…
While military intervention in Syria may be impossible,
imposing a no-fly zone is not. To be sure, a no-fly zone over Syria would not
be a simple undertaking: substantial resources would be required, and, given
the regime’s military capabilities, it would not be a risk-free operation. Yet
it was accomplished for more than a decade in neighboring Iraq to keep Saddam
Hussein from attacking segments of his own population, so we know that it can
be done in Syria as well.
…
Because Russian and Chinese intransigence precludes the
UN from establishing a no-fly zone, the Arab League and NATO should jointly
take the lead. And, while the participation of the US, which has by far the
greatest logistical capacity, is essential, it should not be in the forefront.
As in the case of Libya, this would be an excellent opportunity to “lead from
behind.”
A no-fly zone is by no means a solution to the conflict
in Syria. But it would be a modest step in the direction of reducing the great
harm currently being done. A more comprehensive approach, if one could be
found, would be far preferable. Until then, it seems well worth pursuing
efforts that would help to abate the carnage.
I disagree one thing, well nice to sit at front of TV and
remote controlling telling this and that, it is well to say “solving problems
without military involved” that is ok but how about arming the FSA? Now the problem is they need heavy weapons, if FSA not fighting what happen
then? They could be killed more and also
the terrorist Assad and his gang all
sort of excuses lies try to justify their terrorism for their own people and
their own countries. Syria people don’t want to him so they will not give up their
struggle so this conflict end when criminal Assad is remove by forces.
