NATO has declared that the first Patriot anti-missile
battery has gone operational in southern Turkey—the first battery that went
operational was provided by the Netherlands and deployed in the city of Adana. The battery is set to seize
possible rockets fired from Syria. It is capable of shooting down hostile missiles in mid-air. The next few batteries are expected to be
operational over the next several days. It is said that altogether, there will be six Patriot missile batteries.
Officials have repeatedly denied that this is to support a no-fly zone in the area, however, the implementation of these anti-missile batteries has not gone over well with the Turkish citizens, as well as a few states that are not a part of NATO. Many Turks are disgruntled, with some claiming that these missiles are actually for the benefit of Israel against Iran. Others are skeptical about the Patriot's mission. They doubt that it is really aimed at protecting the Turkish people. The Russian government agrees. Vice president Dmitry Polikanov claims that these missiles will be stationed in Turkey forever, due to its convenient location in the Middle East. Iran has also expressed its disapproval of the actions.
This news made me question if it was really necessary for NATO to deploy these missiles in Turkey. It seems that this action has received a lot of negative feedback. If many Turks don't support it, then I wonder if Turkey is really that vulnerable to Syrian attacks. What do you think?
This is so interesting! I saw this when I was looking up stuff for my practice country - Turkey! I don't know that Turkey is that afraid of Syrian attacks, but it should be interesting to see how this turns out and what happens.
ReplyDeleteI agree, this article is really interesting. It seems that there is much more behind the reasoning for the Patriot anti-missile battery than just for defense means for the Turks. If there are already strong in-state protestors then it is obviously not being shared very convincingly to the Turks how these anti-missles are deliberately helping protect them. The anti-missles are making them feel insecure as well as Syria, Russia, and Iran. I agree with the Syrian government that the NATO deployment is a provaction and will put many on edge. But is this provaction actually needed for protection? I'm not quite sure.
ReplyDeleteI found this article intriguing as well. Turkey is a prominent, powerful, and influential country in the Middle East. Syria is a hostile country in the Middle East but I feel that the extent of the development of these Patriot Missiles does not reflect the extent of Syria's potential hostility towards Turkey. The development of these missiles could reflect the extension of NATO's reach and control into the Middle East, as well as the continual influence of the 'big' countries of NATO such as the United States in the Middle East. The development of these missiles could possibly by a measure taken to prevent an attack upon NATO member countries who do not have a working relationship with Syria. Also these missiles could also be serving as a warning to the Syrian government.
ReplyDeleteI find it noteworthy that in this situation, as with many other security-sensitive situations in Southwest Asia, the media highlights the wavering and various opinions of the local populace as relevant to issues of national security intended, at least on the mission's face, to protect these very citizens. Whether or not the missile batteries are essential to protect Turkish citizens, we will never know...unless Syria does indeed fire Scuds, or other offensive weapons, on Turkey. The move by NATO seems straightforward: a member state, under threat of repeated attacks, and having no way to defend itself from Syria's threatening stance, asks for assistance to defend its citizens. Issues of a "threatening posture in the Middle East" or otherwise notwithstanding, the simple act of placing defensive weapons within an Alliance state's borders should not be reason for concern or condemnation.
ReplyDelete