Availing itself of the partially protected and available freedom of speech, the Turkish public is trying to make sense of the attack. Some associate the attack with the conjectural events or internal and external political developments. The attack obviously had a specific target as no organization with a political identity and purpose would undertake a blind and aimless terrorist attack. Whatever is asserted about the purpose of the attack, the main problem, i.e., the essence of the issue, is that there is a continuing “Kurdish problem.” If this fundamental reality is ignored, the bleeding wound cannot be tended; on the contrary, it will be aggravated further, causing greater blood loss. Of course, the Kurdish issue is not a single-aspect problem. By the very nature of society, no event can be explained by a single factor or represented by a single dimension. This applies to the Kurdish problem as well. This multi-dimensional problem has political, cultural, international, psychological, historical and security-related aspects. Unless these aspects are exhaustively studied to establish a broad picture of the problem, it will not be possible to correctly understand and find a solution to the Kurdish issue.
We must note that the biggest obstacle preventing the settlement of the Kurdish issue is that it is seen as purely security-related problem, ignoring all other aspects. It seems that this conviction has been adopted by the general public thanks to the repeated emphasis on this aspect by officials. In other words, the man on the street now thinks that the Kurdish issue is a purely a security and terror-related problem and that when an organization called the PKK is eliminated, the problem will be solved. In these circumstances, “more security and tightened military measures” are the issues that matter to the public.
When it is time to give rhetoric-filled speeches, high-ranking officials argue that there should be a distinction between terror and terrorists and that it is “the duty of the military to combat terrorists while civilian authorities should fight against terror.” This was openly voiced by former Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt and current Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ. However, due importance has not been given to the non-security related aspects of the events that have been continuing since what former President Süleyman Demirel termed the “29th revolt” in 1984, nor have civilian authorities taken sufficient initiative in solving this mortifying problem. Contradicting his statement, the chief of general staff visited the region and met with the representatives of several nongovernmental organizations as though he were in charge of the civilian political solution, a move which was hailed by certain media organizations.
Perhaps this is what should be stressed. Who is in charge of security, and who is responsible for a political solution? At this point, there is ambiguity. Ideally, the military should deal only with security-related issues while the civilian authorities should try to find a solution by exhaustively delving into the essence of the problem and by developing political, economic and social policies. It seems that the current government has adopted a completely military perspective on this problem and has transferred responsibility fully to the military, as has been done by past governments. İsmail Küçükkaya, a journalist who has ready access to military information, has interesting information on the issue: “İlker Başbuğ is holding meetings with groups of terrorism experts. In the invitations to the meetings, the agenda is specified as ‘non-security related issues.’ It is said that ‘the security related aspect of counterterrorism is already being conducted decisively.’ What is sought in these meetings is to brainstorm about social, cultural, psychological and economic solutions.” (Akşam, Oct. 5).
