Syria - civil war incoming?

[AWS260]

Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria

This can't be good. Seems like a pretty significant move.

Or not:

Russian officials on Monday also denied an ABC News report that one of their warships had docked in the Syrian port of Tartus with a squad of Russian antiterrorism marines; the report fed speculation that Russia was actively helping Mr. Assad by supplying military experts.

A spokesman for the Defense Ministry was quoted by the Interfax news service as saying that he was perplexed by the report, which he said might have referred to the Iman, a Russian tanker that had docked in Tartus 10 days earlier. He said security guards were aboard the Iman because it supplies fuel to Russian ships participating in international antipiracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden.

[Isgrimnur]

After the massacre over the weekend, Syrian diplomats are getting evicted:

Governments around the world expelled Syrian ambassadors and diplomats Tuesday, an unusual, coordinated blow to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime following a gruesome massacre that the United Nations said involved close-range shootings of scores of children and parents in their homes.

The United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands took action Tuesday against Syrian diplomats. Britain's foreign secretary said the countries involved in Tuesday's expulsions would also push for tougher sanctions against Syria.

The move came after the killings Friday in Houla, a collection of farming villages in Syria's Homs province — one of the deadliest single events in a 15-month-old uprising against Assad that has killed thousands.

A U.N. report Tuesday said 49 children and 34 women were among the 108 people who died, but it did not decisively say who carried out most of the killings.

[Holman]

A further massacre, and apparently U.N. cease-fire monitors were fired upon by Syrian Army troops when they attempted to reach the site.

[msduncan]

A further massacre, and apparently U.N. cease-fire monitors were fired upon by Syrian Army troops when they attempted to reach the site.

Yeah that's usually not a good sign.

[Isgrimnur]

This should have some interesting impacts.

Jordan says a Syrian air force pilot has flown his Mig-21 fighter jet to the kingdom and asked for political asylum, the Associated Press reports.
...
A spokesman for the rebel Free Syrian Army, Ahmad Kassem, says the group had encouraged the pilot to defect, the AP reports.

Since an uprising against President Bashar Assad's regime began in 2011, Syrian troops have refrained from using military warplanes against rebels, the AP says.

So other than being unsatisfied with the regime, what drives a pilot to defect?

[El Guapo]

Could be that the regime is changing its "don't use military warplanes against the rebels" policy, and that the pilot is unhappy with that.

Or, could not have much to do with him being a pilot, beyond providing him with a means of exit.

[Sepiche]

This can't be good:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18554246" target="_blank

Turkey's government has called an emergency security meeting amid reports that one of its fighter jets was shot down by Syrian security forces.

The Turkish military earlier said it had lost contact with an F-4 Phantom over the Mediterranean Sea on Friday morning, south-west of Hatay province.

It did not confirm reports that Syrian air defence forces were responsible.

But local media are quoting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as saying "the other side have expressed regret".

[msduncan]

Turkey is a member of Nato, meaning that it could invoke Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty and summon the aid of all 28 countries in the alliance if it comes under attack. Turkey's government is a strident critic of President Bashar al-Assad's regime and tension has risen along the land border between the two neighbours.

[El Guapo]

I dunno, if you dislike Assad I think this is mostly good news, insofar as if it has any long-term effect it will motivate Turkey to become more involved in opposing / deposing Assad.

Also, there's no way that Turkey is formally invoking Article V, but they may nonetheless use this as a reason to push for more NATO involvement.

[Sepiche]

I dunno, if you dislike Assad I think this is mostly good news, insofar as if it has any long-term effect it will motivate Turkey to become more involved in opposing / deposing Assad.

I'll grant you it might make a fine rational for intervention which could save lives in the long run, but I tend to look at anything that potentially escalates an already tense situation as being bad. It very much depends on how things unfold.

Still lots of unanswered questions about this so far. There seems to be little doubt that one plane was shot down by the Syrians, possibly two, but it's unclear if they were in Syrian airspace or not when it happened.

Here's a small update from the BBC in the area:

Turkish officials are being button-lipped about what brought the plane down, and an exhausted-looking prime minister backed off earlier comments suggesting that Syria had already apologised for shooting the aircraft down.

Lebanese media are much surer. They say Syrian sources have told them they shot down one, possibly two, Turkish aircraft. Once Mr Erdogan has discussed it with his military chiefs he will probably say more.

Given the breakdown in relations between the two countries over the Syrian conflict, this incident has the potential to provoke a serious crisis. When gunfire from Syrian forces crossed the Turkish border earlier this year, Ankara threatened a military response.

Much will depend on whether or not the Turkish pilots have survived. If not, public anger might push the government into some kind of punitive action against Syria.

Syria's response will also influence Turkey's reaction. A clear apology, and a statement that the shooting was unintentional, might be enough to assuage Turkish anger.

But then again, we do not know yet whether the aircraft were clearly in Turkish airspace or not.

[El Guapo]

Syria's already at war, just internally. So this wouldn't really start a conflict; rather, it's far more likely to hasten its end.

Of course, it may well not produce anything, but we'll see.

[msduncan]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

[Rip]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

[El Guapo]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

[Kraken]

Turkey's the threshold between the Muslim world and the West, and a trigger for NATO.

[El Guapo]

The trigger for NATO part is almost meaningless, because Turkey is almost certainly not going to invoke Article 15. Not quite meaningless, in that being part of NATO makes Turkey more likely to be listened too.

This matters because it makes Turkey more likely to get involved in sheltering anti-Assad rebels and giving them more affirmative support (likely), which would be a huge boost to the rebels. It also makes it more likely that Turkey's military will get directly involved - I think that's unlikely, but if they do then Assad is doomed.

[Rip]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

Yea, right below the mighty Canadians.

[El Guapo]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

Yea, right below the mighty Canadians.

And Syria is 53rd. Stereotypes notwithstanding, Canada's military is capable of taking on Syria.

So, did you have any support for the assertion that Turkey's military is a cream-puff, beyond general assumptions?

[Kraken]

The trigger for NATO part is almost meaningless, because Turkey is almost certainly not going to invoke Article 15. Not quite meaningless, in that being part of NATO makes Turkey more likely to be listened too.

It's not so much that Turkey will invoke NATO as that NATO could use Turkey as an opening. (Not that NATO has shown any stomach for intervention so far, but campaign season in the US is something of a wildcard.)

NATO is paying attention.

Davutoglu said that Turkey, a NATO member, would invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which provides for consultations by the allies when one is attacked or threatened. He did not cite the much stronger Article 5, in which an attack on one member is considered an attack on all NATO countries and obliges a concerted response.

So far.

[Rip]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

Yea, right below the mighty Canadians.

And Syria is 53rd. Stereotypes notwithstanding, Canada's military is capable of taking on Syria.

So, did you have any support for the assertion that Turkey's military is a cream-puff, beyond general assumptions?

Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses. My reference to Turkey isn't about the size of it's force but about how effective it would be when going it alone. There is a reason they joined NATO and it wasn't because they long to be buddies with the west.

They haven't engaged and won a major military engagement in modern times. A fighting force is comprised of a lot more than dollar signs, bullets, and manpower. If it were otherwise there would be no Israel. The only reason Turkey is as capable as they are is do to NATO.

In the end they evoke no fear any more than the Canadian or Mexican armies do. I would bet Israel could roll over Syria in a quarter the time as Turkey and toss in Lebanon as a bonus.

[LawBeefaroni]

Here's another take:

When Syria shot down an Israeli-upgraded Turkish fighter jet it was delivering a message that the air force, despite the defection of a senior pilot a day earlier, was still in control and a force to be reckoned with.

The incident has also made air commands in the region that fly Western aircraft sit up and take notice, since it marked one of the rare times in recent years when Russian-designed weapons took on and defeated Western systems.

...

“Excuse me for saying so, but there appears to have been a lack of professionalism by the Turks,” Shmuel Gordon, a reserve colonel and pilot in the Israel Air Force, who has written extensively on air power and national security, told The Media Line.

“It is completely clear that the jet came to a place where it was entirely up to the good will of Syria whether or not he would return,” Gordon said. “I don’t remember the last time the Syrians shot down an aircraft. I can assume that the Turks carry out these flights regularly and they saw that the Syrians didn’t react and each time got a little and little closer until one day on orders from very high up it was decided to show the Turks that they can’t fly around here anymore. And they shot the jet down.”

...

Just last week, a Russian arms dealer had boasted to The New York Times that advanced weapons they were shipping to Syria could be used to down aircraft and sink ships.

"I would like to say these mechanisms are really a good means of defense, a reliable defense against attacks from the air or sea. This is not a threat, but whoever is planning an attack should think about this,” Anatoly Isaykin, the general director of Rosoboronexport, was quoted as saying.

Isaykin said weaponry being shipped to Syria included the Pantsyr-S1, a radar-guided missile and artillery system capable of hitting planes at high altitudes; Buk-M2 anti-aircraft missiles; and land-based Bastion anti-ship missiles.

Syria said the jet was shot down by artillery, but the Turkish daily Vatan said the system used to down the F-4 was the BUK-M2, also known as the SA-11.

...

It is no secret that Syrian airspace has been repeatedly violated by various players, including the Turks, Israelis, Americans and more, analysts say. But taking down the F-4 on Friday was likely a decision handed down from the very top Syrian echelon to prove that the air force was still under control of President Bashar Assad’s beleaguered regime.

[El Guapo]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

Yea, right below the mighty Canadians.

And Syria is 53rd. Stereotypes notwithstanding, Canada's military is capable of taking on Syria.

So, did you have any support for the assertion that Turkey's military is a cream-puff, beyond general assumptions?

Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses. My reference to Turkey isn't about the size of it's force but about how effective it would be when going it alone. There is a reason they joined NATO and it wasn't because they long to be buddies with the west.

They haven't engaged and won a major military engagement in modern times. A fighting force is comprised of a lot more than dollar signs, bullets, and manpower. If it were otherwise there would be no Israel. The only reason Turkey is as capable as they are is do to NATO.

In the end they evoke no fear any more than the Canadian or Mexican armies do. I would bet Israel could roll over Syria in a quarter the time as Turkey and toss in Lebanon as a bonus.

So, a few things:

(1) Actually, longing to be buddies with the west WAS a big reason for Turkey to join NATO. After modern Turkey was created the modernist, secular President and founder of modern Turkey (Ataturk) pushed hard to secularize Turkey and affiliate it with the west. NATO was part of that, as were efforts to integrate with (Western) Europe. That's changed somewhat in recent years with the current Turkish President (and because the EU's made it pretty clear that they're never admitting Turkey, at least not within the near future), but it's a significant part of Turkey joining NATO

(2) The other big reason for them to join NATO was that the Soviet Union bordered them. Obviously Turkey is much smaller than the USSR and would have a hard time fighting them (or possibly resisting pressure from them) without U.S. / European backing.

(3) Not sure what you define as "modern times", but they won the last major war they fought, which was against a Greek invasion shortly following World War I. England, France, Italy, and Greece had planned on dividing up mainland Turkey between them following WWI, but on account of Turkey's thoroughly successful victory over Greece following a Greek invasion those plans were scrapped. Also, they've spent a long time killing Kurdish guerrilla forces.

(4) Not sure what your point is re: "Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses." Yes, that's true. Lots of countries could take on Syria in a war (including Canada and probably Mexico). That other countries could successfully fight Syria says nothing regarding the key question of whether *Turkey* could successfully invade Syria. And yes, Israel might be able to overrun Syria in a one-on-one war faster, but again, so what? That doesn't mean that Turkey couldn't win a war with Syria. If anything, if I'm Syria I would be much more afraid of Turkey, because if Israel invaded Syria that would rally the whole Arab world on their side. If Turkey invaded Syria now I don't think any other countries would do squat to help them.

Basically, if you're Assad, Turkey is the one country that's most likely to actively intervene to depose you, and is probably capable of doing so if it wants to. And I don't see anything that you've said that suggests that Turkey couldn't.

[Rip]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

Yea, right below the mighty Canadians.

And Syria is 53rd. Stereotypes notwithstanding, Canada's military is capable of taking on Syria.

So, did you have any support for the assertion that Turkey's military is a cream-puff, beyond general assumptions?

Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses. My reference to Turkey isn't about the size of it's force but about how effective it would be when going it alone. There is a reason they joined NATO and it wasn't because they long to be buddies with the west.

They haven't engaged and won a major military engagement in modern times. A fighting force is comprised of a lot more than dollar signs, bullets, and manpower. If it were otherwise there would be no Israel. The only reason Turkey is as capable as they are is do to NATO.

In the end they evoke no fear any more than the Canadian or Mexican armies do. I would bet Israel could roll over Syria in a quarter the time as Turkey and toss in Lebanon as a bonus.

So, a few things:

(1) Actually, longing to be buddies with the west WAS a big reason for Turkey to join NATO. After modern Turkey was created the modernist, secular President and founder of modern Turkey (Ataturk) pushed hard to secularize Turkey and affiliate it with the west. NATO was part of that, as were efforts to integrate with (Western) Europe. That's changed somewhat in recent years with the current Turkish President (and because the EU's made it pretty clear that they're never admitting Turkey, at least not within the near future), but it's a significant part of Turkey joining NATO

(2) The other big reason for them to join NATO was that the Soviet Union bordered them. Obviously Turkey is much smaller than the USSR and would have a hard time fighting them (or possibly resisting pressure from them) without U.S. / European backing.

(3) Not sure what you define as "modern times", but they won the last major war they fought, which was against a Greek invasion shortly following World War I. England, France, Italy, and Greece had planned on dividing up mainland Turkey between them following WWI, but on account of Turkey's thoroughly successful victory over Greece following a Greek invasion those plans were scrapped. Also, they've spent a long time killing Kurdish guerrilla forces.

(4) Not sure what your point is re: "Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses." Yes, that's true. Lots of countries could take on Syria in a war (including Canada and probably Mexico). That other countries could successfully fight Syria says nothing regarding the key question of whether *Turkey* could successfully invade Syria. And yes, Israel might be able to overrun Syria in a one-on-one war faster, but again, so what? That doesn't mean that Turkey couldn't win a war with Syria. If anything, if I'm Syria I would be much more afraid of Turkey, because if Israel invaded Syria that would rally the whole Arab world on their side. If Turkey invaded Syria now I don't think any other countries would do squat to help them.

Basically, if you're Assad, Turkey is the one country that's most likely to actively intervene to depose you, and is probably capable of doing so if it wants to. And I don't see anything that you've said that suggests that Turkey couldn't.

Look the entire thing stems from the comment "The shit is about to get real" like Turkey was going to unleash a can of whoopass. The entire line of thinking that Turkey will just get mad and kick Syria's ass and that would be that is simply not nonsensical.

My definition of modern BTW is WW2 on and WW2 would be stretching it.

If it were not for the goegraphy Turkey would not even be in NATO. They were only interested in what they could monitor from Turkey and that is why the let them enter.

[Isgrimnur]

It wasn't a one off: Syrian forces fire at second Turkish plane

Turkey said on Monday Syrian forces had fired towards a Turkish military transport plane involved in a search for an F-4 reconnaissance jet shot down by Syria last week, but the second aircraft was not brought down.
...
The disclosure of the second incident came on the eve of a NATO crisis meeting that Turkey summoned to address the shooting down of its F-4 jet, which Ankara has described as an unprovoked attack in international airspace.
...
Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc told a news conference that Turkey would protect itself within the framework of international law against what it called Syria's "hostile action" of downing its F-4 warplane last week.

Arinc said at the end of a seven-hour cabinet meeting dealing with the incident: "Everyone should know that this kind of action will not remain unpunished."

But he added, "Whatever is needed to be done will definitely be done within the framework of international law. We have no intention of going to war with anyone. We have no such intent."

Arinc said that shortly after the F-4 was shot down, four helicopters and two ships were dispatched on an initial search operation, followed by a military turboprop transport aircraft.

"Our plane, which had gone to rescue (the pilots), was fired upon. This situation was brought to an end following a warning from our foreign ministry. But yes, there was a short period of harassing fire," said Arinc.

A foreign ministry official later said the plane returned to Turkish airspace immediately after being fired on and the search and rescue operation resumed following communications "through military and diplomatic channels". He said there were no injuries to anyone aboard the transport aircraft.

According to Ankara's account of Friday's episode, the aircraft entered Syrian airspace briefly and by mistake while on a mission to test Turkish air defences.

[El Guapo]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

Yea, right below the mighty Canadians.

And Syria is 53rd. Stereotypes notwithstanding, Canada's military is capable of taking on Syria.

So, did you have any support for the assertion that Turkey's military is a cream-puff, beyond general assumptions?

Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses. My reference to Turkey isn't about the size of it's force but about how effective it would be when going it alone. There is a reason they joined NATO and it wasn't because they long to be buddies with the west.

They haven't engaged and won a major military engagement in modern times. A fighting force is comprised of a lot more than dollar signs, bullets, and manpower. If it were otherwise there would be no Israel. The only reason Turkey is as capable as they are is do to NATO.

In the end they evoke no fear any more than the Canadian or Mexican armies do. I would bet Israel could roll over Syria in a quarter the time as Turkey and toss in Lebanon as a bonus.

So, a few things:

(1) Actually, longing to be buddies with the west WAS a big reason for Turkey to join NATO. After modern Turkey was created the modernist, secular President and founder of modern Turkey (Ataturk) pushed hard to secularize Turkey and affiliate it with the west. NATO was part of that, as were efforts to integrate with (Western) Europe. That's changed somewhat in recent years with the current Turkish President (and because the EU's made it pretty clear that they're never admitting Turkey, at least not within the near future), but it's a significant part of Turkey joining NATO

(2) The other big reason for them to join NATO was that the Soviet Union bordered them. Obviously Turkey is much smaller than the USSR and would have a hard time fighting them (or possibly resisting pressure from them) without U.S. / European backing.

(3) Not sure what you define as "modern times", but they won the last major war they fought, which was against a Greek invasion shortly following World War I. England, France, Italy, and Greece had planned on dividing up mainland Turkey between them following WWI, but on account of Turkey's thoroughly successful victory over Greece following a Greek invasion those plans were scrapped. Also, they've spent a long time killing Kurdish guerrilla forces.

(4) Not sure what your point is re: "Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses." Yes, that's true. Lots of countries could take on Syria in a war (including Canada and probably Mexico). That other countries could successfully fight Syria says nothing regarding the key question of whether *Turkey* could successfully invade Syria. And yes, Israel might be able to overrun Syria in a one-on-one war faster, but again, so what? That doesn't mean that Turkey couldn't win a war with Syria. If anything, if I'm Syria I would be much more afraid of Turkey, because if Israel invaded Syria that would rally the whole Arab world on their side. If Turkey invaded Syria now I don't think any other countries would do squat to help them.

Basically, if you're Assad, Turkey is the one country that's most likely to actively intervene to depose you, and is probably capable of doing so if it wants to. And I don't see anything that you've said that suggests that Turkey couldn't.

Look the entire thing stems from the comment "The shit is about to get real" like Turkey was going to unleash a can of whoopass. The entire line of thinking that Turkey will just get mad and kick Syria's ass and that would be that is simply not nonsensical.

My definition of modern BTW is WW2 on and WW2 would be stretching it.

If it were not for the goegraphy Turkey would not even be in NATO. They were only interested in what they could monitor from Turkey and that is why the let them enter.

Oh, I don't think "shit is about to get real" was meant to imply that Turkey would sweep across Syria like a divine wrath or something. Rather, I took it as "well this is serious since another country's warplanes just got shot down." That clearly takes it to another level in terms of international conflict, and creates a real chance of international warfare.

Also, I don't think Turkey would annihilate Syria like the U.S. would if we invaded. BUT they would probably win, especially since Syria is already in a civil war, and the idea that Turkey is just a "creampuff" is nonsensical in that regard.

I guess I'm not really sure what your point is about Turkey not winning a war in modern times is. They haven't lost one either - they haven't fought a major war. So I don't see how that relates to evaluating their military strength. If you're talking about general readiness, they've seen significant combat in modern times fighting Kurdish rebels, and the military has a uniquely important role in Turkish politics / government, so I don't think they're low on readiness, funding, morale, or other things that contribute to an effective military. Unlike, say, Syria.

And yes, a main incentive to admit Turkey to NATO following WWII was that they were located next to the Soviet Union, and having them in would make it harder for the USSR to threaten Turkey. That doesn't mean that Turkey does not also have a decent military, and says nothing about their capacity for fighting Syria today.

[Rip]

So this afternoon Syria said "yeah we did it, and we meant it"

Shit is about to get REAL.

Why? I don't recall Turkey being that fearsome. Other than possibly dragging NATO in. Turkey by itself is a cream-puff.

Cite? Turkey's 15th in the world in military spending. The Turkish military is no joke by any means. They're not a superpower, of course. But they're a professional force that is more than up to the task of handling Syria, especially while the latter is in the midst of a civil war.

Yea, right below the mighty Canadians.

And Syria is 53rd. Stereotypes notwithstanding, Canada's military is capable of taking on Syria.

So, did you have any support for the assertion that Turkey's military is a cream-puff, beyond general assumptions?

Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses. My reference to Turkey isn't about the size of it's force but about how effective it would be when going it alone. There is a reason they joined NATO and it wasn't because they long to be buddies with the west.

They haven't engaged and won a major military engagement in modern times. A fighting force is comprised of a lot more than dollar signs, bullets, and manpower. If it were otherwise there would be no Israel. The only reason Turkey is as capable as they are is do to NATO.

In the end they evoke no fear any more than the Canadian or Mexican armies do. I would bet Israel could roll over Syria in a quarter the time as Turkey and toss in Lebanon as a bonus.

So, a few things:

(1) Actually, longing to be buddies with the west WAS a big reason for Turkey to join NATO. After modern Turkey was created the modernist, secular President and founder of modern Turkey (Ataturk) pushed hard to secularize Turkey and affiliate it with the west. NATO was part of that, as were efforts to integrate with (Western) Europe. That's changed somewhat in recent years with the current Turkish President (and because the EU's made it pretty clear that they're never admitting Turkey, at least not within the near future), but it's a significant part of Turkey joining NATO

(2) The other big reason for them to join NATO was that the Soviet Union bordered them. Obviously Turkey is much smaller than the USSR and would have a hard time fighting them (or possibly resisting pressure from them) without U.S. / European backing.

(3) Not sure what you define as "modern times", but they won the last major war they fought, which was against a Greek invasion shortly following World War I. England, France, Italy, and Greece had planned on dividing up mainland Turkey between them following WWI, but on account of Turkey's thoroughly successful victory over Greece following a Greek invasion those plans were scrapped. Also, they've spent a long time killing Kurdish guerrilla forces.

(4) Not sure what your point is re: "Compared to Syria the world is full of badasses." Yes, that's true. Lots of countries could take on Syria in a war (including Canada and probably Mexico). That other countries could successfully fight Syria says nothing regarding the key question of whether *Turkey* could successfully invade Syria. And yes, Israel might be able to overrun Syria in a one-on-one war faster, but again, so what? That doesn't mean that Turkey couldn't win a war with Syria. If anything, if I'm Syria I would be much more afraid of Turkey, because if Israel invaded Syria that would rally the whole Arab world on their side. If Turkey invaded Syria now I don't think any other countries would do squat to help them.

Basically, if you're Assad, Turkey is the one country that's most likely to actively intervene to depose you, and is probably capable of doing so if it wants to. And I don't see anything that you've said that suggests that Turkey couldn't.

Look the entire thing stems from the comment "The shit is about to get real" like Turkey was going to unleash a can of whoopass. The entire line of thinking that Turkey will just get mad and kick Syria's ass and that would be that is simply not nonsensical.

My definition of modern BTW is WW2 on and WW2 would be stretching it.

If it were not for the goegraphy Turkey would not even be in NATO. They were only interested in what they could monitor from Turkey and that is why the let them enter.

Oh, I don't think "shit is about to get real" was meant to imply that Turkey would sweep across Syria like a divine wrath or something. Rather, I took it as "well this is serious since another country's warplanes just got shot down." That clearly takes it to another level in terms of international conflict, and creates a real chance of international warfare.

Also, I don't think Turkey would annihilate Syria like the U.S. would if we invaded. BUT they would probably win, especially since Syria is already in a civil war, and the idea that Turkey is just a "creampuff" is nonsensical in that regard.

I guess I'm not really sure what your point is about Turkey not winning a war in modern times is. They haven't lost one either - they haven't fought a major war. So I don't see how that relates to evaluating their military strength. If you're talking about general readiness, they've seen significant combat in modern times fighting Kurdish rebels, and the military has a uniquely important role in Turkish politics / government, so I don't think they're low on readiness, funding, morale, or other things that contribute to an effective military. Unlike, say, Syria.

And yes, a main incentive to admit Turkey to NATO following WWII was that they were located next to the Soviet Union, and having them in would make it harder for the USSR to threaten Turkey. That doesn't mean that Turkey does not also have a decent military, and says nothing about their capacity for fighting Syria today.

When I refer to Turkey being weaker than most think I mean stuff like this.

Poor training and inadequate command chains hamper the antiterror fight, the former top general allegedly says on a tape recording

A voice recording illegally taped and released on which former Chief of General Staff Gen. Işık Koşaner allegedly detailed deficiencies in the Turkish military’s fight against terrorism hit the Internet late Tuesday. “One problem that we face often is that we sometimes cannot establish the unity of command and control. In a [terror] incident, the command post that has authority over the region has responsibility. We have the opportunity to receive footage of the area from unmanned aircraft, but we cannot interfere,” the voice allegedly belonging to Gen. Koşaner said in what appeared to be a conversation with other military personnel.
The office of the Chief of General Staff was not immediately available for comment on the tape, which was surreptitiously recorded by unknown individuals. The release of the recording came at a time when the military has launched a massive operation against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, a group as a terrorist organization listed by Turkey, the United States and the European Union.
Former Gen. Koşaner resigned from his post in late July in protest of ongoing judicial prosecutions against high-ranking military officials. The comments on the tape also address specific deficiencies in the command and control of small units, and in training commanders in the field.
“Our smaller units are not strong. They are untrained. The rest will unravel quickly,” said the man believed to be Koşaner. “We are weak when it comes to the command and control of small units. I’m not talking about the gendarmerie. I mean our small units. The commanders must command and control their men.”
The recorded statements referred to past incidents in which these deficiencies had led to casualties. “If the man I appoint as a task force commander drops his weapon and runs, then we cannot carry this out. This means we did not train them well. If he runs from his position despite the rank on his arm, then of course the position will fall, of course we will have casualties,” the former top general allegedly said. “Two men advance toward them, and 30 soldiers run away.”
The voice believed to belong to Koşaner had harsh words for members of the military leadership. “Those in leader positions are nowhere to be found… And what hurt the most are those who drop their weapons and run... We are at fault. There are deficiencies in the training. And then we shot our own soldier thinking he was a terrorist.”
Speaking to other military personnel during the secretly taped conversation, Koşaner also allegedly urged the other commanders to “please keep track of the regions where you are at. Be a part of the crowd, from the barracks to the military post. You need to be in close contact with everyone, from police to the bums.”

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/defaul ... 2011-08-23

The organization of their military is in shambles after struggling for power with the civilian government. While creampuff may be an exaggeration I stand by my statement in that they are far less effective than is commonly accepted.

[El Guapo]

Really, I think to resolve this debate we should both e-mail Turkey's President to urge him to invade Syria.

[AWS260]

Really, I think to resolve this debate we should both e-mail Turkey's President to urge him to invade Syria.

Here you go: cumhurbaskanligi@tccb.gov.tr.

[msduncan]

Still don't know about whether Times of Israel is a reliable source, but here ya go:

Turkey mobilzing armored units to the border

[El Guapo]

This story is more credible than the last, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the "massive international war games" story has pretty much irrevocably shattered any possible trust I could place in timesofisrael.com

[El Guapo]

By contrast, I do trust the New York Times:

In Ankara, Mr. Erdogan said Turkey had revised its military rules of engagement toward Syria.

“Every military element that approaches the Turkish border from Syria in a manner that constitutes a security risk or danger would be considered as a threat and would be treated as a military target,” he said in a speech to lawmakers attended by Arab diplomats.

“From here, we warn the Syrian regime not to make any mistakes, not to test Turkey’s decisiveness and wisdom,” Mr. Erdogan said.

“If there is anyone who could not understand this up until today, we would and will prove in the most clear and determined way that Turkey cannot be challenged,” he said.

While Syria maintains that the plane was brought down well within its airspace, Turkey says the two-seat F-4 fighter plane was attacked over international waters after straying briefly into Syrian space.

“Our plane was targeted not by mistake but deliberately, entirely in an act of hostility,” Mr. Erdogan said. “At a time, place and method defined by itself, Turkey will make use of its rights that derive from international law and firmly take necessary steps against this injustice.” He did not elaborate on what those steps might be.

No mention of massing troops on the border, though, just a warning to Syria to check itself before it wrecks itself.

[Rip]

Well Assad say they ARE at war.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad declared on Tuesday that his country was at war and ordered his new government to spare no effort to achieve victory, as the worst fighting of the 16-month conflict reached the outskirts of the capital.
Video published by activists recorded heavy gunfire and explosions in suburbs of Damascus. A trail of fresh blood on a sidewalk in the suburb of Qudsiya led into a building where one casualty was taken. A naked man writhed in pain, his body pierced by shrapnel.
Syria's state news agency SANA said "armed terrorist groups" had blocked the old road from Damascus to Beirut.
The declaration that Syria is at war marks a change of rhetoric from Assad, who had long dismissed the uprising against him as the work of scattered militants funded from abroad.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/heavy-fighting ... 43616.html

[Isgrimnur]

Details on the downed F-4:

Search teams have reportedly found the boots and helmets belonging to two Turkish aviators whose plane was shot down by Syrian forces last week, but there’s still no sign of the pilots themselves.

Top Turkish officials announced today the helmets were found among the two-seat Air Force plane’s wreckage, Turkey’s prominent Hurriyet Daily reported. No parachutes have been found but the flyers’ boots were discovered days before, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

Erdogan said it was unclear whether the pilots had been able to eject before the plane went down.

But that might not have mattered, according to former fighter pilot and ABC News consultant Steve Ganyard. The plane that was hit, reportedly a reconnaissance version of the F-4 Phantom fighter, is an old but extremely fast aircraft, capable of flying at over twice the speed of sound. Ganyard said that even if the pilots managed to eject, it would’ve been difficult for them to survive the ejection alone and it’s possible the sheer wind blast could have ripped the helmet and boots from them. If the pilots were unable to eject, Ganyard said, a plane as fast as the Phantom could have hit the water “as if it were concrete” — spreading debris wide and leaving little intact.

[Isgrimnur]

Here come the Wikileaks.

WikiLeaks said on Thursday it had begun publishing more than 2 million emails from Syrian government officials that would embarrass not only Damascus, which is trying to crush a 16-month rebellion, but also its opponents.

Speaking at a press conference in London, a Wikileaks spokeswoman said the emails were from Syrian political figures, government ministries and companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012.

A statement quoted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as saying: "The material is embarrassing to Syria, but it is also embarrassing to Syria's opponents."

[Defiant]

Turkey Fires Artillery at Syrian Targets in Retaliation for Civilian Deaths

[AWS260]

Please keep the chemical weapons in storage. Thanks.

The White House said that some recent actions by the government of President Bashar al-Assad were indicators that such weapons could be deployed soon, following earlier reports that intelligence agencies had noticed signs of activity at chemical weapons sites.

[Rip]

Please keep the chemical weapons in storage. Thanks.

The White House said that some recent actions by the government of President Bashar al-Assad were indicators that such weapons could be deployed soon, following earlier reports that intelligence agencies had noticed signs of activity at chemical weapons sites.

This is indeed disturbing.

Word is that they have begun combining some isopropanol and methylphosphonyl difluoride. I can think of only one reason to do that.

[AWS260]

Please keep the chemical weapons in storage. Thanks.

The White House said that some recent actions by the government of President Bashar al-Assad were indicators that such weapons could be deployed soon, following earlier reports that intelligence agencies had noticed signs of activity at chemical weapons sites.

This is indeed disturbing.

Word is that they have begun combining some isopropanol and methylphosphonyl difluoride. I can think of only one reason to do that.

I don't know anything about chemistry, but I assume this means that Bashar al-Assad is turning his backyard RV into a meth lab.

[stessier]

Please keep the chemical weapons in storage. Thanks.

The White House said that some recent actions by the government of President Bashar al-Assad were indicators that such weapons could be deployed soon, following earlier reports that intelligence agencies had noticed signs of activity at chemical weapons sites.

This is indeed disturbing.

Word is that they have begun combining some isopropanol and methylphosphonyl difluoride. I can think of only one reason to do that.

I don't know anything about chemistry, but I assume this means that Bashar al-Assad is turning his backyard RV into a meth lab.

Not quite. Sarin.

[Smoove_B]

Mr. Obama sternly asserted again that he would punish Syria for using chemical weapons, although he did not say how.

I'm betting it will be decidedly explode-y.