the forefront of the Kurdish fighters against the Islamic state, because it favors the creation of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq and can become an example for other Kurdish areas enclosed INSIDE tHIS the other states, as, indeed, Turkey and Iran. The border closure would thus functional to prevent the Syrian Kurds, but also Turks, go to swell the ranks of the fighters Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan. If this is true you are entitled to substantial doubts about the nature of the support of Turkey alliance of states against the caliphate. Since the beginning of the rest of the rather lukewarm attitude of Ankara has marked its accession to the alliance proposal from the United States. Turkey, in fact, has two very good reasons, from his point of view, not to assist in a comprehensive alliance against the Islamic state. The first is the one Kurdish, tending, that is, not to encourage the creation of a Kurdish nation, which could threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. The second is a substantial support to Assad that Ankara maintains, is running anti-Iranian, and so as not to encourage the democratic opposition, the one backed by Washington, in stark contrast to the confessional address taken from the turkish government. Some analysts have come to argue that Turkey has supported the caliphate in order to favor the internal divisions of the movements opposed to Assad, to penalize the secular opponents of Damascus. In any case, an entity such as the caliphate on the turkish border should not be an element of stability even for a state apparatus that is directed more and more towards a sectarian attitude, however framed in constitutional scheme clearly defined. Remember that the behavior turkish represents a significant problem for the White House. Between the two governments are no longer being the excellent relations that have marked the past times: the favor openly by the government in Ankara to the Muslim Brotherhood and the stiffening toward the voices against the government, which resulted in very critical stance by Western public opinion also due to use too harsh of police, has loose contacts that seemed very secure. At this state of affairs also helps the Kurdish issue: the USA is essential the contribution as the ground forces of the combatants of Iraqi Kurdistan, which, incidentally, are great allies of the Americans since the time of the war against Saddam Hussein. The White House has repeatedly expressed to the indissolubility territorial integrity of Iraq, but the facts are already talking openly of a division into three parts based on religious elements, Shiites and Sunnis and ethnic Kurds precisely. The authorities in Iraqi Kurdistan have already achieved a high degree of autonomy, which allowed him, among other things, to directly manage the oil resources of the area; but it is not a formal autonomy of a real state entity recognized at the international level. This legitimate aspiration of the Kurds will have to be sooner or later, be recognized officially by the United States, to recognize the most faithful allies on the ground and then determining the long-desired goal. Turkey, but also Iran and the Baghdad government are against it, in different ways to this solution, and this may constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the alliance, but at this moment the situation is more difficult than Turkish, because Iraq must think in priority node to its survival and Iran maintains an attitude, at least from the diplomatic point of view, very cautious not to jeopardize the nascent collaboration with the Americans. Ankara is therefore a real problem, both from the standpoint of military logistics, even if the air bases can be used in other areas, both from the political one, and this is the most difficult to manage. The main question is whether the United States, they must not make the war go to the caliphate as exclusively American affair, Ankara can be trusted, especially for the future or whether it should prepare countermeasures to the barriers in Turkey. It is a key issue for the political clout held from the ally turkish, if continued in its attitude to little cooperation; the scenario that might open should not be underestimated since the country turkish is a NATO member and a strategic deep contrast could determine equilibrium variables in a context where the firm is essential. For the USA then one more problem to be solved in the difficult war to the caliphate.