As every politician and pundit vies for airtime to push “their” solution for preventing future attacks like the ones in Paris (don’t forget the attacks in Lebanon and Egypt that also occurred over the last two weeks) two things I am hearing over and over again are “no fly zones” over Syria and “safe zones” in Syria.
No fly zones over Syria will have no impact on ISIS or Al Qaeda. Neither has an operational air force. I am highly confident that the Russians would target such capabilities pretty quickly if they did exist. If for no other reason than to ensure the safety of their own aircraft and personnel. This is a further effort to affect regime change under the guise of preventing terrorism. Isn’t this what some people accuse Bush of doing in Iraq?
A little reality check here. How exactly are we going go about shooting down the Russian made aircraft flown by the Syrian government without shooting down Russian aircraft operated by Russians? If we work out a process with the Russians for doing so why would they not just share that with the Syrians? The government they are willing to risk Russian lives to protect?
Now about that safe zone…
If we can’t ensure people’s safety in the capital of France, thousands of miles from Syria how, exactly are we going to do that on the Syrian frontier a few dozen miles from ISIS forces? How effective were we in protecting the towns and cities these folks lived in to begin with?
By the way, does anyone remember what happened in the “safe zones” in Bosnia? You know, the sites of some of the worst atrocities of the war? Here’s a reminder of the aftermath of that effort:
This isn’t an isolated incident. “Safe zones” in Iraq, Rwanda and Sudan just to name a few.
The bottom line this that these proposals are, at best, dumb ideas and an effort at security theater. At worst they increase the risk of a civil war escalating even more than it already has…