Friday, August 3, 2012

Without a no-fly zone over Syria, the rebels have no chance

image We learned it in World War I. We achieved it in World War II. In all armed conflicts since the dawn of aviation, only one thing virtually guarantees success: Air superiority. In Syria, the Assad regime owns the skies and they’re using them with ruthless success.

The Syrian government is using Russian-made helicopter gunships and warplanes to attack rebel strongholds. While the rebels have captured many pieces of armored equipment and weapons, those are useless when Assad orders his air corps to rain hell.

Why doesn’t the Obama regime press the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over the airspace of Syria, and enforce it by shooting down any non-civilian aircraft that dares to lift off? The President needs to get his ass off of the links and show some leadership.

In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush unilaterally established a no-fly zone over southern Iraq to inhibit Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of Shiite Muslims. Then-Governor Bill Clinton heartily endorsed the move, and extended it after he became President. An additional no-fly zone was established over the northern part of the country during his presidency, and a similarly effective measure was imposed over Bosnia during the Balkan Crisis.

In fact, Bill Clinton went off the reservation last year when he openly advocated a no-fly zone over Libya during that country’s coup d’etat, saying that the Libyan rebels weren’t in a fair fight.

His wife however, echoed the testicle-free foreign policy approach of the Obama regime. “Absent international authorization, the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable.”

We acted alone in southern Iraq and likely saved thousands of lives. Hussein’s retaliation against the Shiites for their rebellion after Operation Desert Storm was certainly on par with Assad’s repression of Syrian rebels. Hussein’s oppression of the Kurds—which included the use of chemical weapons—was even worse.

The Assad regime is known to have chemical weapons and some military analysts believe that much of Saddam’s chemical and/or even nuclear assets made their way across the desert to Syria before the US kicked Saddam’s ass in 2003.

Does anyone think that the Assad regime would hesitate to use those weapons against the rebels? And does anyone dispute that you don’t launch such munitions from ground based systems?

Sooner or later, the rebels are going to run out of weapons and ammunition unless someone finds a way to get materiel in their hands. But even with a steady supply of weaponry, unless Syrian aircraft are forced out of the sky, the rebels have no chance of success.

The only way to level the battlefield is to impose a no-fly zone. If the UN won’t do it, then Obama should show some balls and do it himself. Screw you, Russia. Screw you, China. We’re the United States of America and we stand for freedom.

Or, do we?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.


US awaking said...

why does the states not solve his own country problems. the rebels are far more dangerous than esad can be in his most terrible nightmares. And geostrategically iran is not the problem of the us than the problem of israel. And israel should learn to solve his problems demeĆ³cratically. The us ended in mess because of the interventions in the middle east for doing israel a favour. Biggest failure of the us regarding cost of live and money. So you again think us should go in war?
What about youself if your a men and have balls take a gun and fight with the rebels for what you want. But shut up and do not tell what the us should do.