What happened to the Islamic Military Alliance?
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli heavily reproached NATO in his parliamentary group meeting on May 30.
We are the second biggest army of the alliance, we have been partners for half a century and as far as I understand, our relationship with the alliance is giving crisis signals.
Doesn't this proclamation show that the alarm bells are ringing: "It is as if it is challenging our country; it is absolute insolence to ignore a partnership and membership of 65 years … Is NATO that cheap?"
What bothers Bahçeli is that NATO is joining the war in Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Well, why has this made Bahçeli hyper-vigilant as if a danger was approaching? Why did it annoy him; why did it give him such deep anxiety?
What prompted Bahçeli to an early reaction is the thought that the outlawed Kurdistan Peoples' Party (PKK) and NATO will be on the same side. They will look as if they are side by side, as if they are arm in arm in the fight against ISIL, as if they are comrades in arms, as if they are fighting on the same front.
It will look as if the NATO of Turkey is uniting forces with the PKK via the People's Protection Units (YPG), forming an alliance and conducting a joint operation. This is why the MHP leader is questioning the decisions reached at the Brussels summit that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan attended. The fact that NATO is only focusing on ISIL is increasing doubts and concerns, Bahçeli said. "For NATO to join the Raqqa operation will mean, if not support in some way to the PKK-YPG, then turning a blind eye to its actions and aims."
Well, if this NATO is not reliable, then is an alternative Muslim NATO reliable? If the "Crusader" West alliance cannot...