What does the security establishment really want?

The recent crisis over northern Iraq has highlighted an old practice in Turkey: the use of foreign policy issues by the security establishment to define Turkish politics, shape political culture and set limits for political actors.

Keeping the political and the social under control is not the only concern; the security establishment also uses foreign policy crises as an opportunity to “establish, consolidate and justify its hegemony” over the system.

This has been the case for decades. Even when we thought that foreign policy issues were being managed by the state institutions, we were, in fact, being subjected to a process of securitization that provoked our fears from the world and the region. The process, institutions, and language of securitization served as the basis of the military’s autonomy and even hegemony over the political system, and elevated militarism as a socially and politically acceptable state of affairs.

We cannot establish full democracy in this country unless we stop the manipulation of foreign policy and security issues by the security establishment. Whatever steps we take for broadening democratization, introducing human rights reforms and strengthening the rule of law will not produce the desired end if foreign these issues remain under the monopoly of the security establishment. Even if we throw the authoritarian elements out the front door they will manage to come in through the back door to dictate their will, world view, political preferences, and interests.

This relationship is being played out at the moment over the northern Iraq crisis. A well-calculated crisis is brought to Turkey’s agenda just before the July elections to increase the weight of the security establishment in Turkish politics, in the media, and over the masses.

While the government was called on to define the “political objective” of an operation/invasion in northern Iraq, I wonder about the political objectives of those who pressure the government to invade northern Iraq. What do they really want? Do they only want to fight against the PKK and the forces of Massoud Barzani, and do something against the US elements in the region? The fight against the PKK has been going on without success for the last 20 years. The Barzani tribe has been a political force in northern Iraq for the last 50 years. The formation of a Kurdish entity in northern Iraq under the protection of the US has been going on for the last 15 years. Nothing is new that warrants such a hasty operation/invasion in northern Iraq.

So, what do they really want?