Secretary Clinton has stated several times that she would consider, if elected President, a no fly zone (NFZ) over Syria and has implied this would be part of a humanitarian assistance strategy to bring relief to the citizens of Aleppo. At the last two debates she specifically referenced Omar Daqneesh, the shell shocked 5 year old Syrian boy filmed sitting in the back in an ambulance in August as a reason to not allow the status quo of Russian and Syrian air strikes on civilian population areas to go on. This has not always been Clinton’s position, in 2013 she expressed concern that a no fly zone would kill a lot of Syrians. Secretary Clinton’s change in position, or at least a stated willingness to change her position, has not been met with universal acclaim. Many Democrats, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others have expressed concerns that a no fly zone would not save lives. Others have argued that it could start World War III featuring the US vs Russia.
Since this has now been put forward as a possible change in US policy and strategy it is important to take a few minutes and consider exactly what a no fly zone really is, how such a choice fits within the US’s strategy formulation framework, and whether it is feasible, acceptable, and suitable.
In terms of US military concepts and doctrine the phrase “no fly zone” is not a doctrinal term. The closest doctrinal term is no fly area (NOFLY) and is defined in Joint Publication (JP) 3-52/Joint Airspace Control as:
Airspace of specific dimensions set aside for a specific purpose in which no aircraft operations are permitted, except as authorized by the appropriate commander and controlling agency.
Mueller defines no fly zones in Denying Flight as:
…a no-fly zone can be defined as a policy under which an outside actor overtly prohibits some or all aircraft flight over a specified territory and undertakes to intercept aircraft violating the prohibition or otherwise punish those responsible for violations.3 Several features of this definition are worth noting. First, an NFZ thus defined does not include defending the sovereignty of one’s own airspace or that of an allied state with the ally’s consent. In a sense, it can be said that virtually every country has an NFZ of some sort over its own territory, often prohibiting all flights in particularly sensitive airspace, but these are not of interest here. Second, an NFZ is a declaratory policy under which one expects violators to be aware of the line they are crossing. Third, imposing an NFZ worthy of the name entails enforcing it, not merely complaining about those who violate it; normally, this means intercepting aircraft that defy the ban, though an NFZ could also employ an enforcement mechanism that relies on other, less-direct forms of sanction.4
He posits that no fly zones are often attractive policy options because:
Since the end of the Cold War, “no-fly zones” (NFZs)1 have begun to appear on menus of policy options for dealing with troublesome states. Prohibiting a miscreant government from using airpower for warfare or transportation within its own country may appeal to policymakers, primarily because it is perhaps the most limited way that military force can be used as a punitive tool. Compared to other forms of armed intervention, NFZs typically entail relatively little risk to the powers imposing them, as least when directed against militarily weak targets. Yet, because they are an active use of military power, NFZs tend to seem more assertive than policy instruments such as economic sanctions.
Due to their limited nature, no-fly zones may also be relatively easy policy initiatives for international coalitions to agree on when they are keen to act against a target regime but wary of taking large risks or committing themselves to major military action. This was very much the case in early 2011, following uprisings against Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan government’s subsequent crackdown against its internal opponents. With a rising sense that the international community needed to do something to help the rebels, first the Gulf Cooperation Council, then the Arab League, and finally the United Nations voted to support the imposition of a NFZ over Libya, from which grew the 2011 air campaign against Qaddafi that enabled the Libyan opposition to defeat his regime and remove him from power (Operation Odyssey Dawn [OOD] and Operation Unified Protector [OUP]).
While this doctrinal and definitional discussion is interesting, the seeming reason behind Secretary Clinton’s willingness to revisit adjusting US policy to include a no fly zone is the result of humanitarian concerns. One of the reasons for this seems to be the failure of the recent cease-fire, which even when it was in effect, failed to allow for humanitarian assistance to reach the people of Aleppo. Its failure also seems to have taken the wind out of the sails (if I may mix my Service metaphors) of the announced US-Russian Joint Deconfliction Office to coordinate strikes and deconflict operations against ISIL and the Nusra Front in Syria. Part of the consideration, viewed solely through public statements and the news reporting on her changed position, is that diplomacy, including MIL to MIL (military to military) diplomacy has failed to end air strikes on non combatant civilian populations in Syria, specifically Aleppo, and as a result a greater humanitarian disaster has ensued. As a result the most effective way to break the impasse, prevent air strikes on civilian population centers, and get much needed humanitarian assistance to those civilian populations is to have the US led coalition deny flight to the Russians and the Syrians.
The discussion of a no fly zone, and the reasons to implement one, has strayed into the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Responsibility to Protect is defined as:
The three pillars of the responsibility to protect, as stipulated in the Outcome Document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit (A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140) and formulated in the Secretary-General’s 2009 Report (A/63/677) on Implementing the Responsibility to Protect are:
- The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
- The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
- The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
So where does this all fit into the US’s strategy formulation framework. A graphical representation of the strategy formulation framework can be seen in Figure 1.
(Figure 1: Strategy Formulation Framework)
Enacting a no fly zone policy and strategy fits within several places on the strategy formulation framework. Specifically within the ethics and values of National purpose, as well as National interests and within a number of both the domestic and global environment, forces, and trends. Reporting on the humanitarian crisis resulting from the Syrian Civil War in general and the Russian and Syrian air strikes on civilian populations in specific, generates reporting that describes the depth and breadth of the strategic problem. The reporting, along with the photojournalistic evidence and documentation that is reported out of Syria has the ability to change both the domestic and global views on whether a no fly zone would be an acceptable policy adjustment. For instance:
(Image 1: Omar Daqneesh)
and
Syrians are literally being buried alive in body bags. Haunting NYT oped by Raed Saleh, head of the White Helmets https://t.co/kpTKIuyskq pic.twitter.com/ZIoxqvRCe5
— Karim Sadjadpour (@ksadjadpour) October 25, 2016
This, as well as other reporting on the White Helmets of Aleppo has the ability to impact the strategic environment, just as images of starving Muslims in Balkan concentration camps did in the mid 1990s. It does so by speaking directly to National values and ethics, as well as global norms, to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Yet even as the strategic environment has changed – diplomacy continues to fail and the Russian and Syrian air strikes are deepening the humanitarian crisis – the strategic questions regarding implementing a no fly zone policy are: is it feasible, acceptable, and suitable (the FAS test)? While Russia may only have two to three dozen fixed and rotary wing assets in Syria, in addition to Syria’s own Syrian Arab Air Force, Russia has also moved anti-aircraft capability into Syria. Specifically the S-300 air defense system at its naval base in Latakia. This is in addition to the deployment of its S-400 air defense system to Syria in late 2015.
(Image 2: S-300 Air Defense System)
and
(Image 3: S-400 Air Defense System)
Given Russia’s assets in Syria – fixed and rotary wing aircraft and the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems – is a US led Coalition no fly zone feasible, acceptable, and suitable? Feasible is the easiest portion of the FAS test to answer. Yes, it is feasible for the US led Coalition to establish and maintain a no fly zone over parts or all of Syria. American Air Power is overwhelmingly dominant anywhere in the world. The ability to wield dominant Air Power is part of US Air Force doctrine and given the abilities of the US Air Force, US Navy and Marine Corps, US Army Aviation, and Coalition Air Forces, establishing and maintaining a no fly zone over parts or all of Syria is feasible. It is, however, neither acceptable nor suitable at this time. There are very, very real concerns that the Russians, and by Russians I mean Putin as the Russian National Command Authority, would be willing to challenge the no fly zone through either air to air or ground to air based fire. US Director of National Intelligence Lt. Gen (ret) James Clapper has publicly stated this concern:
“I wouldn’t put it past them to shoot down an American aircraft,”
The ultimate concern is that a Russian response to a US led Coalition no fly zone is that it would lead to war with Russia. And because Russia’s conventional forces are still in rough shape, as is the Russian economy, this would lead the Russian’s (Putin) to quickly escalate to nuclear warfare. As a result, and because of the risk of escalation via Russian response, a no fly zone is not suitable. Simply there is too high a probability that it would make things worse.
It is also not acceptable for a related reason: the concerns over the likelihood of escalation into an interstate war between the US and Russia, with a possible further escalation to a nuclear war outweighs, for now, the ethical and moral concerns regarding the humanitarian crisis that is being worsened by Russian and Syrian air strikes on civilian populations. It is hard to persuade US lawmakers and their constituents to risk an interstate war, let alone a nuclear one, in exchange for bringing much needed humanitarian relief to Syrians caught between the Russians and Syrians on one side and the Nusra Front and ISIL on the other. There simply is not enough coverage of and interest in the Syrian humanitarian crisis as a result of the US Presidential election dominating the news cycle to allow a policy maker to be able to leverage coverage of the humanitarian crisis to persuade a Congress that has thrice refused to pass an Authorization of Military Force to provide President Obama, the Department of Defense, US Central Command, and Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve with a dedicated set of authorizations and funding to actually prosecute the war against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. The current American political reality makes a no fly zone policy unacceptable.
Omnes Omnibus
Title sequence is all fucked up.
Now to read the piece.
Ruckus
I’m wondering if the talk of a no fly is to get some other form of discussion going, which on the surface does not appear to be happening. As I understand it the suggestion is that she would consider it, no that she would try to implement it.
And what else is there? A continuation of current situation?
redshirt
Can I get a tl;dr?
JGabriel
Fascinating analysis. Thank you, Adam.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: It also points to Congress’s inaction.
dr. bloor
@redshirt: Given that the word “nuclear” appears at several points in the post, which will take all of five minutes out of your busy day to read, you should probably give it your full attention or just go back to the Cubs/Indians game.
trollhattan
IIRC the last time we were meaningfully challenged in the air was the Balkans and that turned out pretty messy. Don’t think taking on Russia is advisable for a basketfull of reasons.
JGabriel
redshirt:
Read it.
If you really can’t, due to time constraints, then skip down to the last three – four paragraphs and at least read those.
But honestly, you’ll get a lot more out of it if you read the whole thing.
Ruckus
@Omnes Omnibus:
Hard to have a direction with their heads that far up their collective asses. But no wonder they think the world is shit. That is their entire world.
mike in dc
Yet I think we will be drawn into a more direct confrontation with Russia and Syria, as the offensive against ISIL reaches its conclusion. I think it would be difficult to withdraw support from the Syrian rebel coalition we have been supporting, simply because ISIL and al Nusra are defeated, a few months hence, while the Syrian Army rampages against those same rebels, with Russian military support. So supporting a NFZ is imfeasible due to escalation concerns and the lack of political will. What would be the alternative short of such an action? Providing SAMs and/or MANPADs(portable anti-air systems) to the rebel coalition(albeit with the clear risk that such ordnance might find its way into the wrong hands)? Continuing to support the coalition, to an extent that even Russian and Syrian air operations are insufficient to defeat or drive back the rebels? I suspect that continuing support is the only way to drive the Syrians and Russians to the negotiating table.
Omnes Omnibus
I will note that talking about a no fly zone does not necessarily indicate an intention to initiate one. It can easily be a part of a strategy to pressure other parties to the negotiating table. Kerry talked very tough in the run-up to the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons deal – tough enough that commenters on B-J were questioning his sanity. Nevertheless, a deal was struck.
Ian
Adam do you think that this war would continue without Assad? Has it become so polarized that the Alawites and Sunnis would continue to fight over resources and land?
I also wonder how centralized the control over the Syrian army is. Is the high command calling the shots or are local commanders?
While it would probably be illegal the question I am wondering is if a targeted strike on Assad and his top commanders would be enough to collapse the Syrian state. This would do little to end the war as I think the factions would keep competing, but I think Assad and his cohorts are the primary creators of misery in this war.
Mary G
It just seems like a face-saving sop to people who demand action but don’t want American boots on the ground. I’ve had people tell me that the Russians would agree to it, which is balderdash/poppycock.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I lost my connection while drafting, had to copy my text and images, then reload everything once I rebooted the modem. I initially forgot to retype the title, but have gone back and it should be fixed now.
Adam L Silverman
@Ruckus: That is a likely possibility. She’s laying down a marker should she be elected to put Putin on notice. So she’s signaling that she’d use the stick as a way to get the diplomatic efforts back on track.
JGabriel
Ian:
I can’t speak for Adam, but given that the roots of this conflict extend back into a drought that was very likely caused by global warming, I think it’s probable that, yes, the various factions would continue to fight over resources and land. That’s primarily what the conflict has been all about anyway. Well, that and dominance.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: It is. I just wanted to let you know in case it looked okay from your end.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I like how Congressman Chaffetz came out today and 1) announced a preemptive witch hunt should Secretary Clinton be elected and 2) that he’s going to now vote for Trump, despite all his moralizing three weeks ago. The only thing left for him to do is to announce he’s converting to his third religion.
cynthia ackerman
Thanks Adam. Very glad you are providing this context.
Gin & Tonic
Did you end up working on this piece as opposed to Maskirovka III? Not complaining, just want to make sure I didn’t miss a post.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: No argument here.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman:
Zoroastrianism, he asks hopefully?
Adam L Silverman
@Ian: The major problem that everyone has is that no one – not the US, not our allies and partners, not the Russians, and not any of the various rebel groups – can answer is what comes next should Assad go. Until that can be answered, even if the way forward is in fits and starts, then yes, there will be continued problems. Even should it be answered I’d expect problems as the transition won’t be neat or clean or even, most likely inclusive. At the same time the conflict isn’t Alawites on Assad’s side and Sunnis on the other. Assad is supported by Syrians that are Alawites, Shi’a, Druze, Sunnis, and Syriac Christians. He’s opposed by Syrians that are Sunnis and Kurds.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: Thanks!
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: I spoke in depth with a Zoroastrian last week. Fascinating discussion. Fire Temples are awesome.
CaseyL
My heart goes out to the Syrian people, and of course the human, humane impulse is to “do something.” But there are so many opportunities for things to go pear shaped very badly, very quickly, that I can’t see this as a viable policy.
The problem is, as soon as the issue becomes “Is Syria worth risking a nuclear war with Russia?” we’re right back in the old MAD days of the Cold War. Which is exactly what Putin’s been hoping for, re-igniting the Cold War, bringing back the glory of Russia being a superpower in the military sense. (It’s obviously not possible in the economic sense.)
These kinds of quandaries make me wonder if we should rethink opposition to targeted assassination as a tool of statecraft. It’s always seemed daft to me that we’re willing (as a nation, as a political entity) to consider waging wars that kill millions and destroy societies, but that we recoil from considering killing the political leaders directly responsible for starting and continuing the wars.
Adam L Silverman
@Gin & Tonic: You didn’t. I’m trying to think my way through some work related analysis and that’s chewed up a lot of mental energy and time. Maskirovka III is still in the plans, but not till this weekend.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: Only if he goes to Iran for the formal conversion ceremony.
Peale
Has the FSA abandoned Aleppo? Why should I be convinced that a NFZ is humanitarian and not just a cover for the FSA?
Joel
@srv: matoko_chan?
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: I’d chip in for that GoFundMe.
Adam L Silverman
@efgoldman: My money is on Gen. (ret) Allen. He was the Special Envoy during the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations back in 2013-2014 and then the first Special Envoy for dealing with ISIL in 2015. He’s the guy that led the military endorsements at the DNC. I have no special information on this, just a feeling, so take it for what its worth.
redshirt
@CaseyL: I was thinking the same thing. Why risk a direct confrontation with Russia when you could just assassinate Assad, and then negotiate what comes after? Seems to involve a lot less deaths.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m arrogant. And I’m ambitious. But that guy makes me look like a slacker on both of those things.
Peale
@redshirt: I don’t think he makes a lot of public appearances these days.
redshirt
@Peale: I’m sure we could find him if we wanted to.
Amir Khalid
@redshirt:
My understanding is that the US no longer uses — or at least no longer acknowledges — assassination as a foreign-policy tool.
redshirt
@Amir Khalid: Yes, indeed. But if you are looking just for a change in leadership, isn’t it a more humane tactic (after diplomacy and negotiation of course) then bombing the hell out of a country seeking their surrender?
Ian
@Amir Khalid:
The US commits drone strikes on suspected terrorists. I would define that as extra-judicial killing, aka, assassination.
Peale
@redshirt: I guess. I mean even if he were killed tomorrow by his own people, the story would be spun that the all powerful CIA was behind the assasination. Might as well do it ourselves and take credit for it. Heck, a lot of my Pakistani friends on FB are posting that the CIA was behind the attack on the police academy in Baluchistan. the CIA could use PR boost. Show the world that it’s good for something.
(Sighs)
Lizzy L
@Adam L Silverman: Adam, how can she be laying down a marker? I don’t see it. If a no-fly zone cannot happen because US domestic politics will not let it happen, there’s no pressure.
And speaking of domestic politics, if Clinton wins, I think the Republicans in Congress will be quite happy to let every human being in Syria fall into death agonies, as long as they can continue to claim that the deaths are Clinton’s “fault.”
Amir Khalid
@redshirt:
Besides, assassination isn’t always as neat and surgical a tool as one might hope. Think of post-Saddam Iraq or post-Qaddafi Libya, to name two recent examples.
bmoak
@Adam L Silverman:
Apparently also on the agenda for the for the Congress after the inauguration are 1) extensive “investigations” into Tim Kaine’s and Terry McAuliffe’s “corruption” and 2) dragging Chelsea Clinton before a House committee to be grilled, as her email account at the Clinton Foundation was hacked and the contents “raise questions”, and 3) Grilling Citizen Obama and his aides to determine how they squelched investigations into Hillary’s crimes. And now both Cruz and Lee are stating that there is nothing in the Constitution that says there have to be nine justices on the Supreme Court and the Cato Institute has already come out to give that position intellectual cover, saying the Senate is perfectly justified in not confirming or having hearings not only on any Supreme Court nominations Hillary might make, but any federal judicial appointments she makes,which means its only a matter of time before this position becomes conventional wisdom in the village.
Fair Economist
@redshirt: Assassination is a more humane way to fight. However, if the US uses assassination, its opponents will too. The consequence of that is not acceptable to any US President.
Omnes Omnibus
@srv: Thanks for the reminder of how nuts AA+ Bonds was.
Adam L Silverman
@efgoldman: Colin Powell ring a bell?
JJ
@cynthia ackerman: I thank you as well, Adam.
Adam L Silverman
@Lizzy L: Because Putin and the Russians don’t really understand how the US works. We’ve seen ample evidence of that as a result of their attempts to muck with the election.
Wapiti
@efgoldman: Powell?
redshirt
@Amir Khalid: Well sure, but it’s more humane than “Shock and Awe”, or a no fly zone that might lead the world into nuclear winter.
redshirt
@Fair Economist: Are there really groups out there that wouldn’t try to assassinate the US President only because we don’t try and assassinate their leader? Seems unlikely.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: Its not non-state actors that the no assassination policy is intended to influence. Its other state actors.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: OT but triggered by your words: A long time ago, another 2LT and I were out with a group for the evening. We had an antagonistic relationship for a quite a while, but we were both good friends of another officer, so we stifled. This evening, we hit a boiling point and decided to “take it outside.” As we were walking out, he muttered something about me being arrogant and condescending and him an obnoxious asshole. We stopped, admitted that the other’s characterization was correct, turned around, and went back in for a drink. We are still friends to this day.
Brachiator
@Adam L Silverman: Is it fair to call this the Syrian Civil War. Syria is blasting the shit out of some areas. Some reports suggest that some of the Russian supported actions are war crimes, such as deliberately targeting hospitals to ensure defeat of the opposition and to demoralize the population.
BBC news reported how Putin was parading his fleet past England on the anniversary of Trafalgar, reminding the British how far they had fallen from the days when they ruled the oceans. It could also be a signal to the United States that they too are on the decline.
But when you get down to it, the Russian Navy is worn down, and there may not be much of substance when you look more closely. But Russia is intent on flexing what muscle it has, and Putin seems to be as childishly insecure as Trump.
There is no reason to play Putin’s game and when you get down to it, a no fly zone might be needlessly provocative. The BBC story quoted some average Russians who have bought the line that Russia’s pride has been wounded by a power mad United States, and it is just that Russia be able to rightfully assert its own power and maybe snatch back some territory and make new alliances.
I don’t see that there is any upside in the US getting sucked into this geopolitical game. But it may also mean that nations suffer and that American alliances be broken.
divF
@Wapiti: Don’t forget Al Haig, although he was earlier than Powell.
Omnes Omnibus
@Amir Khalid: What happened to bin Laden?
Lizzy L
@Adam L Silverman: Okay. Gotta think about that. Thanks.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I’ve had that happen too.
mike in dc
Adam, like I said, I don’t see us bugging out of Syria once ISIL(and possibly Al Nusra) are greatly diminished and/or defeated. I think getting rid of Assad, or at least forcing a diplomatic compromise solution, is a valid and viable objective. That means continuing to support the rebels. Is it possible to strengthen the rebels’ hand sufficiently that even Russian airpower will be unable to push them back?
Adam L Silverman
@Brachiator: Its the Syrian Civil War because the International Red Cross, which is the arbiter of such things, declared it met the criteria for being a civil war back in 2014.
That’s separate from the new Cold War that Putin has indicated we’ve been in for several years now.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: I feel like warfare is on the verge of changing dramatically. Micro drone assassins. Robot armies. Drones filling the skies. I’m not sure what “unwritten rules” will apply.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@srv: Three paragraphs and you managed to say nothing, that’s quite an accomplishment even for you.
Adam L Silverman
@mike in dc: No its not. We’re not going to give the rebels an air force.
redshirt
@mike in dc: “Naive” question, but if we were to push ISIL out of Iraq for good, what interest do we have in involving ourselves in Syria? Other than we’re the world’s police man and we need to police it.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: Have you been watching Star Wars again?
redshirt
Hey Adam, OT but you must have thoughts about what’s happening in the Philippines. What is happening in the Philippines? Seems crazy and somewhat foreboding.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: ISIL is in Syria. As is the Nusra Front. And our official policy is the removal of Assad from power and transition of the Syrian government to something decided upon by the Syrian people.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: No, actually. But you know all that’s inevitable. Even scarier is the idea of corporate drone armies, or even scarier yet, individual drone armies. If you’re the richest man in the world, don’t you kind of deserve it?
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: We are already in it. Given that, the issue is what is the best or least bad thing that we can do next. Also, public rhetoric may belie things happening behind the scenes. I would not be surprised if HRC had better info on what is going on at all levels by the Obama admin than Trump does.
sigaba
@Joel: The matoko_chan I knew used to drop more obnoxious vocabulary (I’ve never seen srv call anyone a “pylorean,” for example.) Also she’d just call people out and insult them to their name.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: But with Russia actively supporting Assad, it’s a fools game to play unless you’re willing to challenge Russia on this. Are we? I hope not. Syria does not seem worth it.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: Its a mess. Duterte is a strongman that’s made the jump from local to national level. The question is going to be he will be able to push things before someone in the Philippines who has the power to do something about it decides he’s pushed too far.
redshirt
@sigaba: She also occasionally made great points and sometimes even participated in the community here. Rarely. srv just in it for some weird jollies.
Felonius Monk
@efgoldman:
Maybe Colin Powell?
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: Currently the decision is to deemphasize and put on hold the remove Assad portion of our Syria policy because we have other more important things that have to be done in Syria and Iraq first.
Mike J
Just filling out my ballot. Patty Murray for Senate and for president, Gloria Estela La Riva. If you really want to protest, vote fifth party.
Omnes Omnibus
@Joel: @sigaba: srv predates m_c. srv trolls for the sake of trolling. m_c really seemed to believe what she said. Also srv never offers personal info; m_c offered a deep view into her personal life and history.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: Makes sense. Just like avoiding a no fly zone.
Can we keep troops in Iraq anymore? Do we have troops in Iraq right now?
mike in dc
@redshirt:
Aside from preventing the continuing slaughter of civilians by the Assad regime, you mean? If we don’t embody our values in our foreign policy, they’re just words.
Peale
@redshirt: well, Duterte keeps saying that the CIA and Filipinos in America are going to kill him. I didn’t even know there was a large government in exile already in place so shortly after the election there.
I don’t know how well this ends. Our media keeps reporting that the US is still popular there, but that can change. What I’ve been surprised to find out is how many of my Filipino friends were closet la rouche readers. They have this odd way of citing him and Schiller institute reports and are ready to stand up against the New World Order.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@sigaba: Cudlip.
redshirt
@mike in dc: Are we the world police? Is every humanitarian crisis our concern?
Syria seems like a landmine of snakes with bees in their mouths, and I can see no direct reason we have for being there. I can see plenty of abstract ones, but I’m not sure they merit the risk.
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: If you see a rape taking place and you could stop it, should you?
NotMax
Thumb on the scale (Adam perhaps can assess how large and heavy a thumb, whether a show of force or an operational uptick) is Russia’s aircraft carrier, en route to Syria as we speak.
Jacel
@efgoldman:
I wonder how much continuity there will be in her cabinet from Obama’s current cabinet.
There’s a lot of solid people there at present, if any want to continue the job, including
Kerry and Ash Carter. I’d rather see that happen than stripping out a lot of Democratic
senators, governors, etc, as was needed at the start of Obama’s administration.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: We have an advisory force working to train the Iraqi regular and irregular forces and the CJTF HQ.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus: But what if trying to stop it, you will get 10 people killed?
sigaba
@Peale: Duterte sounds like one of the thugs from The Act of Killing. Of course the Indonesians had the support of the CIA in that instance.
Adam L Silverman
@NotMax: Show of force.
Mike J
@NotMax: The “aircraft carrier” is a joke,. Black oil burner that’s much more like a LHA than a CV. Besides that, the Med is possibly the worst place in the world to put a carrier (Persian Gulf is the only competition).
sigaba
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Trolley Problem.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Jacel:
I think that was one of Obama’s biggest mistakes.
Omnes Omnibus
@?BillinGlendaleCA: While I am not a Catholic, I tend to agree with the Catholic Just War theory.
ETA: I tend toward liberal interventionism. Bosnia and Rwanda were significant to me.
Mike J
@sigaba: No problem.
Peale
@?BillinGlendaleCA: to be fair, it did seem like the GOP was down for the count. I don’t expect Hillary after 2010 and 2014 fiascos to start her administration by throwing the Senate back to the GOP. That’s a Cuomo thing to do.
Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]
@efgoldman: One of the less obvious types of damage that the Bush (Jr.) administration did to their party was the use of any and all “rising stars” to get their war with Iraq, even if it ruined their future political careers. Eat all of your seed corn, die next winter.
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: Yes, but personal morality is not necessarily the same as nation state morality.
sigaba
@Mike J: That’s my mom’s favorite movie. I think it’s stilted. I see your Minelli and raise you one Harvey Girls.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: Could we secure only the Iraqi border with Syria as a no fly no cross zone?
mike in dc
@redshirt:
I don’t recall proposing that we handle every humanitarian crisis in the world, though I would note that we do get involved, in one form or another, in most of them. In this case we have a ruthless dictator killing civilians by the tens of thousands. As an additional strategic consideration, giving Russia a military foothold in the region is not particularly in our interest, either. The collapse of the Assad regime would lead to the rapid (and deeply humiliating ) withdrawal of Russian military assets from Syria. Putin isn’t going to move in tens of thousands of troops to secure Syria, just not worth it for them. I’m not proposing we directly confront the Russian military. I am proposing that we continue to provide logistical support and military advice to the rebels, even after ISIL and al Nusra are effectively defeated, in order to give them a real chance against the Assad regime, at the very least to create a stalemate on the ground, in order to force a diplomatic settlement and/or Assad’s eventual agreement to step down.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: No.
NotMax
@Adam L Silverman
My take as well. Too valuable an asset to risk there.
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: Do you know fuck all about international law or politics? I tend to doubt it.
Just a reminder: Without a bunker, it isn’t a compound. It is a camp.
Lizzy L
@Peale: Unlike Obama in the first few years of his term, Hilz is under no illusions that she can somehow get the Republicans to work with her. Zip, zero, nyet, ie, nicht, nada, none. She’s had 30 years to learn that lesson.
Shomi
@srv:
Somebody please dox this idiot.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Peale: True, the GOP is only dead after you put a silver bullet though the head, a stake in the heart, and leave the corpse out for an entire day.
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: I subscribed to The Economist for 14 years. ’nuff said.
Also, your usage of “camp” is far, far different than what I’m describing, so I’m figuring you have no idea what a camp actually is. So, please describe your definition of “camp”.
Omnes Omnibus
@Lizzy L: FWIW, I don’t think that Obama was naive enough to expect GOP cooperation ( Do you think he is dumb? Seriously, is that what you think?) He had to play a part.
redshirt
@?BillinGlendaleCA: I’d also incinerate it, just to be sure.
Another Scott
@Adam L Silverman:
I think that’s the only context in which her proposal makes sense at the present time.
She said in the third debate:
As part of negotiation framework, putting it out there is fine.
What continues to bother me about Syria is that: 1) There’s Russia and Iran supporting Assad – and naturally so considering their long-standing relationship with Syria. 2) There’s Erdogan seemingly using Syria as part of his seemingly mono-maniacal war against any Kurdish group that opposes him. 3) There’s the US war hawks who scream incessantly about how we need to go in there and “fix” the problem of Daesh and Assad and Hezbollah and al-Nusra and all the rest.
I may be wrong, but I do not see how a NFZ in Syria is possible without Turkey’s support and assistance. Similarly, areas of Syrian government control seem to be mainly in the west and south, near Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. To the south-east is Iraq and lots of deserts. Do we really want to risk inflaming the (infamous) Arab Street by getting Israel involved in a war in Syria? Do we really want to risk destabilizing Lebanon again? Do we really want to put Abdullah in Jordan under even more pressure as a result of him being more involved in Syria?
There are many, many risks in trying to set up a NFZ in Syria.
But let’s say the decision is made to do so, and let’s say that the Russians agree to it. Then what? It would presumably stop the barrel bombs and the cluster bombs, but it won’t stop the artillery. It won’t stop the rockets. It won’t mean that humanitarian assistance will be permitted. There will be all kinds of incentives for other groups to cause the NFZ to be violated so that the US or Russia over-reacts. And Assad is fighting for his life and his regime and will continue doing so until he decides that he can get a better deal by stopping. Just as the reports of chlorine gas attacks have continued after Assad’s stockpile was removed, there are all kinds of incentives for a NFZ to be violated.
As you’ve outlined, it’s a complex situation. It’s very different from the NFZ that was put in place in Iraq. Then, there was only one (significant) player to deal with, and that player (Saddam) had been significantly weakened by his defeat in the first Gulf War. The logistics are very different, an active conflict is going on among many different players, and it’s not at all clear that it would help in Syria as it undoubtedly did in Iraq.
Reading through Hillary’s answer again, the idea of a “Safe Haven” in Syria sounds even more dangerous to me than a NFZ because it seemingly requires US (or allied) ground troops. It sounds like a sop to European governments that are screaming and straining under the millions of refugees. And to address some of Erdogan’s issues. But we really don’t want to do anything in Syria that appears to be an “Occupation”. It would be different if there were UN Resolutions and NATO buy-in and Gulf Cooperation Council buy-in and Arab League buy-in and …. But it’s hard for me to see that happening.
It would be good if Hillary could give a one-hour speech to some think-tank to explain how she thinks all of this would work before she spends a lot of political capital on it. She’s very smart and she’s thought about this problem for years. She knows the pitfalls. I just hope she can explain it to the rest of us before it happens (if it happens).
My (overly-long) $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Jesus christ. This again.
Mike J
@redshirt: Camp, from the latin campus, a field.
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: The fact that you subscribed does not mean you read or understood. We have already had the camp vs. compound conversation. It would be boring to replicate it.
Vhh
@efgoldman: Colin Powell
Omnes Omnibus
@Another Scott: Did you actually read Adam’s take before you wrote your much longer reply?
Peale
@?BillinGlendaleCA: well it sure looked dead to me in January 2009.
Lizzy L
@Omnes Omnibus: You could be right, but it seems to me he spent too damn much time during his first term either expecting or pretending to expect that there were cooperative decent Republican legislators with whom he could work. Maybe it was an act, as you say, but for if so, for whom? The media? Democrats? It was clear from jump that the Republicans in Congress weren’t going to work with him.
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: Charming as always.
CaseyL
@Amir Khalid: SFAIK, the US doesn’t actually “do” assassinations as a matter of course. Saddam was tried and executed, and Gaddafi was killed by Libyans. Maybe bin Laden, though you could say he was a special case. If the US was going around assassinating inconvenient people, I think word would get out, as word has gotten out about Putin killing his opponents.
If I were to order assassinations as a matter of policy, whether I wanted it to be an obvious hit would be a tactical consideration. And I think I’d try to come up with some kind of dead man’s switch to make blowback costly.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Peale: Rasputin looked dead too.
Omnes Omnibus
@Lizzy L: The guy’s name is Barack Hussein Obama. He manages to become President. But he is naive as shit about Republicans? Pull the other one, its got bells on.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
which legislation are you referring to? was it before, during or after the, if memory serves, thirty-odd days when “we” had a Super Majority, and “we” included, just for starters, Joe Lieberman?
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: Yes.
Was there something you would like to take issue with?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
mike in dc
@CaseyL:
We can target “command and control” and leadership elements in a military strike, which means we could send cruise missiles into the Royal Palace, the Defense Ministry, Ministry of Intelligence, etc., possibly even including bunkers for high level leadership assets. But dropping a spec ops team to kill a leader directly would be in violation of the assassination ban.
Lizzy L
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Two of Obama’s Defense Secretaries were Republicans: Gates & Hagel. He named Comey as head of the FBI. Do you say that there were no competent Democrats who could have served in these positions?
Peale
@?BillinGlendaleCA: yes. But at least Rasputin had ties to the spiritual world that could prop him up. I don’t really think there are any spirits, helpful, benign or vengeful, that would have thought using Boehner as a vessel would have been a good idea. Completely noxious, even to ghosts.
wmd
R2P? Let’s talk about Yemen. If this were seriously our motivation we’d be stopping the ongoing humanitarian crisis caused by Saudi (US) bombs.
Omnes Omnibus
@Another Scott: You really didn’t say fuck all that Adam didn’t. What was you point?
David ?▶️Bad Hombres▶️? Koch
@Lizzy L: FDR’s secretary of defense, secretary of the navy, director of the OSS (ie CIA) were republican, and his director of the FBI was no less than J Edgar Hoover.
Please, you don’t want to go down this road.
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus:
Why don’t you chill out?
Lizzy L
@Omnes Omnibus: No, he’s not naive. But he did put a group of Republicans into Cabinet positions, which never made much sense to me. After the 2010 midterms the nicey-nicey language stopped, though.
dogwood
@Lizzy L:
If he hadn’t tried to work with Republicans, the outcomes wouldn’t have be significantly different. The Congressional Republicans had power even during the first term. They will have power during Clinton’s term as well. I will miss Obama, but I’m actually looking forward to having a new president for democrats to bitch about.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Peale: Satan.
Omnes Omnibus
@wmd: How? And if whatever you suggest happens, does anything else happen in the world?
some guy
Wouldn’t the cheaper and easier way to move forward in Alleppo be to convince the House of Saud and the House of Thune to evacuate their guerilla forces from Alleppo? Problem solved. I mean if we are gonna let (and by “let” I mean arm them and refuel their bombers in the air on the way to and from their bombing of civilans) the House of Saud wage war in Yemen the least they could do would be top remove their militias from Alleppo?
NotMax
@<a href="https://balloon-juice.com/2016/10/26/195711the-syrian-civil-war-and-no-fly-zones/#comment-6077449"<Lizzy L
Obama decided (rightfully) that it serves no president’s interest to so much as appear to be deliberately obstructionist.
Congressional Republicans made a different call, to the detriment of not only long standing process but to the welfare of the country as a whole. And don’t think for a minute that Biden was unaware of Senate Rs de facto pact.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Lizzy L: what do any of those appointments have to do with policy or legislation?
Peale
@wmd: I would sing hymns to her each morning for the rest of my life were she to institute a no fly zone against Saudi Arabia.
Fair Economist
@mike in dc:
At the start there were moderates to support but there are none left. The FSA, Turkey’s current proxies, are the least offensive but they’ll ethnically cleanse the Kurds. It’s pretty much down to “which Al Qaeda knockoff do you want to support today?”
Jim, Foolish Literalist
not sure exactly what you mean, but I’m sure if you got Biden talking about McCain, who recently promised to extend the judicial blockade if the R’s keep the Senate, Uncle Joe would have tears in his eye within ninety second of his first “my great friend…”
Omnes Omnibus
@Lizzy L: Maybe he made the point he always fucking knew, that the GOP would not cooperate. It wasn’t him learning; it was dipshits. Oddly, you don’t seen to have gotten there. I am not calling you a dipshit, but well then…
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus:
Classy as usual.
David ?▶️Bad Hombres▶️? Koch
thank goodness the election is ending so we can go back to recriminations over who is purer.
NotMax
@Jim, Foolish Literalist
I mean from Biden’s lips to Obama’s ears. Obama well knew what the Rs strategy would be from the get-go.
Much, much more I decry about Biden* than celebrate but his personal contacts within the Senate were a strength in this case.
*No, not going to be drawn into a back and forth about that again just now and just here.
wmd
@Omnes Omnibus: No fly zone is being suggested as the correct action for R2P in Alleppo….
follow on effects? Less arms sales. Oil price increases. Global warming mitigated.
Our love of the house of Saud is long past its sell by date.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Nothing.
Omnes Omnibus
@NotMax: Tiresome.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@David ?▶️Bad Hombres▶️? Koch: That’s always my favorite part.
mike in dc
@Fair Economist:
The YPG are one of the largest and most effective opposition forces in Syria. The most extreme groups are ISIL and al Nusra, whom we have been targeting and whom the YPG has been fighting(in part on our behalf). There are non-Salafist groups fighting Assad, and we should continue to support them.
Omnes Omnibus
@wmd: We are discussing what now?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Before the fact? I don’t know. I always think Judd Gregg is the under-discussed story of the R’s obstruction policy. He wasn’t aware of it when he took the Commerce appt, but within a few days we all had an idea of what was coming. And I agree that even if McConnell et al hadn’t been so successful with that strategy, Biden was too sentimental and concerned with his personal relationships to ever be the Ambassador to the Senate he was supposed to be (if I understand your point). He was often said, IIRC, to stand with the old bulls like Leahy and Levin who preferred tradition to advancing an agenda, i.e. with filibuster reform.
JGabriel
@CaseyL:
bin Laden was a criminal, not a state actor. That makes it retaliatory self-defense, not an assassination.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: Do you have to go to Iran for a formal ceremony? (The only Zoroastrian I know is Pakistani).
Omnes Omnibus
Most of you are daft.
NotMax
@Jim, Foolish Literalist
Well, you are reading more into it than I provided or intended. Was talking about basic humint, without concern for ambassadorial or collegial associations or expectations, if any.
@Omnes Omnibus
Somebody ate his Feisty Flakes.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: also, well into the health care debate Dems thought they might be able to bring Olly Snowe around, and her sidekick, too. and there was one committee vote that could have sent the ACA back to the drawing board, when Snowe voted with the Dems, then voted against the bill on the floor. She eventually just walked away from the mess she helped make, like Boehner.
Mike J
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m up all night to get lucky.
Omnes Omnibus
@NotMax: Please explain your superiority. It is what you do.
ETA: Okay, he pissed me off.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Democrats gave Obama plenty of trouble. It was dems like Tester who killed the Dream Act.
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus:
So you’re just turning straight up heel?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@dogwood: Yeah, that’s the other point that always gets lost in the whole “naive Obama tried too hard for Republican blah blah blah”. McCaskill and Nelson did more damage to the Stimulus than the three Rs who voted for it, and they’re both the type of Dem who want (and maybe are right that they need) to talk about ‘working across the aisle’ when they run for reelection.
Mike J
@redshirt: You listen here Jerry Lawler. This Monday night at the Mid-south Colosseum, Dave Brown and Lance banna-nose Russel may try to hold me back, but you’ll get what’s coming to you!
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: I thought my emphasis was different. Adam’s take, it seemed to me, was almost purely on the military side. I’m more concerned about the need for there to be regional buy-in before we implement such a NFZ. I want to see her address the seemingly obvious problems with trying to implement a NFZ and how she would get regional buy-in. I think she’s got more than an Underpants Gnomes idea of how this would work – I’d like to hear the plan.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@NotMax:
Feisty Flakes are the official breakfast food of the ABA.
Omnes Omnibus
@Another Scott: Go read what I wrote above.
redshirt
@Mike J: *Eats turnbuckle!
Brachiator
@Adam L Silverman:
Ultimately, reality is the arbiter of what is happening.
The latest news has Turkey reporting that Syrian aircraft have attacked Turkish-backed rebels fighting Islamic state militants in Northern Syria. Supposedly, barrel bombs were used.
Elsewhere, British surgeon reports that up to 5,000 people are in need of urgent surgical care.
This looks more like some wild regional war than a civil war.
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: That’s twice you’ve made a remark about reading something. I did read (both). Sorry that I’m rubbing you the wrong way tonight.
My reply to Adam wasn’t picking a fight with him.
Cheers,
Scott.
Miss Bianca
I guess, upon reading Adam’s analysis a second time, I’m still a bit shocked by two points: first, the thought that escalation of interstate conflict between Russia and the US over Syria has the potential to reach nuclear status; and two, even given that, that most of us in the US really don’t just don’t give much of a damn about what happens in Syria – certainly not enough to risk brinksmanship of that sort.
Except for HRC, apparently. It seems likely to me that, given the risks Adam outlined above, that this is a hardball move on her part to drive Putin to the table. I find myself inclined to trust her instincts on what’s likely to work best in this situation. I’m sure glad I’m not the one who has to figure out how to deal with it.
ETA: Of course, any conflict with Russia – just as any conflict with the Soviet Union – has the potential to turn nuclear. It just feels like so long since I’ve found myself thinking seriously about the possibilitity. And Putin seems much less stable than any of the Soviet leaders I grew up watching.
redshirt
Let Russia have Syria. Who cares?
Except for Israel of course.
GregB
@Brachiator:
That’s why the US should extract itself instead of pushing in deeper.
The longer it goes on and the more parties involved, the more likely things go sideways.
It is a multi-layered proxy war.
Peale
@Brachiator: you know, considering that Hillary and Obama created ISIS, they sure seem to be getting a soft hand from Assad.
max
@Mary G: It just seems like a face-saving sop to people who demand action but don’t want American boots on the ground.
There are also the people demanding action who want boots on the ground (i.e. they want to invade).
I’ve had people tell me that the Russians would agree to it, which is balderdash/poppycock.
Or back down. Thing is, is the Russians read the situation and committed the Kuznetzov and Peter the Great, along with a number of ships and presumably submarines. They have committed what amounts to a large carrier task group, or effectively a ‘fleet’ to Tartus. The Kuznetzov’s squadron means that Russia will have committed both naval air squadrons. Of course, as in the days before WWI, everyone is talking in terms of prestige but there are good reasons to move the Kuznetzov to Syria. They will have an entire task group that commit to air ops in Syria and can protect itself in the event the US attempts to force a no-fly zone on the Russians. In the event of a fight, the task group can almost certainly make an attack costly for the US/UK navies, and can, in turn defend themselves. (And probably attempt to escape towards the Black Sea. The Turks will likely not help us sink them, since an attack by the US on Russia is not an Article 5 issue with NATO. If the task group can get to the Sea of Marmara, they can take advantage of the Montreux convention.)
He isn’t going to give up Syria to the US and their rebel friends, OR to Daesh/Al-Queda. And now he’s underlined that.
max
[‘If the situation isn’t clear, imagine the Russians teaming up with the Iranians to try to create a no-fly zone over Iraq in 2005. For humanitarians reasons (cf Abu Ghaib, Falluajah.). That would have gone well, wouldn’t it?’]
mike in dc
I’m not sure the oligarchs(oil-ligarchs?) backing Putin are down for a nuclear confrontation. Very very bad for the oil business. That said, if they can strike forces that we are supporting, is there any particular reason we can’t strike forces they are supporting? We have already essentially taken sides in the civil war, against both ISIL and Assad and for those fighting both of them.
Miss Bianca
@redshirt: I dunno. Seems like there are a lot of Syrians who might care. But looks like you’ve just proven Adam’s point, to my satisfaction at any rate – we, as a country, really don’t give a shit what happens to Syria.
I’m not sure that just saying, “meh”, and walking away, however, is a solution that passes the FAS test.
Brachiator
@Peale:
Even with the mess and uncertainty in the region, I have more confidence in Obama and Clinton than all the ignorant bullshit coming from Trump or the Republican leadership.
mike in dc
WikiLeaks’ document dump concerning the excesses of the Algerian regime led to the downfall of that regime, and the beginning of the Arab Spring, which ultimately led to the Syrian Civil War. Certainly the people in Syria had to have been encouraged by the downfall of Qadaffi and Mubarak, which we wound up being supportive of. Once Assad began a brutal crackdown, his removal became a priority for us. And once ISIL rose to prominence, our intervention at some level became inevitable. I don’t think saying “meh” and walking away is really an option, particularly because there is a faceoff with Russia involved, and just walking away will encourage further provocations by Putin elsewhere. Also, walking away and letting Assad kill another half million Syrians and displace millions more doesn’t seem like a good look for us, either.
Brachiator
@Adam L Silverman:
Doesn’t it come down to this: the US could impose a no fly zone on Syria in the same way that we could impose a no fly zone on Saddam’s Iraq because we have superior military force in the area?
But the same cannot be said with respect to Russia.
Brachiator
@mike in dc:
Yeah, it is an option, even though there is a faceoff with Russia involved, and just walking away will encourage further provocations by Putin elsewhere.
liberal
@Omnes Omnibus: maybe we should stop raping Yemen first, you neocon fuck.
liberal
@redshirt: apparently all the neocon assholes who live here care.
liberal
@mike in dc: You’re a fucking idiot. There choices are Assad ir Sunni extremists.
liberal
@srv: Not true. Libya turned out swell.
liberal
@Brachiator: LOL. Yep, once we give in to Putin in Syria, Russian tanks are gonna gun for Berlin.
Mike in dc
@liberal:
The Kurds are Sunni extremists?
chopper
@Omnes Omnibus:
someone had an extra bowl of Bitch Flakes this morning.
bjacques
Thread’s probably dead, but I wonder what will happen if/when Assad finishes flattening the rebels in Aleppo. Assuming ISIS in Raqqa are next, that leaves Kobane, whichAssad would also want to retake and/or flatten. Last I knew, the Kurds there were sympathetic, and nominally allies of the US but also a target for Turkey. Do we stand by while Kobane goes, or will man-portable anti-aircraft weapons, noticeably absent so far, make an appearance? Will Turkey try again to choke off the Kurds from the across the border?
JimV
The following is a cut-and-paste from a Reddit debate on Syrian policy. I did not write it but agree with it, and would like Dr, Silverman to comment on it:
Respectfully, I think many people here have not listened to Clinton’s argument concerning a no-fly zone over Syria. In the first place, she has never advocated for the US unilaterally declaring a no-fly zone and enforcing it against any aircraft that might be encountered. She has explicitly explained that it is a bargaining tool to use in negotiations with Russia. It isn’t (as some seem to think) a call to war. It’s an act of diplomacy.
She has said she would call for the coalition – not the US – to consider a no-fly zone as a “device” in their negotiations. She calls the reality of it a “possible outcome.” http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/clinton-explains-support-for-no-fly-zone-550960707586
She has also said she wants Russia to be involved in enforcing it. From the New Hampshire Debate: “The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/19/3rd-democratic-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/
“
Ian
@CaseyL:
What do the people dying in Yemen, Somalia, or Pakistan call it?
Ian
@liberal:
Wrong their, idiot.
Unknown Known
On assassinations, as the old line goes:
Q: “How do you know that the CIA didn’t kill JFK?”
A: “Well, he’s dead isn’t he.”