Yes, but it's kinda moot to play the hypothetical game about the benefits. Turkey is one of the oldest members of NATO(first member after the founders) and God knows what would happen if we weren't a member. Yes we would spend more probably but maybe we would have to develop our defense industry more so it would be much better in the long run. For instance, Turkey was producing their own planes until the mid 40ies but with the strong alliance with the US and later with NATO we totally gave up on that front and just used the American planes. According to the stories of old Turkish aviators, the US strictly demanded from us to close the plane factories during the Marshall aids period. Anyway, all I mean is, we can't know for sure.
Plus, don't forget that it's a mutual bond. There maybe even more benefits for Nato to have Turkey as a member than the other way around. Otherwise it's pretty odd to go great lengths and accept a Muslim country in your most important alliance. But it's the pros and cons I guess, at the end it's one of the strongest, experienced and largest(only second to the US in NATO) armies in the world in probably the most strategic part of the world.
That's the point how does supporting the PKKs fight with Turkey benefit the US strategically?
Don't know, could be number of things, from small issues like the US getting pissed about an issue of the time or to the bigger considerations like wanting to have them both on their side in the long run. Actually, it's a fact, the US had decent to good relationships with both Turks and Kurds for the last decades. It's apparent that in the big picture they want good relationships with both of them. So no reason not to double play when they can. And if you'd say that the US wouldn't jeopardize Turkey's alliance for the sake of PKK, I'd say it's not that big of a deal for Turkey to Jeopardize the alliance of the US, it's more of a small scale issue in the grand scheme of strategies. Plus, what could Turkey say? Hey, don't feed PKK with intelligence or.. Or what? The all help of the US about PKK is their courtesy anyway.
You're right I don't think you can trust most Europeans to take their obligations seriously but you can count on the US doing so.
The idealist perspective: The US believes in its duty to safeguard its allies, promote its ideals, and stand by its obligations. The cynics perspective: The damage that would be done to US power and influence if the US did not stand by a nato country when called would be too great. The US has set boundaries for the other powers that if they cross them America will fight without hesitation. If America let Russia, Iran, Syria ignore her in Turkey then those countries would test her elsewhere. America will not watch as another nation invades Turkey.
I have no doubt there are all sorts of agendas and power plays. America will stand by it's commitment to defend Turkey.
In ideal circumstances, maybe. I'd be careful about it, looking from the both sides. Turkey is on a crossroad these days, if Erdoğan turns the country towards more anti-democratic and even anti-Amarican way, why would or should America be loyal to Turkey, just because of the dignity of NATO? Or in a different scenario, even if Turkish politics stay very pro-USA, do you honestly believe %100, that the US would defend Turkey, even if that meant for some hypothetical reason to go against Russia or China or a situation that likely would hurt the US and it's people badly? I highly doubt that.
At the end, I agree that they wouldn't watch it, but what lengths would they venture to go?
I did not say America did not have the support or courage. I'm saying that America does not want this to turn into an America vs muslims thing. It does not want to alienate the entire world again. America has the power and will to act on its own but wants to act as a partner with other nations. America realizes that when it acts alone without involving others that it is less effective both politically and militarily.
Fair enough, I hope the US thinks as pure as you do as well.
Forget about the Turkish soldiers. (although I do think it would have been good for turkey in the long run to be the saviors of Kobani) Turkey should allow Nato planes to fly their missions from Turkish airbases. Not allowing them to is obstructionist. People aren't frustrated that Turkey isn't sending thousands of soldiers deep into Syria they are frustrated because Turkey is failing to do the little things.
Yep I see that, but once again, Turkey not opening its airbases is not enough excuse because it has never been the absolute necessity to act on ISIS earlier an in time. Plus Turkey had only a partial role in the current bad situation. The US and others are equally guilty or even more since they started the whole mess.
And there is a case to degree right now, with why Turkey is reluctant to open its bases at this point. Without her security related demands such as no flying zone and buffer zone/safe heaven on the borders which Syria declared that any attempt of those would be an attack on Syrian sovereignty, even opening the bases might be quite dangerous for the people in the southern Turkey. Nato and the US rejected this ideas until very recently. Even as of now, after Kerry's statement that the ideas of Turkish side should be considered, the pentagon stated that the buffer zone idea is not on the table right now. But I'm sure you can realize that after any attacks/operations from Turkish lands into Syrian lands will immediately put the half of the whole south region of Turkey into the effective and alive war zone. Tens of millions of people will be directly in an active war zone. We can't even know for sure who could try to retaliate to the attacks from the Turkish bases, only ISIS or Assad and his Russia related officers too?
