Turkey Pays Huge Price Because Of Erdoğan's Obsessions

Has there been any other case where a country seeking to become a regional leader has made such inconsistent moves that raise serious questions and doubts about its intentions? I do not think so. This is the summary of the current situation with respect to Turkey's position vis-à-vis Kobani. However, those responsible for this state of affairs, instead of feeling guilty, still make bold remarks.
It once again became clear during the Kobani crisis that the government does not have a realistic and operational Syria policy. Turkey's approach in this case is all about President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's obsession with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But he is not gone, though you stress “Assad must go.” Turkey has worked hard to do this, even if it meant the growth of extremist groups, including the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); but it failed. The role and responsibility of Erdoğan in the current stalemate in Syria, currently struggling with sectarian divide and civil war, is huge.
Syria is now a devastated country where thousands of people have been killed and more than 2 million people were displaced; the future of the country still remains uncertain. It is undoubtedly huge to have the responsibility for this disastrous outcome. There is no strong possibility of this in the near future, but even if Assad is toppled, it will not be easy to have this responsibility and normalize relations with Syria, Russia and Iran.
Why did the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government pursue a contradictory policy in Kobani and eventually have to submit to American demands? The answer to this simple question depends on the government's attitude toward ISIL. Evidently, the AKP government had a hard time defining ISIL as a terrorist organization that poses a threat to its national security. For this reason, it did not see any problem in ISIL attacks on Kobani. As a result, it remained inactive, despite being aware that if ISIL seizes control in Kobani, it will commit a massacre and that this would end the settlement process. What was the root cause of this stance that will have serious repercussions in Turkey? Is it possible that the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) (and therefore the AKP and Erdoğan) asked ISIL to seize control of Kobani during talks with ISIL about the Turkish hostages that were held in Iraq? In other words, did ISIL comply with Turkey's request by attacking Kobani?
I am aware that these are risky questions, because President Erdoğan declares everyone who offers an analysis of the relationship between Turkey and ISIL a traitor. He is probably disturbed by the open discussion of these facts that the US, Britain and Germany are most likely aware of.
The government blames the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) and its leader, Selahattin Demirtaş, for the violent and bloody protests against the government's attitude on Kobani. They turned this into a media campaign, using pro-government analysts and columnists in the press. Of course, the HDP's stance can be criticized. However, President Erdoğan's attitude was far more influential in the violent incidents in which more than 40 people were murdered than the HDP's call for protests.
Erdoğan made his first domestic visit as president on Oct. 7 to Gaziantep, where he said the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and ISIL are terrorist organizations and that Kobani was about to fall into the hands of ISIL. This was what provoked the Kurds to take to the streets. The protests were uncontrollable because of Erdoğan's irresponsible statement. Even if the HDP had not made that call, people would have taken to the streets to protest. This is the reality. It is easy to blame the HDP and Demirtaş; but it is of course hard to question the impact of those remarks upon people's attitudes. Turkey is paying a huge price for Erdoğan's arrogance, complexes and obsessions.

CAFER SOLGUN (Cihan/Today's Zaman)