|The Russian fighter jet plummeting to the ground after being shot down|
Turkey's actions, or lack thereof, put it's NATO allies in an awkward position of obligated support and assumption about the nation's motives. To add to this, the Turkish government's rocky history with Assad, combined with its unwillingness to shut down supply lines leading in to an ISIS-controlled territory, and it's overall ambivalence in regards to the Obama administration's anti-ISIL strategy since 2014 all contribute to a growing suspicion over Turkey's true motives in the fight to dissolve the Islamic State and the destruction it causes.
Presently, Turkey continues to send mixed messages to it's allies in regards to where it's support lies. Recently, a policy was implemented that would open up Turkish airbases to anti-ISIL forces to conduct combat operations with Turkey's pledged help, but so far the Turkish have reportedly spent the majority of their time combatting internal terrorist organizations that they have been fighting since the mid-1980s.
At the moment, few advisors in Washington believe Turkey has been or will be part of the solution in Syria, but the accommodating manner in which they are treating Turkish president Erdogan stems solely from a fear of losing access to Turkish territory.
Based on the information above, and perhaps prior knowledge, do you think Turkey hold ulterior motives in the fight against ISIS? Why or why not?
Do you think that Turkey's past history with Assad (i.e. Assad's "betrayal" of the Turkish government in Syria) is the root of these motives?
Assuming that Turkey does have motives that conflict with those of it's NATO allies, what action should be taken?