Kobani: the ambiguous attitude of Turkey:

The tactic of passive Turkey before the advancing Islamic state, especially in the Kurdish areas, has cracked under American pressure and the real possibility of jeopardizing the peace process with the Kurdistan Workers Party. The violent protests that occurred in the country turkish, by Kurds, against the decision of the government in Ankara to attend without interfering with the conquest of Kobani, have seriously affected the already not very good international image of Turkey. Ankara, worried by the possibility, occurring on its borders where the replica of the autonomy of the Kurds in Iraq have decided not to intervene with his men and military means to defend the city of Kobani, inhabited mainly by citizens Kurdish and even that did not allow the Kurds of Turkey would pass its border to work alongside the fighters, who are defending strenuously Kobani. Erdogan's government, which has already been responsible, on the contrary, the passage of fundamentalist fighters across the border in Turkey, who have gone to swell the ranks of the army of the caliphate, to suit their own political calculation to help bring down the regime Assad still considered the most dangerous Kurds, that the Islamic state directly on their border. It is a short-sighted view, which believes it can control the caliphate. Ankara's membership alliance against the Islamic state was not convinced of the beginning and despite the approval by the parliament for military intervention in Syria, the armed forces of Turkey, are still stuck in observe the attack Kobani. The proposal to Ankara was to create a buffer zone between its territory and the Syrian, combined with a no-fly zone, to create an area where it would be possible to hold off the forces of the caliphate. This hypothesis, however, was rejected by Washington because it takes too long to be put into practice and exposes too much risk to military personnel. In fact, the reasons put forward by the United States are not unreasonable, and indicate how the strategy of Turkey has been brought almost to be rejected and accordingly to leave everything as it is and leave Kobani to his fate. In the vision Turkish attempts to achieve two goals simultaneously: the first is to weaken the Kurdish forces, so that they can not harm you in any way to the stability of Turkey, according to overthrow the regime in Damascus to encourage the establishment of a government with address moderate Islamic, modeled on that of Ankara and perhaps closely tied to the country turkish. In this perspective, the caliphate is interpreted as a symptom of the malaise in the region, a sort of response in the religious to popular discontent due to the presence of authoritarian regimes, Syria, or favoring particular parts of a country, such as the Scythians in Iraq . The White House, however, has a different interpretation, which is not in accordance with the Turkish one: in the USA the success of the Islamic state is due to incorrect assessments of states in the region, like Turkey itself, but also the Gulf monarchies, which have helped with their funding minority groups, but particularly aggressive and expression of most Sunni fundamentalists, from which was born the caliphate, to overthrow Assad and remove the influence of Syria from Iran. This hypothesis is so true that, at present, the United States between the Islamic state and the regime in Damascus, consider first a real threat to the West, while the second remains a dangerous dictatorship in the regional, but that does not represent a direct risk to the interests of Washington and its closest allies. From a Western point of view this interpretation is flawless: in front of the upheaval led the Islamic state, among other things in so little time, Assad remains a threat to the second floor. It is, however, two alternative visions and in stark contrast, as to be opposed, in the same part of the battlefield. The opening of Turkish bases for military aircraft of the coalition is not enough to alleviate the suspicion that Ankara is, in this case, an unreliable ally, in the USA there is more to the complication of the pressures Kurds, who have always been, since the war against Saddam, a steadfast partner and represent, in the battle with the Islamic state, the only forces on the ground, coating, therefore, a fundamental role in the tactical picture. Washington must find a solution as soon as possible, without discarding to come to terms with Moscow and Beijing to promote a common decision in the seat of the Security Council. An agreement with Moscow could not, however, prevent the salvation for Assad.