The moral wretchedness of the anti-war

There is probably no movement, discourse, or ideology more hypocritical, fraudulent, and inconsistent than anti-war sentiment. Of course, we are not speaking of those who, individually or even as a group, adopt a philosophical cynic attitude toward war, saying they have no dealings with anyone in the world, not caring if the world goes down, not distinguishing the one who comes from the one who goes, taking no side in any quarrel. Though the price of adopting this attitude too, by remaining neutral and indifferent between the rightful and the wrongful, is in fact nothing other than standing effectively beside the wrongful who prevails.

Anyone with a little thought, stance, and consistency is not categorically against war but, by his own definition and outlook, against injustice, inequity, aggression, rape, and tyranny. Since wrong, tyranny, injustice, aggression, rape, and occupation are never absent from the world, being against war yields in practice no result other than acquiescing in all these happenings or siding with them. The inevitable end of those who defend anti-war sentiment categorically and philosophically is this, and behind nearly all of those who put it forward as a movement there is certainly indirect support given to other warring groups.

They emerge when the possibility of their own side losing appears and cling to a discourse with an ostensibly self-proclaimed virtue such as anti-war sentiment. Yet precisely for this reason, anti-war sentiment has no virtuous side whatsoever.

Opposing injustice, tyranny, inequity, rape, and occupation in the world, struggling against them, and leaving no stone unturned in preventing their tyranny is a virtue that makes a human being human. And this virtue inevitably requires being willing to risk war with oppressors and occupiers, and being ready for war. Being against war in every form means denying the moral necessity, indeed the obligation, of this struggle.

The anti-war sentiment that suddenly stirred in the Medical Association and in the HDP members who lean their backs on the PKK-PYD, the most reckless and bloodstained group in the Middle East, with Turkey's Operation Olive Branch in Afrin, is by itself more than enough to show the fraudulence of this discourse or movement called anti-war sentiment.

As if Turkey had started this war, and as if it would end only by Turkey's decision alone. Seven years have passed since the war in Syria began. Starting from the country that came from the other end of the world and mercilessly tests every kind of war weapon here on our neighbors, there is no one left who has not taken part in the war.

Yet the country that pays the greatest human and economic cost of the war is Turkey. Because it hosts three and a half million Syrians in the country, everything that happens in Syria has in fact become not Turkey's foreign problem but directly its domestic problem. The country that came from the other end of the world is giving 5000 truckloads of weapons to an organization that has been spreading terror against Turkey for forty years. These weapons are used both inside Syria and in terror attacks in Turkey. In these there is not the slightest anti-war discourse.

In the election held in the atmosphere of the solution process, the HDP found the opportunity of representation in Parliament with 80 deputies. Having seized in this way an extraordinary opportunity for politics, it preferred, instead of politics, to follow the "self-rule" adventure of the PKK, the terror and professional war machine, and to surf on the wave of terror that turned our cities into battlefields. While those trenches were dug in those beautiful cities and very young Kurdish youths were placed in those trenches with weapons put in their hands, we heard no anti-war slogan, no cry, no voice from these circles. They could not turn to the PKK and say stop the war, there is now a wide field for politics.

Then, the anti-war peaceful voices that were not heard while the trenches were being dug rose as a roar when the state moved to end this occupation.

They have risen up to explain how bad war is and how badly people are affected by war. Fine, but they are explaining this to the last addressee, to Turkey, which was forced to join the war at the last stage. Explain it to the US. Against whom, I wonder, did the US give five thousand truckloads of weapons to the PYD-PKK terrorist organization for use?

Why did we never hear this question from them as well? Who does not know, who does not understand, that those weapons primarily threaten Turkey? As in most cases, here too the anti-war discourse moves into action not against those who started the war, who are the cause of war, occupation, and injustice, but when their victims attempt to defend themselves.

On 15 July a clear division of labor had been established between the PYD and FETÖ. FETÖ would carry out the coup, and from the ensuing turmoil the PYD would both complete the terror corridor inside Syria and this corridor would be extended by the secession that would occur from Turkey's Southeast.

This plan was proceeding step by step; on 15 July the people's resistance spoiled the whole thing, and the collapse of the coup attempt does not mean that at least the achievable parts of this plan have been abandoned.

While Turkey, to put it mildly, is fighting to defend itself, its own main opposition party speaks of the virtue of peace in a way that weakens this defense. Speaking of peace during defense means nothing other than wanting surrender.

They may have surrendered, but Turkey will not surrender.