In armed conflicts, one frequently finds what is called the “fog of war.” The term does not refer to the clouds of dust raised by the movement of tanks and other military vehicles, or to the heavy use of smoke screens to camouflage manoeuvres. Rather, it refers to the confusion of information or data available to leaders and the consequent lack of clarity in seeing realities on the ground. Part of this phenomenon, and perhaps one of its most dangerous aspects, is the inability to discern the strategic from the tactical, the whole from the part, the immediate and urgent from what is long-range and can be postponed. An example occurred last week when Turkey shot down a Russian jet that was carrying out military operations in the framework of the war against terrorism. The incident triggered a clash between Moscow and Ankara, each holding the other responsible and each challenging the other's commitment to the war on terrorism, accusing the other of using this war to further their own ends. The incident naturally also led to speculation as to whether or not it would jeopardise the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group. At one point it seemed that the world after 24 November would not be the same as it had been before. Until then, it looked like international and regional powers were on the verge of creating an international and regional coalition focussed on the realisation of two aims: a solution to the Syrian crisis or civil war and, second, the defeat of the IS terrorist organisation. The beginning of this trend was marked by Russia landing in the theatre of operations in the Middle East, on the Syrian front, followed shortly thereafter by Moscow's call for a Vienna conference and the unveiling of its eight-point programme which, despite some reservations and observations, appeared reasonable and acceptable as the Russian presence would not end until the IS threat was defeated and the Syrian crisis resolved. The terrorist attacks in Paris were of a different order in terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world. They struck the city of light, a nuclear power and a member of NATO. In a sense, they were a culmination of the attacks carried out in Beirut and Sinai, and they were followed by other attacks in Bamako and Tunis. These developments made the coalition that was in the making in Vienna not only desirable but also necessary. Or at least, that is how it seemed when the G-20 summit convened in Antalya, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin's statement at the time that some countries present at that summit supported IS with arms. It was a harsh accusation, but as he mentioned no names everyone simply looked the other way, at least for the time being. More importantly, the anguished French president, François Hollande, embarked on an extensive diplomatic tour to drum up an alliance that would provide ground troops to eliminate IS. Then came the 24 November turning point. A Turkish F-16 intercepted and downed a Russian Su-24. Russian and Turkish officials have produced entirely contradictory narratives regarding whether or not the Russian jet violated Turkish airspace, whether or not the Turks gave sufficient warning before pulling the trigger, and on the treatment of the ejected Russian pilots. Accounts also differed on whether or not the downed Russian fighter was carrying out a mission against Turkmen among the anti-Al-Assad opposition or against IS. The details are now familiar, but the two sides continue to insist that the other apologise. Meanwhile, one remains perplexed by the fact that the US, the power closest to the theatre of operations, with its satellites and other means of surveillance, has not voiced a definitive word on the matter. As the situation unfolded over the past week, the plan for a global coalition to defeat IS and solve the Syrian crisis appeared to be reeling and losing its focus because of Russia's involvement in the fighter jet confrontation. Putin, who for some time has been working to rebuild Russia's credibility as a superpower, is clearly greatly offended because the Turks have drawn a non-transgressible line along their border. According to his version, Turkey moved beyond its border to deliver the slap in the Russian face. Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan insists that the coalition against IS should not be used by Russia as an excuse to trample on Turkey's territorial fringes. Both leaders engaged in displays of arrogance toward the other, but neither seemed prepared to acknowledge that in an area filled with supersonic jets incidents of this sort can occur. In all events, the fog has gathered and spread. Russia has publicised imagery demonstrating that its plane fell inside Syrian territory, well away from the Turkish border. Other imagery allegedly shows Turkmen forces deliberately killing one of the pilots. Ankara, for its part, has broadcast recordings of the warnings that it claims its F-16 plane gave to the Russian aircraft. When asked by a Russian diplomat what I thought of the situation that has suddenly emerged, I answered that we faced two questions. One is strategic and concerns the war against IS and perhaps terrorism in general. This concerns all countries that were present at the Vienna conference. The second is tactical and concerns Turkish-Russian relations, which have various historical and geopolitical dimensions, some manipulated for local consumption. Because of the nature of developments in the world and the Middle East, the first (strategic) question should prevail over the second. The question now is whether Putin will sustain the strategic focus or let the tactical focus draw him in other directions. The first alternative is the worthier course, and the one that would be taken by a statesman. The second is the option generally taken by politicians and the more foolish ones, in particular. At the time of writing, both Turkey and Russia have continued their escalatory trajectories. Ankara accuses Moscow of not waging war against terrorism but against the Turkmen Syrian opposition to make them bow at Bashar Al-Assad's feet. It also charges that Moscow has initiated economic sanctions against Ankara. Nevertheless, in the end, the tactical may not necessarily prevail over the strategic, in view of the extraordinarily intensive diplomatic efforts being made to bring the parties back onto the main track. Also, the fact that IS and its allies waste no time when in comes to plotting and carrying out new terrorist attacks makes it all the more urgent to sustain the war against them. This war must engage not just aerial attack but also military operations on the ground, leading to the centre of that self-proclaimed “caliphate” and the destruction of its terrorist heart. At the time when Russia and Turkey, and the rest of the world with them, were obsessed with the crisis between them, IS was tending to its own future. Although we do not know much about what takes place in the decision-making corridors of the terrorist organisation, the recent attacks are a sign that terrorist forces are fragmenting and spreading across the world. Their aim is to wreak the greatest possible unrest and anarchy and damage the global economy. But an analysis of this, its potential consequences and the global reaction, will require another article. The writer is chairman of the board, CEO, and director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies.
