We do not know how U.S. President Donald Trump was right when he said during his election campaign that his predecessor, President Barack Obama "is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton. Co-founder. Crooked Hillary Clinton." Certainly, however, Obama was in the wrong with his prospect that the struggle against Daesh, also known as ISIS, would last for at least a decade.
In fact, the latest news about Daesh militants came from Raqqa when they left the city under the control of the U.S. and PKK-affiliated People's Protection Units (YPG) terrorists and when the U.S.-backed YPG released them from prison in Afrin and set them against the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK). Daesh, which is presented as a justification for the U.S. presence in Syria, is not actually in the field now. The few groups left cut their long beard and now wear YPG uniforms. What a huge fiasco for the U.S., is not it? Providing overt support to all terrorists in the field, it has destroyed its image of the leader of the fight against global terrorism that it somehow maintained since the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, with the disclosure of this policy, it has faced the opposition of all the countries in the region, including Turkey, its ally for half a century. In addition to many other losses, it has also pushed Turkey further toward Russia.
Obviously, a tougher road lies ahead for the U.S. However, it seems Washington, which has consigned regional policies to the Pentagon and CIA, is yet to understand the gravity of the situation. This is because it does not prevent U.S. generals from appearing in the same photographs as YPG terrorists along the Euphrates River across Turkey's southern border in Syria and shaking their fingers at Ankara. It approves the Pentagon trucks that carry weapons to communist terrorists, but no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used against civilians in a city in the U.S. or other countries in the future.
Obviously, however, it is Washington that will have the greatest difficulty explaining to its people the cost that will arise in a possible bad scenario of Turkish and U.S. troops facing off in Syria. Debates have already begun. Some are questioning the futility of this latest adventure in a region, which they cannot even show on a map. The media is questioning what this new front, in addition to the existing ones with China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, will bring to U.S. national interests. They are very right.
However, the picture is quite different in Turkey where thousands of babies are being named after the soldiers who have been killed in Syria. According to surveys, more than 80 percent of people in Turkey support the TSK operation to mop up terrorist organizations in northern Syria. This is a historic record, even for a nationalist country like Turkey.Turkish people think that operations against terrorist organizations in northern Syria along the border are not a choice but an obligation. And any government or state is supposed to meet such strong demand from the public, are not they? That is what the Turkish government is doing. That the TSK shot at terrorists who tried to enter Afrin on Tuesday, regardless of whether they carried the Syrian flag, is a clear indication of this determination.
If the U.S. wants to find a solution that best fits its national interests in this narrow area that have so many players involved, it must urgently revise its Syria policy. Leaving complexities aside, the U.S. should acknowledge that it is a more rational solution to meet its expectations in Syria with reliable, strong and legitimate allies like Turkey, instead of with terrorists like the YPG.
