Speaking this morning at the Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary Clinton advocated a no-fly zone in Syria. Simple as that. Except:
Russia … would veto any U.N. Security Council effort to set up such a zone.
Russian intervention has also seriously complicated any possible U.S.-led initiative to set up a no-fly zone outside the Security Council’s purview because … it would run the risk of direct confrontation with Russian aircraft.
[The Obama] administration has not been willing to take on the enormous deployment of military assets that would be required to set up a no-fly zone on behalf of its rebel proxies. "It would require suppression of enemy air defense, which would in turn require the U.S. and its allies to reach deep into regime territory and completely destroy Assad’s missile capabilities," [said one analyst].
Then there is the question of which faction in Syria would front the tens of thousands of troops needed to clear such a zone on the ground in order to counter further expansion in the area by the Islamic State.
Obama [has] hinted that the no-fly-zone talk was rooted mainly in politics. "Hillary Clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems," he told reporters [in September]. "But I also think that there’s a difference between running for president and being president."
A domestic, no-lip-flapping zone would be preferable. But this, after all, is the silly season of simple solutions to mindbendingly complex problems.