BY TAHA AKYOL
MILLIYET- Looking for an answer to this question of domestic politics is misleading. Because if you support Erdogan you saw things positively beforehand, otherwise you saw them negatively.
To find an accurate viewpoint, we should try to understand the issue and what the decisions made in Washington will mean in practices.
Speaking with my colleague Fikret Bila, former Chief of Staff Gen. Hilmi Ozkok brought up the matter like this: `The PKK issue can't be ended through cross-border operations.' In the 1990s, in fact, it couldn't be ended through operations carried out by 30,000 soldiers. But cross-border operations are an important tactic that should be used properly in fighting the PKK.
But what does using them properly mean? First, we must avoid wide-ranging land clashes which the international community could see as an invasion and which could even lead to a Turkish-Kurdish war, pushing Turkish troops to fight local elements. Not because our military is incapable, but because politically it would be a bad misstep!
As things stand now, hitting PKK facilities and the shelters of its militants with airstrikes is best, along with deploying special teams for covert operations.
Here, good intelligence is necessary, and the US has pledged to provide it, but.
Technological intelligence?
The US itself has failed to kill off al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even using all of its satellite technology!
Anyway, it's important to get intelligence from the US based on modern technology.
In addition, Deputy Chief Staff Gen. Ergin Saygun, who accompanied Erdogan on his visit, immediately starting work with his US counterpart Gen. James Cartwright would be a first step towards inspiring confidence. US commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus will also help to coordinate intelligence and operations.
This time, not retired generals but active commanders with authority over operations will carry out the work. Our General Staff will be quick to see any slackening by the US side. The US must deliver support decisively from the start to the finish.
But, just as wide-ranging cross-border land operations wouldn't defeat the PKK but produce only losses, so too covert operations based on intelligence won't end the terrorist group, but just cause losses.
Ethnic nationalism?
Terrorism based on ethnic nationalism is not just an armed movement; its political and social roots cannot be neglected.
Politically, the more decisive US stance against the PKK is important. Bush's calling it not only a terrorist group but also an `enemy' is a very important new development.
As the PKK is also an enemy of the US, we'll watch how the US how deals with its friend in Iraq, Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani.
The US taking a more determined stance against the PKK, pledging to give intelligence support to the Turkish troops for its possible operations, and establishing high-level military coordination are of course positive developments . They are the pluses to be noted to on the success side of the visit.
But all are first steps, and we have to see subsequent steps to make a definite judgment of developments.
Depending on the US' actions, suspicions in Turkish-US relations will either increase or decrease.
The PKK drawing strength from ethnic nationalism inside Turkey is the key issue. How can ethnic nationalism be rendered ineffectual? This is the real question we must explore.