New path to peace and welfare
After the Cold War period, when the Soviet Union ended the hegemony war with the U.S. in the early 1990s, the U.S. attempted to become the only hegemonic power in the system through a new imperial strategy. However, it faced a historical question: The empire that the U.S. wanted to establish without the Soviet Union was based on the political and economic paradigm that emerged in the 20th century. This paradigm was a state of crisis that kept the technology in the West alone to gain economic rent and that transferred the East's resources, including human capital, to the West though "contemporary" monetary and fiscal policies. In this way, it disrupted income distribution and escalated poverty, despair and hunger in the eastern and southern parts of the world. This state of crisis also disrupted political and economic balances in developing and underdeveloped countries and the West's crisis emerged as a crisis of nation states. In fact, the financial crises, which started in the mid-1990s and spread to all developing countries in a domino effect, foreshadowed the great crisis that would break out in 2008. Meanwhile, nation states and small states that survived thanks to the balance ensured by the Soviet Union especially in the Middle East also began shaking. For instance, the Baath regimes began signaling that they would not be able to remain in power in Iraq and Syria for a long time unlike before.
Meanwhile, all paramilitary structures that the U.S. created against the Soviet Union in this region during the Cold War period became dysfunctional - which laid the foundations for out-of-control organizations in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The rising poverty and disappearing nation state authority helped these organizations achieve a power that led them to create a new global wave of terror in a short space of time, giving rise to the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. Indeed, for the U.S., the 9/11 process was the name of an inevitable dead end that would have certain consequences. The U.S. thought that it would reestablish the dissolved nation states in the Middle East in its own axis through new invasion politics. However, the U.S. failed to foresee that the rapidly approaching crisis on the horizon was its own crisis and would break out in the heart of the country starting with the President Barack Obama's administration. The crisis taught the U.S. that former President George W. Bush's invasion politics would lead to no end, however, it revealed a greater systemic crisis than the Middle Eastern question. Back then, Asia Pacific and China started taking steps toward a new world that would upset all the existing balances. The West's technological superiority faded away. The monetary system that was established after World War II was at the mercy of China. If China had not financed the U.S., not only the U.S., but also the whole system, would have collapsed. As such, the U.S. shifted its political and economic activities toward Asia Pacific from the main control areas such as the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. At the same time, however, this led to the emergence of an authority gap in the U.S. When the U.S.'s formal foreign policy was built on withdrawal from hot spots, the neocon bloc unofficially filled the gap in these regions including the Middle East. This bloc started guiding terrorist organizations like the People's Protection Units (YPG), DAESH and Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ), the last one of which attempted to stage a coup in Turkey.
On the other hand, there was no reason why Russia and Iran could not do what China and South Korea did in key areas like the defense industry. Indeed, it happened. In 2008, Turkey was the only "concrete" strategic ally of the U.S. in the vast region spanning from Europe to the Caucasus. However, a new political formation was emerging in Turkey with the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) rule in 2002. Under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's leadership, this formation started questioning tutelary politics and the new colonialist economic approach that transferred funds overseas. In other words, Turkey realized that if it could achieve what the Pacific countries had, it would not be affected by the U.S. and Europe's crises and would even be able to turn these crises into an opportunity. When the West's crisis broke out in 2008, under Erdoğan's initiative, Turkey severed ties with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was an institution of the crisis. Following this, first, all the powers of the old tutelary system came into play. Then, FETÖ, which was a new kind of Gladio, was mobilized. What happened from 2008 to July 15, 2016, as well as what is aimed against Erdoğan during both his prime ministry and presidency, is clear as day. They went to every length, including turning Erdoğan into an immobilized leader and ousting him through a coup.
The Syrian civil war and the invasion of Iraq are hot conflict areas that the U.S.'s neocon bloc created in order to design countries like Turkey in accordance with the new era and destabilize the entirety of the region. Indeed, these hot conflict areas were designed as the U.S.'s conventional military operation regions to the extent that it could supervise organizations like the YPG and DAESH. In this process, the U.S. was afraid that Iraqi Kurds would declare independence in the north of Iraq and this would lead to the creation of a new stable area depending on Turkey, and prevented this formation. The EU, particularly Germany, adopted a similar approach to that of the U.S. However, when the Syrian civil war and Iraq's situation, especially the refugee crisis, started threatening the EU, this new situation, coupled with the Russian and Iranian factors, ceased to be a sustainable card for the U.S. Now, it is becoming clear that this strategy is rather bad for the U.S. as well. The continuation of the Syrian civil war by insisting on Bashar Assad's regime played into the hands of Russia, however, it did not serve the U.S. At this point, the U.S. must question its policy.
If the Syrian civil war ends and a new state of stability is achieved in Iraq with a strong Turkey, obviously, the Asian development will continue from Turkey. In this case, the U.S. will have to share its power game in energy and commercial routes with Turkey and other countries in the region. This sharing will coincide with the U.S.'s interests in the long run and open a new era. No one should be afraid of this.
Certainly, Turkey's operation against DAESH in Syria is a sign of a new era, which means that the period of civil wars and terrorist organizations is beginning to end. In short, it is not possible to survive in the 21st century with a 20th century mindset.
Meanwhile, all paramilitary structures that the U.S. created against the Soviet Union in this region during the Cold War period became dysfunctional - which laid the foundations for out-of-control organizations in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. The rising poverty and disappearing nation state authority helped these organizations achieve a power that led them to create a new global wave of terror in a short space of time, giving rise to the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. Indeed, for the U.S., the 9/11 process was the name of an inevitable dead end that would have certain consequences. The U.S. thought that it would reestablish the dissolved nation states in the Middle East in its own axis through new invasion politics. However, the U.S. failed to foresee that the rapidly approaching crisis on the horizon was its own crisis and would break out in the heart of the country starting with the President Barack Obama's administration. The crisis taught the U.S. that former President George W. Bush's invasion politics would lead to no end, however, it revealed a greater systemic crisis than the Middle Eastern question. Back then, Asia Pacific and China started taking steps toward a new world that would upset all the existing balances. The West's technological superiority faded away. The monetary system that was established after World War II was at the mercy of China. If China had not financed the U.S., not only the U.S., but also the whole system, would have collapsed. As such, the U.S. shifted its political and economic activities toward Asia Pacific from the main control areas such as the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. At the same time, however, this led to the emergence of an authority gap in the U.S. When the U.S.'s formal foreign policy was built on withdrawal from hot spots, the neocon bloc unofficially filled the gap in these regions including the Middle East. This bloc started guiding terrorist organizations like the People's Protection Units (YPG), DAESH and Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ), the last one of which attempted to stage a coup in Turkey.
On the other hand, there was no reason why Russia and Iran could not do what China and South Korea did in key areas like the defense industry. Indeed, it happened. In 2008, Turkey was the only "concrete" strategic ally of the U.S. in the vast region spanning from Europe to the Caucasus. However, a new political formation was emerging in Turkey with the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) rule in 2002. Under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's leadership, this formation started questioning tutelary politics and the new colonialist economic approach that transferred funds overseas. In other words, Turkey realized that if it could achieve what the Pacific countries had, it would not be affected by the U.S. and Europe's crises and would even be able to turn these crises into an opportunity. When the West's crisis broke out in 2008, under Erdoğan's initiative, Turkey severed ties with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was an institution of the crisis. Following this, first, all the powers of the old tutelary system came into play. Then, FETÖ, which was a new kind of Gladio, was mobilized. What happened from 2008 to July 15, 2016, as well as what is aimed against Erdoğan during both his prime ministry and presidency, is clear as day. They went to every length, including turning Erdoğan into an immobilized leader and ousting him through a coup.
The Syrian civil war and the invasion of Iraq are hot conflict areas that the U.S.'s neocon bloc created in order to design countries like Turkey in accordance with the new era and destabilize the entirety of the region. Indeed, these hot conflict areas were designed as the U.S.'s conventional military operation regions to the extent that it could supervise organizations like the YPG and DAESH. In this process, the U.S. was afraid that Iraqi Kurds would declare independence in the north of Iraq and this would lead to the creation of a new stable area depending on Turkey, and prevented this formation. The EU, particularly Germany, adopted a similar approach to that of the U.S. However, when the Syrian civil war and Iraq's situation, especially the refugee crisis, started threatening the EU, this new situation, coupled with the Russian and Iranian factors, ceased to be a sustainable card for the U.S. Now, it is becoming clear that this strategy is rather bad for the U.S. as well. The continuation of the Syrian civil war by insisting on Bashar Assad's regime played into the hands of Russia, however, it did not serve the U.S. At this point, the U.S. must question its policy.
If the Syrian civil war ends and a new state of stability is achieved in Iraq with a strong Turkey, obviously, the Asian development will continue from Turkey. In this case, the U.S. will have to share its power game in energy and commercial routes with Turkey and other countries in the region. This sharing will coincide with the U.S.'s interests in the long run and open a new era. No one should be afraid of this.
Certainly, Turkey's operation against DAESH in Syria is a sign of a new era, which means that the period of civil wars and terrorist organizations is beginning to end. In short, it is not possible to survive in the 21st century with a 20th century mindset.