"And I have found both freedom and safety in my madness, the freedom of loneliness and the safety from being understood, for those who understand us enslave something in us. But let me not be too proud of my safety. Even a Thief in a jail is safe from another thief. "

Khalil Gibran (How I Became a Madman)

Lübnan Marunîleri / Yasin Atlıoğlu

NEWS AND ARTICLES / HABERLER VE MAKALELER

Saturday, June 20, 2015

The Concept of Helsinki Accords and the Search for a Strategy in Syria and Iraq- MEB

The Concept of Helsinki Accords and the Search for a Strategy in Syria and Iraq.

The Middle East now is in many aspects reminiscent of the pre First World War Europe. The atmosphere is charged and waiting for just an Archduke to be assassinated. History usually volunteers the spark. Willingly thereafter, it appropriates the actions of those who did not care to read its previous chapters and learn to avoid the pain they may inflect on self and others.


What could the world community do? A lot. Yet, the main burden lies squarely on the regional leaders’ shoulders before anybody else. Instead of waiting for Franz Ferdinand, the region needs a vision that deeply believes there is no winners in any expected military confrontation.


It is inconceivable that the current “local” war spots like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya can go on forever. For if they do not burn their own wood, which is mostly regional, hence abundant, they will end up bringing the forces behind the scene to step, unmasked, into the stage.


US air raids, nicknamed “international Coalition”, are but a “technical” action in a crisis that is political and strategic in essence. Neither the raids-or any appendixes like sending more troops-nor dreaming of a quick change in the structural nature of the Middle Eastern societies will end this long wait for the Austrio-Hungarian Archduke. Any military effort is understood, but the flower is not exactly there.


Pentagon leaders feel obliged to address the issue of US strategy in the Middle East as they seem to be doing in the media. They recently explained that there is a strategy and that it is what could be practically done under the circumstances. Yet, one does not fully understand why it should be the Pentagon’s job to define America’s strategy. Any strategy is by definition more comprehensive than its military aspect, if there should be such an aspect at all. Washington’s culture seems to have gotten itself accustomed to militarized foreign policy to the extent that whenever the word strategy is uttered, everybody turns their heads to the Pentagon.


http://mebriefing.com/?p=1758