Here's a scene that partly explains why Turkey hasn't invaded Syria yet: In a recent parliamentary debate, Umit Ozgumus, a leader of the Turkish opposition party CHP, entered a raucous debate with Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, ranting, "the allegations that Assad is perpetrating massacres are lies!"
Turkey has leveled threats of invasion into Syria as the conflict has deepened over the past two years. But it has not delivered on its threat, largely because of its complex Syria policy: various considerations, including the evolving relationship between the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Turkish army, as well as unrest among the country's Alawite population and the approaching elections, are all pulling Ankara back from military action against the Assad regime.
The AKP government has spent the last decade subjugating the once-autonomous and staunchly secular military to its power. The military has all but lost its standing with the Turkish public in the wake of ongoing court cases that accuse the army of involvement in a nefarious coup plot to overthrow the government.
Whether or not these allegations are grounded, one thing is clear: the Turkish military is no longer the most respected actor in the country. In 2007, before the Ergenekon case, which alleged that there was a hidden coup plot against the AKP government, polls showed that the Turks trusted the military more than any other institution. Now, Turks trust the presidency, a position filled by former AKP member Abdullah Gul, who has proven himself as a statesman since assuming office in 2007. Abdullah Gul has actively grown his prestige with his successful use of social media and patronage of civic initiatives. Meanwhile, the military's luster has faded.
This also stems from the fact that the Turkish army, once feared and respected, has proven to be an empty shell. Over a quarter of the top brass of the Turkish military have ended up in jail in connection with coup plots, and arrests continue on a monthly basis. Today, the military is in no position to present itself as an institution to be feared, much less respected. In other words, the AKP has won, and the military has lost. One reason why the Ankara government is reluctant to send the military against Assad is that a victory on the battlefield would quickly allow the military to restore its image.
Ironically, the army does not want to fight against Assad either; the Turkish military is silently aware of its own weaknesses. For many years, Turkey's military doctrine was built on the assumption that Turkey must prepare for conventional war against its neighbors. Although the military built capacities for overseas deployment following the September 11 attacks and demonstrated impressive ability in Afghanistan, it is woefully ill equipped to successfully partake in a civil war in Syria.
Analysts in Ankara estimate that the best the Turkish army can do against Assad would be to take control of a 10- to 20- mile wide cordon sanitaire in northern Syria, across the Turkish border. That would hardly be a resounding victory for the Turkish military.
What's more, without solid NATO backing the Turkish military, though a much more powerful force than the Syrian military, would not be able to maintain its comparative advantage against the Assad regime and likely anti-Turkish insurgency led by the regime supporters. Without White House support for a unilateral Turkish campaign against Assad, even the most hawkish Turkish generals will shy away from a campaign until they are sure Turkey will not be left to go it alone.