U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia

[verdo]

So if you skip to 3:24, you'll see a U.S. army general being asked about the option of a no fly zone over syria, and he basically says that it would lead to a war with both Syria and Russia. Of coarse, neo-con McCain jumps in and bullies the guy into changing his answer, but he seemed to be pretty damn clear the first time. They sort of danced around a bit with the semantics, leaving me quite unclear about whether or not this could potentially lead to a greater conflict. I know Hillary Clinton has been pushing for a no fly zone and i can only assume that when she wins, its going to be made into a reality. i'm just wondering what everyone else thinks about this.

[Woodsman]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

So if you skip to 3:24, you'll see a U.S. army general being asked about the option of a no fly zone over syria, and he basically says that it would lead to a war with both Syria and Russia. Of coarse, neo-con McCain jumps in and bullies the guy into changing his answer, but he seemed to be pretty damn clear the first time. They sort of danced around a bit with the semantics, leaving me quite unclear about whether or not this could potentially lead to a greater conflict. I know Hillary Clinton has been pushing for a no fly zone and i can only assume that when she wins, its going to be made into a reality. i'm just wondering what everyone else thinks about this.

Exactly what the Marine said. It means war.

[wayiwalk]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

Wasn't a no fly zone imposed over part of Iraq after the first gulf war? The Senator didn't ask the question clearly, probably because, like me, he's sleep deprived watching all of the fights between Hilllary and Trump, and also up late reading wikileaks and then not being able to sleep.

Agree, complete control of the airspace over Syria means war. I've been assuming that creating safe zones, or whatever the term, within Syria would be a similar limited no fly zone to part of the country.

However - how the F@#$ do you do that unless you first go to war with Syria in the first place?

I don't think Hillary will send us to war over Syria. Where's the money in that?

I get it, she's Wall Street's stooge, and they are calling the shots, I'm just not seeing a war in Syria. Obama didn't bite on that lure, and neither will she. To me, all the signs point to one that indirectly involves China.

Hmmmmm. (hardly) Famous last words.

[jk]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

wasn't there a limited no fly zone when the turks went in? also during the operation to rescue the yazidis? i could see a no fly area established in the north as a safe zone for refugees, as part of an effort to keep them from crossing into turkey. it might require an understanding with the russians, but perhaps not depending on the exact location.

[verdo]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

The issue is that i haven't heard any sort of nuance over this no fly zone in terms of what part of syria it would involve. All I'm hearing from the U.S. is no fly zone over Syria. Actually, what I'm hearing is no fly zone for everyone else except the U.S. and whoever else it wants, which to me is arrogant as hell but thats a whole other story. This is starting to look like Libya 2.0

Whats bothering me too is that Hillary Clinton has been blaming all these recent hacks on the DNC on the Russians, even though we havent had any solid smoking gun proof over who was actually responsible for that. She's even gone so far to say that Russia could suffer both economic and military consequences for it. So what im feeling in the air is one hell of a push towards starting something with Russia, which like some of you is a bit hard for me to believe, as hillary never struck me as that crazy. But what am i to believe when i see all this stuff happening? Why flirt with the idea of a confrontation?

[FrankL]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

The issue is that i haven't heard any sort of nuance over this no fly zone in terms of what part of syria it would involve. All I'm hearing from the U.S. is no fly zone over Syria. Actually, what I'm hearing is no fly zone for everyone else except the U.S. and whoever else it wants, which to me is arrogant as hell but thats a whole other story. This is starting to look like Libya 2.0

Whats bothering me too is that Hillary Clinton has been blaming all these recent hacks on the DNC on the Russians, even though we havent had any solid smoking gun proof over who was actually responsible for that. She's even gone so far to say that Russia could suffer both economic and military consequences for it. So what im feeling in the air is one hell of a push towards starting something with Russia, which like some of you is a bit hard for me to believe, as hillary never struck me as that crazy. But what am i to believe when i see all this stuff happening? Why flirt with the idea of a confrontation?

Politicians might welcome limited war if it distracts the public from economic issues at home, and as a bonus may economically drain Russia.
The emphasis is limited here.. they'd be playing chicken with Russia that they would not let a limited war in Syria escalate to something bigger (or that Russia wouldn't use full-out escalation as their Samson option, if it considers keeping regional influence in Syria as an important enough pillar for securing its own territory).

If US politicians truly think they can pull off a contained war in Syria, then that idea (at least to me) sounds more dangerous/crazy then letting Trump control the 'nuke button' (and I dare any Hillary apologist to provide solid reasons why this wouldn't be the case).

As for all the talk about who's hacking who to dig up dirt... just consider what the reaction would/should have been, if it had been clear that all the recent revelations had been due to a whistleblower?

There's a lot of 'attacking the messenger', when the message seems pretty damning by itself. I don't see how any malicious intent by the messenger invalidates the damning message it brings.
Want to reduce foreign meddling in your elections? beef up your security practices, and start a counter-espionage/sabotage program.
Want to reduce damage done by these type of revelations? Maybe one should make sure there is less damning evidence to be revealed.

In most circles where one seeks contenders for a position which holds high security clearance, or where integrity is important (e.g. position with great influence), a background check that digs up as much dirt as we've seen during the recent revelations, would automatically disqualify said person from the position; the logical reasoning is that said dirt could be leveraged for blackmailing.
Lakedaemonian or others with sufficient knowledge on the subject should be able to confirm how this works...

Why does the above not seem to hold true for the position as president of the United States?
My extremely cynical side would say that state intelligence agencies finding dirt on a politician, doesn't disqualify someone from a position with great power, but does the opposite: it qualifies them for the position, as the person(s) with access to the information that could damage said person, can leverage this to blackmail them.

[jk]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

once it's public, information is no longer useful for blackmail. i wonder what HASN'T been released? otoh, political dirty tricks - if that's all that is revealed - are pretty routine, and would not normally rise to the level of significance required for effective blackmail.

[GRG55]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

Does anybody know what the US military has by way of equipment in the area?

- Given the Turks chatter, cozying up to Putin, sending in armed police in July to surround the air base, what US or NATO air power is still at Incirlik Air Base?
- What carrier groups are currently on deployment in the Med?

I believe it takes interceptors, not bombers, to achieve and enforce air superiority.

[touchring]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

Why does the above not seem to hold true for the position as president of the United States?
My extremely cynical side would say that state intelligence agencies finding dirt on a politician, doesn't disqualify someone from a position with great power, but does the opposite: it qualifies them for the position, as the person(s) with access to the information that could damage said person, can leverage this to blackmail them.

The same as with the ethnicity and gender of that someone. If he or she is from a weaker ethnic background or weaker gender, he or she would be deemed easier to control, am I right?

[FrankL]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

The same as with the ethnicity and gender of that someone. If he or she is from a weaker ethnic background or weaker gender, he or she would be deemed easier to control, am I right?

in the end, all that matters is if they are easier to control or not; whether they appear easier to control would not matter much (well, I suppose having an air of integrity would probably reduce the number of attempts at blackmail).

I don't directly see how gender or ethnicity would play a role there.
As far as weaker gender, I don't think I'd like to have to deal with Clinton. She gives me the impression to be willing to do anything, to get to her goals (i.e. I would not be surprised if she's a sociopath).

As jk mentioned, putting secrets into the open reduces the ability to blackmail; that is, unless only enough proof is revealed to give an air of shady dealings, without providing the required, solid, proof (which could then be used to blackmail).
On the other hand, once someone gets elected into the presidency, there will probably be a certain amount of 'stickyness' to their position. i.e. Who cares about shady voting tactics once a president is elected? It's not like they'll write out new elections because of such a revelation. The opportunity to exert influence would be right now (or earlier in the elections).

So I copy jk's sentiment on that it's interesting to speculate on what has not been revealed, but more so, why the big revelations didn't occur in the heat of the battle between HRC and Bernie Sanders.
There could be plenty of motives, one of them being that Bernie may have been a much tougher candidate to influence ? If you want to saw disruption, then waiting for the most vulnerable candidates to take stage would be the best strategy.
And Trump and Hillary appear to be the most vulnerable of all candidates (if you ask me)....

[lakedaemonian]

Re: U.S. imposed no fly zone over Syria = Possible war with Syria and Russia?

Does anybody know what the US military has by way of equipment in the area?

- Given the Turks chatter, cozying up to Putin, sending in armed police in July to surround the air base, what US or NATO air power is still at Incirlik Air Base?
- What carrier groups are currently on deployment in the Med?

I believe it takes interceptors, not bombers, to achieve and enforce air superiority.

Not sure what airframes are still operating from Incirlik, but there were A10s for CAS and KC135's for aerial refuelling.

The close proximity of Incirlik to the area of operations as well as it's significant infrastructure makes it the optimal location for executing a no fly zone over Syria from an operational perspective.

BUT, the recent Turkish coup had significant support from Turkish Air Force elements at Incirlik(The Turks have purged a full third of their fighter pilots) and blowback on US/Turk relations probably makes this untenable from a political perspective.

http://warontherocks.com/2016/09/the...eys-air-force/

In 2003 Turkey reneged on most Turkish support for the invasion of Iraq, which then shifted to a higher risk air drop of 173rd Airborne via C17 into Northern Iraq. It got the job done, but came at a higher risk with a much smaller force.

I would also think it politically untenable to fly out of Israel.

Which leaves Iraq/Cyprus(if either are politically tenable) or carrier based operations(expensive).

Maintaining a carrier based no fly zone over Syria would be pushing a carrier and it's air wing pretty hard, but could sustain better/longer with land based aerial refuelling and AWACS/C4I.

During the period when the Turk F16 shot down the Russian Su24 the Turkish Air Force tempo of combat air patrols was very high(the Turks have a very large fleet of F16s). Higher than the US would be able to surge or sustain.

A No Fly Zone sounds like "doing something without actually doing anything" as without sufficient mass effectiveness would be more political than operational.

Rules of engagement to avoid shooting down a Russian aircraft would probably be cumbersome.

And the wear and tear on a fast aging fleet of US aircraft and a shrinking pool of US fighter pilots could make this a very, very bad investment.

Lame duck period between election and inauguration would be a tough time to set up a no fly zone, unless there's continuity of thought between Obama and Hillary, assuming she wins.