Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
If the assumption is that NATO is who wants to go to a fight in the Middle East. I am not convinced.
If the past 16 years of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen are any indication, I don't think it's an assumption. And it's no longer about wanting to go to war. I just don't think NATO, i.e. the US, have any choice. They try to "withdraw" but they get get drawn back into it, deeper each time. Their dear friends Saudi Arabia makes more enemies in the region every day and have now become a rogue state in everything but the official definition.
Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
But no worries, two people can look at the same geostrategic situation and arrive at different conclusions. If one presumes that NATO is, in a unified sense, committed to going off to fight in the Middle East - Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and so on, yeah, what you laid out makes sense and fits a perfectly TurkoCentric view of the Eastern Med.
Israel maybe not, they fight their own wars and love every minute of it. But other countries - very likely. NATO is already involved in Iraq and Syria; Egypt and Lybia will follow soon, likely to be joined by Nigeria and Sudan who also share the anti-Western sentiments. Just like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS before them, this whole "Arab spring" will backfire tremendously on the US in the coming years, and NATO will be drawn in those wars. And while Turkey is not quite the ticket geographically, for those potential conflicts, it is a Muslim country that can mediate a lot of rough edges.
Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
The NATO Southern Region goes from the straits of Gibraltar to Istanbul. Not just the Eastern Med.
I do not believe that NATO is so committed. (The US might, or might not be, depending upon which clown-of-the-week we have in the White House)
True. But NATO is not about where they ARE, but from whom they are defending themselves. And that area is slightly different. Most of NATO potential enemies lie to the east and south-east of Europe. Turkey is the ideal (and very willing!) "buffer" between the NATO and the Orient. Losing it as a NATO partner will be devastating, because then Greece becomes the buffer, and I seriously doubt they are capable or willing to do that particular job. Losing Italy as a NATO partner means no good capuccino at NATO summits, quite an acceptable damage.
Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
I worked for a Turk for about 3 years in NATO. Good man, and I hope Erdogan's purges have not harmed him. Learned quite a bit from him about trying to see the world from a Turko Centric view. Enlightening, to say the least.
Erdogan is not Pol Pot or Ronald Reagan, don't worry. I worked with Turks a few years ago. Didn't have any personal friendships but was pleased to see how hardworking and thorough they are. Turkish may be misled at the moment, but they are far from radical, and what they need right now is a boost to their pride, NOT being told what to do, which is exactly what Pentagon and the Hair Force One are doing. Turkey needs to be told loudly and publicly that they are the cherished and respected partner without whom nothing will work. This latest F-35 disaster (NOW we're back on topic!) will only drive them further away and deeper into the nationalist tempest.