Posted on 08/22/2016 8:46:15 PM PDT by amorphous
Over the course of the 5 year-long civil war in Syria, the US has slowly escalated its military involvement. However one significant move which they have so far failed to implement is a No Fly Zone (NFZ) enforced by their aircraft over all (or just part) of Syria.
Despite this, today the US may have tacitly announced just such a NFZ. In a press conference this evening, the Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook, made a number of statements regarding US forces in Syria. These statements came following reports that the US backed SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) had been bombed by Assad Regime aircraft in the city of Hasakah in northern Syria. Such airstrikes were also dangerously close to US Special Forces who were assisting the SDF in their fight against ISIS.
Specifically Peter Cook said that the US would use its airpower “as needed” to protect US personnel and partner operations. The aim of this was reportedly to send a message to other parties to “stay away from our forces”.
"We are fighting ISIL...and we will defend our forces,” Peter Cook also remarked.
Despite these comments Cook did take the time to deny that such a move would constitute a No Fly Zone. Given this denial, it’s worth looking at how the statement made by the Pentagon differs from a no fly zone.
In US military doctrine, an NFZ is enforced as an ‘Exclusion Zone’, wherein a specific action (in this case flying aircraft) is prohibited. Such a zone must exist over a defined geographic area, and should it be breached, it could be enforced through military means.
With this in mind, what was declared today by the Pentagon differs from what is commonly referred to as a No Fly Zone, for two key reasons. The first of these is that the US did not declare a specific geographic area in which they would use their airpower to defend their forces. Indeed they did not even specify which forces they meant. Secondly, the US statement suggests they would only take action to defend against aircraft should they attack US-aligned forces, rather than simply flying through the airspace.
Head Negro in F****ing Charge?
Fairly realistic regarding naval situations between US and Soviet vessels in the middle of the Cold War.
No, he’s right WW3 has already happened.
A thick, pink line.
A thick, pink line.
Who cares if there are flies in Syria? How about a no mosquito zone in Florida?
Perhaps a misunderstanding exists about Obama's red lines. Everyone seems to think the lines are drawn to limit the actions of our adversaries (ISIS, Russia, Assad's Syria, Turkey) when in fact the red lines are meant to limit our actions in which case we have lived up to our own defined limitations.......
Thanks! I have a weird fascination for war movies. When you first posted the image, I thought the guy under the helmet supposedly misunderstood the order and fired. :-)
Got a page not found error? The link looks okay. I’ll check the mains site, maybe they’ve moved it.
That's exactly what happens, just it's not the guy in the helmet that is on fire control.
The movie is about military attitudes and brinkmanship. Poitier plays a questioning reporter to whom the ready (at battle stations) procedure is being explained, by the Captain (Widmark).
I won't spoil it further for you, and you can find the critical scenes on You Tube, maybe the whole movie.
Will check it out. Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.