Obama adviser explains why Clinton's Syria plan won't work - Polidicks

[quote]The no-fly zone in Syria proposed by Democratic front-runner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be both ineffective and a poor use of resources, according to White House deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. "A no fly zone in Syria would not solve the problem," Rhodes told David Axelrod on "The Axe Files," a podcast produced by CNN and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics. "If you had an area of geography in Syria where planes couldn't fly over it, people would still be killing each other on the ground. ISIL doesn't have planes, so that doesn't solve the ISIL problem. They would still be able to massacre people on the ground. And we would have to devote an enormous amount of our resources -- which are currently devoted to finding ISIL and killing them wherever they are -- to maintaining this no-fly zone. So it's just not a good use of resources."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politics/axelrod-axe-files-ben-rhodes-syria/index.html[/url] I've been saying this for almost two years now I think. You don't win a conflict by air alone, you have to deny the enemy ground to be effective.

The no-fly zone is not meant for ISIS

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50198999]The no-fly zone is not meant for ISIS[/QUOTE] It's not going to be effect the war for who it is meant for, either.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50199024]It's not going to be effect the war for who it is meant for, either.[/QUOTE] Having trouble understanding what you're saying, but as far as I understand it, the No-Fly-Zone is so that russia stops invading Turkish airspace; or, when they do, Turkey is more justified in shooting down Russian planes since they have to cross the no-fly-zone to do so.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50199024]It's not going to be effect the war for who it is meant for, either.[/QUOTE] Well the big problem is the Syrian Army bombing civilian targets, which this might prevent. It's a lot harder to kill civilians when you're not bombing entire city blocks from the safety of a plane.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50198999]The no-fly zone is not meant for ISIS[/QUOTE] the only thing it would do is provoke russia and prevent the regime from regaining control of the country, who no matter how shitty and dictatorial is the only hope syria has for a relatively peaceful future. if the west establishes a no fly zone in syria it'll just end up as another libya, there are already hundreds of different groups many with heavy salafist and wahabist support who all would love nothing more than to carve out their own fiefdom in syria.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50199037]Having trouble understanding what you're saying, but as far as I understand it, the No-Fly-Zone is so that russia stops invading Turkish airspace; or, when they do, Turkey is more justified in shooting down Russian planes since they have to cross the no-fly-zone to do so.[/QUOTE] No fly zone is meant for Syria's military, not Russia

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50199037]Having trouble understanding what you're saying, but as far as I understand it, the No-Fly-Zone is so that russia stops invading Turkish airspace; or, when they do, Turkey is more justified in shooting down Russian planes since they have to cross the no-fly-zone to do so.[/QUOTE] How does that in any way help solve the conflict in Syria, though?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50199073]How does that in any way help solve the conflict in Syria, though?[/QUOTE] It forces Syria to fight the rebels with ground forces instead of just using mass bombing runs.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50199080]It forces Syria to fight the rebels with ground forces instead of just using mass bombing runs.[/QUOTE] But if the Syrians can't fly, I don't doubt that the Russian's might pick up the slack, especially because it would be one gigantic shit fit if a Russian jet was shot down in Syria because of a US/West sponsered no-fly zone. Essentially, nothing constructive would happen.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50199094]But if the Syrians can't fly, I don't doubt that the Russian's might pick up the slack, especially because it would be one gigantic shit fit if a Russian jet was shot down in Syria because of a US/West sponsered no-fly zone. Essentially, nothing constructive would happen.[/QUOTE] Russia already does bomb Syrian civilians, the difference would be they'd be getting more heat than usual from it, hopefully cutting down on it due to international pressure. Either way I don't see how preventing civilian casualty is a bad thing.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50199140]Russia already does bomb Syrian civilians, the difference would be they'd be getting more heat than usual from it, hopefully cutting down on it due to international pressure. Either way I don't see how preventing civilian casualty is a bad thing.[/QUOTE] the enemies of the regime are not civilians, by preventing the regime from attacking the wide range of rebels the west could very well prolong the conflict and indirectly inflict much larger conflicts on civilians than the bombings from the regime would do.

[QUOTE=moffe;50199157]the enemies of the regime are not civilians, by preventing the regime from attacking the wide range of rebels the west could very well prolong the conflict and indirectly inflict much larger conflicts on civilians than the bombings from the regime would do.[/QUOTE] No one is saying the civilians are the intended targets, but that doesn't stop the regime from using crude bombs to just take our entire city blocks of suspected rebel territory. If they used ground forces instead there would be less worry of that happening. it doesn't help anyone to just say that this high of civilian casualties is natural and unavoidable.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50199037]Having trouble understanding what you're saying, but as far as I understand it, the No-Fly-Zone is so that russia stops invading Turkish airspace; or, when they do, Turkey is more justified in shooting down Russian planes since they have to cross the no-fly-zone to do so.[/QUOTE] we're not getting into a shooting war with the russian airforce over syria either, that is a very quick way to escalate things russia for its part has stayed the fuck away from our armed airplanes, even though they brag about catching up to our predator drones

[QUOTE=plunger435;50199180]No one is saying the civilians are the intended targets, but that doesn't stop the regime from using crude bombs to just take our entire city blocks of suspected rebel territory. If they used ground forces instead there would be less worry of that happening. it doesn't help anyone to just say that this high of civilian casualties is natural and unavoidable.[/QUOTE] You realize that bombs from planes are by far not the only thing that can decimate a city block? Ever hear of this thing called 'artillery'? Even the rebels have home-built ones that can level a building. Just imagine what the actual Syrian military has. A no-fly zone would not help anyone. Syria's military would simply switch tactics - their air campaign is [I]not[/I] the crux of their entire strategy to win the war.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50199180]No one is saying the civilians are the intended targets, but that doesn't stop the regime from using crude bombs to just take our entire city blocks of suspected rebel territory. If they used ground forces instead there would be less worry of that happening. it doesn't help anyone to just say that this high of civilian casualties is natural and unavoidable.[/QUOTE] Yeah... No. The ground forces of the Syrian Army rely heavily on armored thunder runs through occupied towns with normal soldiers moving in to take out any stragglers with heavy gunfire. When they come against light opposition they usually rely on artillery support, either from the armored groups, or having artillery systems on the outside, most notably Russian groups, to bombard the living the shit out of specific areas. When you talk about "crude bombs" they are no more crude then bullets and artillery shells. Barrel bombs are meant to inflict chaos and to disorganize rebels, or force them to evacuate wounded. That is their entire purpose. It allows forces to move into the bombed out areas, and take them over with little resistance. Putting a no-fly zone down, will only lead to an artillery war which would eventually become stagnant and lead to far more civilian casualties. It'll also lead to use of poison gas attacks, which for the most part, chemical weapon attacks have been limited to chlorine gas IEDs.