What does it matter who planted the mine?

Three days before 20 September, when the non-action stance declared by the PKK is to end, the effect of the remote-controlled mine detonated in Hakkari once again managed to affect every part of Turkey. Yet one of the clearest results of the referendum is that the government's hand has been strengthened considerably regarding the steps to be taken within the framework of the Kurdish question, and for that reason there is no doubt that since last Sunday a much more optimistic atmosphere has formed regarding the solution of the problem. Moreover, this is so even though the BDP, in the shadow of the PKK's armed force, adopted a boycotting stance in the referendum and persistently avoided contributing to the process.

Frankly, in the atmosphere formed after the referendum, a horizon of solution to the Kurdish question has appeared in spite of the PKK and the BDP. Even so, of course, in order for the solution of the problem to be lasting and healthy, the BDP must not be excluded either.

The attack on a minibus in Hakkari carrying women and children is a copy of a series of actions carried out before. Its timing and manner leave no doubt as to what is being aimed at. In May of last year, on the very eve of a meeting to be held between Ahmet Türk and the prime minister, as a result of a mine again exploding and 7 soldiers being martyred, the prime minister immediately canceled the meeting as if imposing an advance punishment. Later, attacks carried out on the eve of the debate of the laws on juvenile offenders in the TBMM caused the passage of the law to be suspended. The attack organized in Reşadiye on the eve of the hearing of the DTP closure case, and the urban actions that erupted right after it, seemed almost aimed at eliminating completely any hesitation there might be in the Constitutional Court.

What the attack on the police in Dörtyol a month before the referendum was aiming at was very clear, and the emergence of a JİTEM connection in this attack surprised no one. But of course, when it became a little clearer, the connection that surprised everyone was that the PKK claimed responsibility for the incident in an action in which JİTEM was so much on the scene, just as it claimed the Reşadiye attack. In both incidents the PKK's claiming responsibility for the act became, as it were, a shield against attention turning toward the Ergenekon or JİTEM connections. Frankly, it is an undeniable fact that both agree on the continuation of this war. That is why, unlike in earlier actions and attacks, the question of who detonated the mine now has very little meaning.

Is it hoped, with the ammunition left at the scene after the attack like a calling card, that attention will be turned toward the military? What need is there for that? Did the PKK not already claim, when necessary, actions in which it had no involvement whatsoever? Go back to the incident of the attack on the 33 unarmed soldiers in Bingöl in 1993. That incident reflects, as a model, the PKK's role in the war economy with all its dimensions. It was an action that even Öcalan could not make sense of.

This manner of action is so familiar!

Carrying out the action and throwing it onto someone is the way the status quo brings itself into being.

Go and look at the 12 Septembers, the 28 Februarys and, of course, as a fresher event, the Council of State murder. Always the same logic of action, always the same insidious style at work.

Is the action in Hakkari carried out by some groups within the military that want the war to continue, who then attribute it to the PKK, or is it the PKK that carries it out and tries to give the impression that it will throw the blame on the military? For example, whom did the military operation before the referendum, which raided the camp sites of PKK members in a state of non-action in Hakkari and killed 9 Kurds, serve? Did the PKK, which thanks to this operation had become very hard pressed to implement its boycott decision, not achieve a participation reaching 91 percent especially in Hakkari? Once the relations between them are this cozy, once both want the same thing, that is, the continuation of the war, what does it matter who laid the mine? In the end they rush to each other's aid and serve the same aim.

So why do even we, who by now should have memorized this manner of action, still ask who planted the bomb as if looking for a very original piece of information? If the state planted the bomb, will the PKK then be innocent in this process? Let us say the PKK is innocent; does anyone remember any move on its part that would foil such intrigues of the state, or with all its stances is it playing the role written for it in the intrigue?

And does the prime minister or the government, which cancels its whole program at every attack, not in a way encourage such intrigues? So this intrigue writes a role for our prime minister too, and our prime minister plays this role every time just as desired?

Yet the first thing even a simple mind would see is that the only way to foil the game is to act in exactly the opposite way of what those who set up the game want.