The US and Turkey are discussing the possibility of establishing a “no fly zone” in Syria to assist the rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar Assad.
The United States and Turkey indicated on Saturday they were studying a range of measures, including a no-fly zone, as battles between Syrian rebels and President Bashar al-Assad’s forces shook Aleppo and the heart of Damascus.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after meeting her Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu in Istanbul that Washington and Ankara should develop detailed operational planning on ways to assist the rebels fighting to topple Assad.
“Our intelligence services, our military have very important responsibilities and roles to play so we are going to be setting up a working group to do exactly that,” she said.
Asked about options such as imposing a no-fly zone over rebel-held territory, Clinton said these were possibilities she and Davutoglu had agreed “need greater in-depth analysis”, while indicating that no decisions were necessarily imminent.
“It is one thing to talk about all kinds of potential actions, but you cannot make reasoned decisions without doing intense analysis and operational planning,” she said.
Though possible intervention appears to be a distant prospect, her remarks were nevertheless the closest Washington has come to suggesting direct military action in Syria.
The problem is that Syria has a far more sophisticated air defense network — courtesy of their enablers, the Russian government — which would pose serious risks for our aircraft. Obviously, taking out the radars and command and control systems in order to ensure the safety of our air craft would entail military action — a turn of events with wildly unpredictable results.
This is especially true given the incident along the border yesterday between Syria and Jordan where units from the two countries clashed.
The border clash broke out after Syrian refugees tried to cross into Jordan, a Syrian opposition activist who witnessed the fighting said.
Syrian troops fired across the frontier and fighting ensued, a Jordanian said. No one was reported killed on Jordan’s side.
Armoured vehicles were involved in the clash in the Tel Shihab-Turra area, about 80 km (50 miles) north of the Jordanian capital Amman, the Syrian activist said.
Jordanian troops have fired near the border in the past to stop Syrian forces shooting at fleeing refugees.
But the latest clash – the most serious incident between the two countries since the uprising against Assad began 17 months ago – is likely to alarm Western powers who fear any spread of violence in a region divided over the conflict.
Syria and Turkey have been on a hair trigger since the Syrians shot down a Turkish plane in July. Both sides have moved armor and heavy weapons to the border and Turkey has warned Syria not to cross into their territory.
And we are considering getting involved in this mess by giving Assad an excuse to shoot at our planes? Any overt military move may also rouse the Russians who are adamantly opposed to a Libya repeat. Even if, as Turkey has suggested, the no fly zone be established so that a “humanitarian corridor” can be opened near the Turkish border, it is unlikely the Russians will take kindly to that notion — nor will Assad see it quite so innocently.
Best not poke the bear with a stick by forcing a decision on intervention by Moscow in this dangerous conflict.
In my years around the blocks (plural), I have seen situations where this or that Secretary of State needed something to do. IMHO, this is one of those times.
Hillary, and possibly Barack and Erdogan too, are merely trying to look useful. Nothing will come out of it because of the losses which we would incur trying to establish the Zone.
It is not called either “Foggy” or a “Bottom” (cough) for nothing.
No-fly zone? Over an ally of Russia? Let me put this idea into more clear terms: Are we really prepared to shoot down Russian aircraft? I’m sure that will work out swell.
If they are going to do this, they damned well better have all of NATO committed to it. If you are going to challenge a bear, you better be able to scratch higher on the tree than the bear can.
I share your concern that a no-fly zone could lead to a military confrontation with Russia; a Franz Ferdinand moment in the sands of Syria couldn’t come at a much worse time than now. Sure, we’re not talking about the Soviet Union, circa 1980, but the Russians shouldn’t be taken lightly, either. Our NATO allies in Europe are in no way prepared for a showdown with Russia; hell, they couldn’t even take down Gaddafi’s antiquated third world military without the US doing all of the heavy lifting! Yes, the Turks are pretty well prepared, but history would suggest that they would spend most of ther time killing Kurds (it’s an old story). The Israelis are also well prepared, but I’m pretty sure that they’d just as soon stay out of the whole mess in Syria, for obvious reasons; as long as Al Assad is busy killing Sunnis, and not posing any risk to Israel, I’m pretty sure that they’re willing to let it continue. The wild card in this whole situation is China; they have no major national interests on the line in Syria, but they’ve backed up Russia in the UNSC, and close relationship with Russia. What would their response be if the US started shooting Russian planes out of the sky in a unilateral, unendorsed military action in Syria? No, Syria just isn’t worth the risk; the only way that the US/NATO should go into Syria is to secure Syria’s WMD if (not when, IF) Assad should fall.
Seems to me we should help bring down Assad for two reasons
1) Iran and Russia really want to keep him
and
2) The guy is using snipers, jets, tanks, and artillery to kill civilians by the thousands and we can stop it.
We’ll deal with who takes over after when the time comes.