Jim Miskel [Provided]

While Turkey has agreed to a cease-fire in the Kurdish areas of northern Syria, dont be surprised if it fails to permanently end the fighting. Turkeys invasion may soon resume, or the fighting may transition to unconventional warfare between the Kurds and militias sponsored by Turkey. Whatever the eventual outcome, Turkeys relations with the United States and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have been damaged.

From the Turkish perspective, it must seem like the Kurds are not the only ones who made a bad bet when they believed what our president said. First the Trump administration gave Turkey the green light to invade by agreeing to precipitously withdraw American troops from an area where we knew the Turks wanted to take military action. Next, the administration sent a letter asking Turkey to restrain itself. When that had no effect, the administration threatened to destroy the Turkish economy via sanctions when the Turks did what we knew they would: Invade northern Syria. Then, we sent a high-level delegation to arm-twist Turkey into agreeing to what our government calls a cease-fire, which Turkeys foreign minister says is only a pause in the fighting, not really a cease-fire. The foreign ministers statement came almost immediately after Vice President Mike Pences press conference touting the cease-fire.

Notwithstanding our governments diplomatic boilerplate about interests still shared by the United States and Turkey and President Donald Trumps boasting about his bromance with Turkeys president, this episode must have created doubts in Ankara (and likely elsewhere) about the credibility of American commitments. Turkey may also resent our sanction threats and public pressure. Still, the United States has the worlds strongest military and largest economy, so it ought to be in Turkeys interest to eventually patch things up with Washington.

Turkeys relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, may be harder to repair. NATO is a mutual defense organization. It is based on the Three Musketeers principle: all for one, one for all. An attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. It is not designed to support aggressive behavior by its members.

Turkey may have good reasons for wanting to stabilize the Kurdish areas in Syria, but the path it has chosen is aggressive and may lead to friction with Russia which could, in turn, involve NATO. Turkeys invasion of northern Syria has driven the Kurds into the arms of the Syrian government and into Russias sphere of influence. Russia is one of Syrias few allies in the world. It has long had territorial designs on Turkey and its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire. Russia even has a history of meddling in the domestic affairs of the Ottomans/Turks by supporting agitation by minorities a strategy Vladimir Putins regime has used in the Baltic States and Ukraine. If Turkey is not careful in dealing with Russias new Kurdish friends Syria, it could provoke Russian retaliation in Syria. Or, Russian meddling with Turkeys own Kurdish population.

Then there is Turkeys threat to send millions of Syrian refugees north into NATO countries in Europe. The threat did more than suggest a blatant disregard for human rights. (Imagine herding up millions of refugees and forcibly transporting them to its borders with Greece and Bulgaria.) It antagonized the Europeans because it played directly into Europes fears about immigration and Islamist terrorism.

Jim Miskel is a former professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. He lives in Vero Beach.

See original here:

Turkey, the Kurds, NATO and what comes next? - Tampa Bay Times