I Support a No-Fly Zone in Syria – A Real One that Applies to NATO Too 247


This is the result of NATO bombing of Sirte to “enforce the no-fly zone” in Libya.

Sirte-destroyed-1

When the neo-cons in the UK parliament and the serial warmonger Hillary Clinton call for a “no-fly zone” they actually mean the opposite. They mean that NATO should be given untrammelled access to the airspace to carry out mass bombings – but that nobody else should.

We saw it in Libya. The argument goes like this. NATO aircraft need to enforce the no-fly zone. To do this in safety, they need to attack and destroy any ground to air weapons capabilities on the ground. That does not just include surface to air missiles, both carriage mounted and hand held, but anything that can be pointed upwards and fired. They need to take out by more bombing any stores that may house such weapons. They need to take out any radar installations, including civilian ones, that may pinpoint NATO aircraft. They need to destroy any runways and hangars, including civilian ones. They need to destroy by bombing all military command and control centres, including those in built up areas. They need to destroy the infrastructure on which air defence relies, including electricity generation and water supply, including civilian assets.

I am not exaggerating. That really is the doctrine of NATO for enforcing a “no fly zone”, as previously witnessed in Iraq and Libya. It really was NATO aircraft which did to the beautiful Mediterranean town of Sirte the destruction which you see in that picture – in order to enforce a no-fly zone. Enforcement of the no-fly zone was the only authorisation NATO had for the massive bombing campaign on Libya which enabled regime change, which enabled rival jihadist militias to take over the country. They showed their gratitude by murdering the US Ambassador. The failure of central government led to Libya becoming the operating site from which a number now in the hundreds of thousands of boat refugees have crossed to Europe.

Now they wish to do precisely the same again. Make no mistake. Those calling for a “No-fly zone” do indeed want to stop the bombs falling on jihadist-held areas of Aleppo. But they want to replace this with NATO dropping a vastly greater weight of vastly more powerful weaponry on areas held by the Assad regime. They are relentless warmongering bastards, pretending to be motivated by humanitarian concern.

There are no easy answers in Syria. Without Russian and Syrian government air power, Syria might well already have fallen to disparate groups of murdering religious fanatics, who would then have redoubled their existing tendency to also kill each other. The pretence that there is any significant number of pro-western democratic rebels is ludicrous nonsense. But so equally is the pretence that the Assad regime is a decent regime. It is not and never has been. There is always this pathetic reductionism in the western media to conflict as between “good guys” and “bad guys”. They are all killing civilians. They are all bad guys.

If all bombing were to stop, the danger is that jihadists would again gain the upper hand. But in a situation where there are no good options, I think that is still better than the continued bombing of civilian areas held by jihadists. The fact that the West has repeatedly done this massively in Mosul or Fallujah does not make it right for the Russians or Assad to do it now. The moral balance now must be for a halt to all bombing and all military air operations – including by NATO.

A security council resolution could be tabled calling for the end of all military flights, by anybody, over Syrian airspace. The UK and US would oppose that, and so would all those Tories ad Blairites pretending to advocate a no-fly zone in the House of Commons. That would show up the bastards for the evil hypocrites they are.


247 thoughts on “I Support a No-Fly Zone in Syria – A Real One that Applies to NATO Too

1 2 3 4
  • Jemand

    A no-fly zone would protract this evil war which must come to an end on the side of Assad to Russia’s satisfaction (naval base etc) if the region is to see any peace in the foreseeable future.

    Be that as it may ..

    Now that Turkey has signed up to Russian gas, the planned Qatar to EU pipeline has become more problematic. The EU (or Greater Germany as we now know it) needs a stable, contiguous course of territory from Qatar to Europe to make a pipeline viable & this requires a compliant Turkey and Syria. Erdogan has upset this plan with his Ottoman Empire revival fantasy, making him a rogue partner. The mess in relations between Turkey & Germany over refugees, unpaid promises of aid, Turkish brutality against Kurds & the so-called failed coup, is the most obvious sign of trouble. Erdogan’s ambitions render Turkey’s prospective EU membership absurd & it’s NATO membership dangerous.

    Therefore, Erdogan must go.

    Perhaps the failed coup was encouraged by NATO to unseat him but was allowed to proceed to a point where it justified a crackdown against an independent military & liberal secularists. Erdogan’s use of Islamist people power saw beheadings of supposedly mutinous soldiers to send a terrifying message to the military. It marks a transition in Turkey’s internal struggle between Islamists and muslim secularists and gives Erdogan an army of voluntary spies and killers to carry out his programme of political reform, cultural regression and external military escapades.

    Unless Erdogan is stopped, North East Syria and North West Iraq will see continuing attacks against Kurds until they are all but eliminated. Anyone aware of Turkey being disallowed participation in the recapture of Mosul from ISIS? That’s because the US no longer trusts Turkey. In the course of ostensibly attacking ISIS, they will attack Kurds and undermine progress in stabilising Iraq.

    As for Syria, so long as US-EU intend to drive back Russia and work toward a Qatar-EU energy deal, it’s hopes for peace are poor, with or without an ISIS-friendly no-fly zone.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.