Hizb ut-Tahrir/ Wilayah Egypt: Campaign at the al-Fat'h Masjid in Cairo

Turkey's parliament authorised military operations against Syria on Thursday 4th October 2012 and its military immediately fired into Syria, sending salvos of artillery rounds deep into Syria. This was after five civilians in a Turkish border town were killed by Syrian shelling.

Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay said parliament's authorisation was not a declaration of war on Syria but gave Turkey the right to respond to any future attacks from Syria. "The bill is not for war, It has deterrent qualities."

In June, Turkey reinforced its border with anti-aircraft missiles and threatened to target any approaching Syrian military elements after Syrian forces brought down a Turkish jet, killing its two pilots. Turkey said the plane was in international airspace, countering Syrian claims that it was in Syrian airspace.

The crisis in Syria has dragged on for over 18 months with matters now at a stalemate. This is a significant development because the opposition lacks heavy weaponry and command and control structure, but has still managed to draw the al - Assad regime into a situation where it is unable to end the uprising.

This stalemate has been recognised by all and worried the US as it initially believed al - Assad would be able to quell the uprising. The bombing of the national security headquarters in July 2012 shocked US policy makers as it confirmed the capability and reach of the opposition had reached the capital city. A flurry of statements by US officials followed stating that intervention was on the table and may now be necessary to stop a civil war and chemical weapons falling into the wrong hands.

So after 18 months of not intervening, all of a sudden intervention was on the table. Clearly showing the US was shocked and understood that it had failed to halt the tsunami of change hurtling towards Damascus, and more worrying, the ummah may actually over throw the regime, without external help.

The response of the Muslim rulers has been even worse. Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and recently Egypt all have the capability to end the conflict within hours but all have worked to protect the interests of other global powers. Such countries backed the original Arab League observer mission which stood by when al - Assad carried out his massacres. They then backed the Kofi Annan UN mission, which just gave al - Assad more time and political cover to carry out massacres. Such countries have participated in contact groups, friends of Syria conferences and housed some of the opposition. In summary they have been the tools to implement US and European plans.

Turkey's inaction

In the case of Turkey its actions should have been to decisively bring an end to the conflict rather then undertaking some token acts. The Ummah of Syria does not need tents or safe zones, they need the brutal dictator Bashar al - Assad removed and the country liberated. Turkey who shares a border with Syria has been playing a role in the crisis, which stops liberation. Turkey's position on many of its recent problems has fallen short of what it should have done.

Turkey's role in the world has been parallel to its economic development. The two issues cannot be separated form each other. In fact Turkey's ambition in the world is directly linked to driving its economy. Erdogan has used his apparent political ambition of ‘zero problems with its neighbors' to conclude economic deals and secure lucrative deals for his support base that replaced a business class that was loyal to the country's army. Turkey under Erdogan has got involved in multiple regional issues in order to search for opportunities for Turkey, where its gets success it consolidates, where it finds resistance it withdraws and searches for new opportunities. Thus its ambition is for Turkey alone not for the whole Ummah.

The AKP government has not worked independently on any issue or constructed political plans but rather worked within the international system to execute plans developed by other powers. On the two state solution - A US plan, Turkey engaged in indirect negotiations with Palestine and Israel and has held numerous conferences to progress the two state solution. In its region the Erdogan led government has attempted to normalise relations with Armenia and secure economic deals in the Caucuses in order to dominate the region. This is also a region the US wants to act as a buffer against Russian expansion. On energy security nothing has been developed that enriches Turkey, but rather the development of various pipelines has been determined by the EU and Russia. Working to implement the plans of others is what leads to incidents where ones citizens are killed in a flotilla trip and even a response proportionate to the offence is not undertaken due to global public opinion. Interestingly if Turkey had killed Israeli citizens on a flotilla the response form them would have been much different to that of Turkey.

Merely playing a role in international issues is what leads to lots of talk but little in the way of action. This has been the history of Turkey under the AKP. Such a strategy will eventually unravel as it becomes apparent that what is said is very different to what is being done. What is needed is the changing of the international situation and that requires the crafting of policies which extend beyond ones borders and people. For Turkey this would be reunifying the whole ummah.

Turkey could very easily end the conflict in Syria if it wanted. Providing a safe haven for the Free Syria Army (FSA) in the country has allowed it to monitor FSA capabilities and ensure heavy weaponry doesn't make its way to them. This has allowed the US as was highlighted by the telegraph to make contact with such individuals and gain loyalty in return for weapons. "An underground network of Syrian opposition activists is receiving training and supplies of vital equipment from a combined American and British effort to forge an effective alternative to the Damascus regime. Dozens of dissidents have been ferried out of Syria to be vetted for foreign backing." Recruits face "two days of vetting designed to ensure that the programme does not fall into the trap of promoting sectarian agendas or the rise of al-Qaeda-style fundamentalists."

Turkish Intervention

Assad has resorted to using the republican guard and the 4th armoured division as the rest of the army is largely Sunni and cannot be trusted. Turkish intervention would be facing anything between 20,000 - 80,000 personnel. Turkey can draw upon army personnel of over a million and would only need to occupy Damascus and Aleppo, to bring the conflict to an end. As Turkey shares a border with Syria it will not have long supply lines and could quickly resupply troops whenever needed. The sheer size of Turkish armed forces would quickly overwhelm al - Assad's defences. It is also very likely that mass defections would take place in the face of a Turkish onslaught leading the capitulation of the al - Assad regime. Turkey makes its own Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC) and tanks, whilst Syria has no indigenous defence industry to speak about. Syria would suffer form huge resupply efforts as it reliant on foreign supplies to replace destroyed equipment, Turkey's production facilities can continue to roll out APC's and tanks as the battle progressed.

A ground assault combined with an air assault would disable Syria's SAM batteries - which are surface to air missiles. Turkey has indigenously developed its own unmanned aerial vehicles, which could take out and overwhelm Syria's missile defence system. Alongside this Turkey has 800 combat aircraft of which 350 are F15 falcon fighting jets Capable of 9g manoeuvres and speeds in excess of Mach 2, this would be no match for al-Assad's Soviet era MiG's made in the 1960's.

Turkey's Southern bases in Diyarbakır, Milatya would be the command and control centers for such an operation and combat planes could fly from bases in Konya, the drone base in Batman and Erkilit would provide air support. The Incirlik Air Base would fly multiple sorties to take control of Syria's airspace.

A crucial difference between the air combat capability of Syria and Turkey is that Turkey has modern support systems in place for the planes it flies with the result that a high proportion of aircraft are available for operations at any given time.

Conclusions

It should be clear to all that negotiations have in reality kept Assad in power. The time for talking ended when al - Assad began his brutal crackdown. What is needed by Turkey is to prove that it has teeth in its foreign policy and also has the ummah's interests at heart and bring a swift end to the brutal crackdown of Basher al- Assad. Merely providing tents and calling for a buffer zone is in reality calling for Assad to remain. Turkey has the capability and the history from the Uthmani Khilafah "Caliphate" on its side to carry out such an operation it now just needs to live up to this.

Adnan Khan

Headlines:

• Africa facing intensified 'food crisis'
• Draft of Egypt's new constitution under fire for its Islamic influence
• 2014: ‘Afghanistan is hurtling toward a devastating collapse'
• Pakistan blocks protest against US drones

Details:

Africa facing intensified 'food crisis':

New report suggests that numerous African and Middle East countries are at a high or extreme risk of a food crisis. Seventy-five per cent of countries on the African continent and several Arab countries face an impending food crisis, a new study has revealed. Maplecroft's Food Security Risk Index, a report released on Wednesday, found that in a survey of 197 countries worldwide, up to 39 of the 59 most at risk of food insecurity were African countries. "Although a food crisis has not emerged yet, there is potential for food-related upheaval across the most vulnerable regions," including sub-Saharan African and Arab states, Helen Hodge, head of maps and indices at Maplecroft, said. Maplecroft said that low crop yields had pushed global food prices up by six per cent in July 2012, raising concerns of a repeat of the 2007/2008 food crisis. The crisis had culminated in a series of food riots across several countries, including Bangladesh, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Mexico, Senegal and Yemen. "Food price forecasts for 2013 provide a worrying picture," Hodge said. The British consultancy said that despite strong economic growth on the African continent, food security remained an issue of primary importance, citing armed conflict, civil unrest, drought, displacement and poor governance as exacerbating factors in creating conditions for a food crisis. Nine out of the 11 countries in the "extreme risk" category were in Africa. They include Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), which are ranked joint first, Burundi (4th), Chad (5th), Ethiopia (6th), Eritrea (7th), South Sudan (9th), the Comoros (10th) and Sierra Leone (11th). Haiti (3rd) and Afghanistan (8th) are the other two countries in the extreme risk category. The 48 countries considered to be at "high" risk for food supplies include Yemen (15th), Syria (16th), Pakistan (27th), Papua New Guinea (33rd), North Korea (35th), Iraq (54th) and Libya (58th). Egypt, ranked 71st of the 197 countries, and Tunisia, 100th, are among medium-risk countries. Sources of food insecurity range from conflict and instability in the Sahel, DR Congo and eastern Africa to rising prices for corn, caused by the worst US drought in 50 years and declining production in former Soviet countries, Maplecroft said.

Draft of Egypt's new constitution under fire for its Islamic influence:

Egypt unveiled a proposed draft of a new constitution Wednesday amid criticism from liberals and human rights groups that the document is tilted toward Islamic law and endangers the democratic ideals that inspired the uprising that last year overthrew Hosni Mubarak. The partial draft, which was opened for public review, immediately revealed the battle lines between Islamists and secularists over the nation's character. Dominated by ultraconservative and moderate Islamists, the 100-member assembly that wrote the charter made it clear that civil and religious rights would be shaped through the prism of Islam. The proposal has echoes of Egypt's 1971 constitution, but the new document is a testament to a changing political era in which a nation once run by Western-leaning military men is now, after an uprising and months of tumultuous politics, increasingly in the hands of Islamists. That prospect is recasting alliances and weakening the influence of the U.S. and other Western powers. The draft states that Egypt is "a democratic regime" guided by the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. But the wording in some articles, such as those dealing with the equality for men and women, are either explicitly tied to strict Islamic precepts or open to interpretation. Human rights groups fear such ambiguities will allow Islamists, especially ultraconservative Salafis, to exploit the language to advance a more religious-centric state. Article 36 states that "the state shall take all measures to establish the equality of women and men in the areas of political, cultural, economic, and social life, as well as all other areas, insofar as this does not conflict with the rulings of Islamic Shariah." Human Rights Watch criticized the provision as "not consistent with international human rights law." In a report this week, the organization added that the proposed draft "contains many loopholes that would allow future authorities to repress and limit basic rights and freedoms." Islamists, however, were quick to defend the assembly at a news conference to kickoff a public review campaign called Know Your Constitution. "We are very proud of this constitution. It represents all Egyptians, even the Coptic (Christian) community," said Abdelfattah Hosseiny, an Islamist judge and assembly member. "The media creates suspense for no reason. ... We were very fair in creating this constitutional draft, we asked for suggestions from all Egyptians, including the most simple citizens."

2014: ‘Afghanistan is hurtling toward a devastating collapse':

As "D-Day approaches, the $60 billion Think Tank industry in America is in full gear. Policy decisions are important during an election year, so whatever happens in November will have a colossal impact on the future of the war in West Asia. The BBC is now reporting that the Kabul government will collapse as soon as NATO, ISAF and the US withdraws. "The International Crisis Group (ICG) says the Afghan police and army are unprepared for security responsibility." According to the report "from the Brussels-based group is stark in its prediction that the Western-backed government in Afghanistan could be on course for what it calls a devastating political crisis after 2014.? Foreign Policy Magazine, an ultra-conservative Neoconservative magazine is recommending that the US should not abandon Afghan peace talks and should include Pakistan as the mediator. Amazingly the article does not mention India or any of the other neighbours in Afghanistan. The Taliban on the other hand have also reiterated their position-withdraw from Afghanistan without any conditions and we will give you safe passage to leave. The Russians took it and withdrew quietly. If NATO doesn't take the offer, there will be bloodshed while the army retreats. There is no reason for us to believe that the US and NATO wont take the sane route.

Pakistan blocks protest against US drones:

The Pakistani military blocked a convoy carrying thousands of Pakistanis and a small contingent of US anti-war activists from entering a lawless tribal region along the border with Afghanistan on Sunday to protest American drone strikes. The group, led by cricket star turned politician Imran Khan and his political party, was turned back just miles from the border of South Waziristan. After an hour of fruitless negotiations, Mr Khan announced that the caravan would backtrack to the city of Tank, about 15km away. There, he delivered a speech to the crowd of about 10,000. Mr Khan has harshly criticised the Pakistani government's co-operation with Washington in the fight against Islamist militants. He has been especially outspoken against US drone strikes targeting militants and has argued that Islamabad's alliance with Washington is the main reason Pakistan is facing a home grown Taliban insurgency. He has suggested before that militant activity in Pakistan's tribal areas will dissipate when the US ends the war across the border in Afghanistan. "We want to give a message to America that the more you carry out drone attacks, the more people will hate you," Mr Khan told the crowd. The anti-American sentiment, always high in Pakistan, was evident in the crowd that waved banners saying "Down with America," and "The friend of America is the traitor of the nation." Pakistan's tribal regions, such as North and South Waziristan, border Afghanistan and serve as bases for militant groups such as the Taliban to stage raids across the border into Afghanistan.

Abu Hashim

Hizb ut-Tahrir/ Wilayah Egypt: Campaign at al-Noor Masjid in al-Abbasiyya / Cairo