Hillary Clinton’s insane plan for a no-fly zone

[cali]

During the Dec. 19 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News generally steered the candidates toward hawkish positions on foreign policy. She appeared to accept the premise that the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also called ISIS) is both necessary and urgent. But one position advanced by former Secretary of State and current frontrunner Hillary Clinton was so hawkish, so cavalier, that even Raddatz felt compelled to push back. After Clinton said she supported a no-fly zone in Syria in the context of fighting ISIL, Raddatz skeptically followed up:

RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I’d like to go back to that if I could. ISIS doesn’t have aircraft, Al Qaida doesn’t have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?

CLINTON: I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting airspace. […] I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia […] The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.
Raddatz moved on, but this exchange illustrates the absurdity of Clinton’s support for a “no-fly zone.” A no-fly zone over Syria, as all parties understand, is a tacit declaration of war not only against Syria, but also against their longtime ally Russia, whose air force is currently flying over Syria to defend the government of Bashar al-Assad against both ISIL and various rebel groups, some overtly or covertly backed by the United States.

But most Americans don’t know what a no-fly zone is, because the media almost never explains what it would entail. Indeed, one has to look to paragraph 19 of an article in The New York Times from 2013 to get some specifics:

<snip>
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/hillary-clintons-insane-plan-for-a-no-fly-zone.html

[bowens43]

1. She is just chomping at the bit to get a chance to play with her soldiers......

the woman is a center right neo-con. why would any liberal vote for her?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

46. Then she had better put her uniform on and get out there

[beam me up scottie]

2. Excellent article, k&r for an issues related op.

The term “no-fly zone” is casually thrown around in the debates unchallenged, either because the moderators themselves don’t know what exactly it means or because they assume their audience doesn’t. Either way, “no-fly zone” has become the most effective way of calling for regime change in Syria without appearing to do so. It’s a neocon dog-whistle designed to appeal to hawks without offending a war-weary public. As George Orwell wrote in “Politics and the English Language,” “such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”

If Clinton and the GOP want to spark a war with Syria, and by extension Russia, they should be honest about that and what it would entail. Right now all we have is tough-on-Assad bromides and virtually no realistic assessment of how such a plan would be carried out.

[cali]

3. Good morning, Scottie. It's pretty chilling.

[beam me up scottie]

4. A good read for people who don't understand why Hillary's support of a NFZ is disturbing.

[CorporatistNation]

31. WHY Hillary's Casual Assertion of Advocating A No FLY Zone Has Not Received the ATTENTION...

That it should is astounding... I mean Rand Paul called out Christie ... This is the "Safe Choice" for Commander in Chief??? WTF?

Hillary then in this same debate when softly questioned by the moderator responded that such a move (No Fly Zone) would be a good way to bring the Russians to our way of thinking or something to that effect.

WWIII is not a hard thing to start!

Hillary has demonstrated on numerous occasions her very poor judgement that is based more on what move is most likely to improve her political standing rather than alternatively deciding affirmatively for what is MOST appropriate for the good of the nation and its people.

In STARK CONTRAST there sits the white haired gent who made the proper decision OBJECTIVELY when it counted!

Hillary is INCOMPETENT not because she is lacking intellect, but rather because of psychological issues that revolve around her extreme Narcissism.

Some of the scariest leaders in human history were similarly afflicted.

[sorechasm]

39. The 'white-haired gent' called her out on the NFZ as a regime change tactic

Although he wasn't as explicit as he could have been.

HRC's reference to bringing the Russians around to supporting regime change is as likely as the justification for the last Iraq war: 'they'll be greeting us with flowers'; 'it will only last a few months'. If she's gullible enough to believe it, then she's gullible enough to promote it'.

This article defends the comparison of HRC to Margaret Thatcher.

[Vattel]

5. I hope her plan is just another example of dishonest campaign rhetoric.

But I fear that she really means what she is saying. If so, then she is actually suggesting that, for the sake of American security, she is willing to risk war with Russia (unless of course Russia agrees to shares the no fly zone, which is about as likely as pigs flying in the no fly zone).

She and like-minded Republicans like Rubio need to be stopped.

[Vinca]

6. I don't get the idea of a no fly zone to take out ISIS since they don't have planes.

If we shoot down a Russian plane we could start WWIII. What am I missing?

[Paulie]

7. Not a thing

Morning!

[cali]

8. Nothing.

[Vattel]

10. You aren't missing anything. Her plan is foolish and extremely dangerous.

She doesn't seem to realize that risking war with Russia is the antithesis of national security.

[AgingAmerican]

12. She is trying to one-up the Republicans

By escalating the rhetoric. This is a very dangerous game she is playing.

[Uncle Joe]

28. They found one on this ISIS controlled island.

[Yupster]

32. IT's retro or moot

Once Russia sent troops into Syria, our options went away.

We can't tell Russia not to fly planes in a country where the legal government invited them in and has not invited us in.

All I can think of is inertia. She's still spouting a policy that made sense three years ago but doesn't make any sense now.

[AgingAmerican]

9. So WWIII is on the table?

Cuz TERROR!!!1! Move over Christy, you got company!

She is trying to appeal to Republicans by taking right wing fringe positions on certain issues, like war. Sanders appeals to a subset of disillusioned Republicans tired of making $7 per hour.

[Vattel]

44. Yes, it is on the table. Voting for her given that she is suggesting

that she is willing to risk war with Russia is now simply an irresponsible vote.

[Scuba]

11. I suspect the American public has less stomach for more war than the media would like us to believe.

[Live and Learn]

13. K&R nt

[Vattel]

14. I hope this post gets hundreds of replies. I can't imagine something that would be more

important to discuss in GDP than this.

[TwilightGardener]

15. She says, "I do not think it would come to that", regarding shooting down Russian planes.

Good leaders always think through what may go wrong, to the worst possible consequence, and then decide if the risk is worth it. In this case, we set up a no-fly zone, Russia or Syria violate it even if only to test us or defy us, and then what? We either shoot the plane down or we lose credibility on the world stage. Why would we put ourselves in that position? That's how good leaders weigh the issue. She's always had bad judgment and just relies on whichever person, school of thought or think tank looks or sounds like a winner at the moment.

[cali]

16. Yes, she has repeatedly demonstrated her awful judgment

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. When in doubt, wave flag, talk tough, and rake in the dough.

Works almost every time.

[cali]

18. It's frighteningly easy to gin up support for military action

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'm 71, a vet, and have seen that ploy over and over again.

When I was in boot camp Fidel Castro was the scary bogeyman that we were supposed to be eager to kill. The bogeymen have changed but the song remains the same.

[sadoldgirl]

20. She has tried to push

Obama to do it way before, and I am happy to say
that he did not listen to her.

Foreign Policy is supposed to be her strength, yet
she shows no carefully considered good judgement
in that field. Look at Guatemala, and later at her
statement about the 50,000 or more children, who
were fleeing that country as well as others.

[farleftlib]

22. Yes. She was a terrible SofS

She is dangerous. Look at Libya, as badly as that turned out, that's clearly her plan for Syria as well.

And she doesn't have a humanitarian bone in her body. K & R.

[arikara]

25. The first Clinton regime

used those sanctions on Iraq to kill more than 500,000 children.
But the price was worth it to them.

K&R

[Vattel]

24. If it is true that she actually pushed Obama to do it, then that is truly scary

because it means that she is not just trying to sound tough for the campaign.

[CorporatistNation]

35. Poor Judgement Secondary To A NARCISSISTIC Personality...

Funny, I do not see ANY HillBots on This Thread!!!!

[cali]

21. This exemplifies the danger she poses. Her judgment is just horrible

[WillyT]

23. K & R !!!

[Purveyor]

26. This right here is why I don't know if I will be able to figure out a way to actually vote for her

in the GE.

Troubling, indeed.

[leveymg]

27. Just take her at her word. 2016 is an up or down vote on another major war.

If you vote for her, you know what comes with the contract.

[Vattel]

33. It seems that 2016 is an up or down vote on risking nuclear war with Russia.

[leveymg]

36. That would certainly qualify as another major war. It would likely be our last.

She's superbly equipped to lead us into the war to end all wars.

[ViseGrip]

29. This is nuts, and the media is protecting her on foreign policy. This is a bad idea.

[cali]

30. Yes, the media lends legitimacy to this lunacy

[jfern]

34. She has to pick one of the following 2 options

Option 1: She would obviously not shoot down Russian planes, and Al Qaeda and ISIS don't have planes, so she is wasting a lot of time talking about a big fat nothing.

Option 2: She wants to shoot down Russian planes, starting World War 3.

Either way, she's not very credible here.

[sorechasm]

40. Option 3: Money talks. She's promoting the best interests of her stockholders.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

Is it a coincidence that KSA wants regime change in Syria?

Money may talk, but it doesn't necessarily think ahead. These same moneyed interests wanted to depose Suddam Hussein, and now Iraq is controlled by their arch-enemy Shiites.

[cali]

37. Interesting that there are no comments from Clinton supporters in this thread

[Vattel]

38. They are desperately looking for talking points.

[sorechasm]

41. Still no reply from HRC supporters.

Who thinks a challenge to Russia's air power over Syria is a good idea? It is not PBO's position.

Let's see if WillyT has any luck getting a response here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251960804

[jfern]

42. If they were to honestly acknowledge this, they'd probably have to stop supporting her

[Vattel]

43. k and r

[AzDar]

45. Let's not give her the opportunity to prove how tough she is by sending other people's children

off to die needlessly again.

#HillNo

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. What happened to the drones?

well I was just asking?

[senz]

48. She has terrible judgment.

I would not trust her with the presidency.