Sure thing, but there's a big problem: a safe zone has to be, by definition, safe. Who is going to make it safe? Who is going to keep it safe and for how long? The Syrians? Iraqis? An Arab coalition of some sort?
Nope. You know the answer.
Actually, Trump was on Scarborough yesterday morning (by phone) and he *specifically* said he would gather the support of a coalition of countries to deal with Syria together. He especially emphasized that there are Middle Eastern countries that we help protect/prop up (whom he said have no “skin in the game” now), and we will tell them that they need to use their own soldiers to deal with the Syria problem. He said, however, that at first we too would send a small force of US soldiers. Scarborough asked if he would be willing to send up to 10,000 troops. He said yes and stressed that it would not be our soldiers who would be there long term though, but troops from the region. Although he didn’t say it outright, I got the impression that he was going to threaten to cut off financial and military aid to these countries, if they don’t do this. He also mentioned that we should work with the Kurds.
I’m not sure I agree with having our boots on the ground there, but I thought the folks posting here were missing a lot of what the Donald’s plan for Syria actually looks like. Everyone criticizing how vague Trump is, just remember not all the details of what he has in mind get published in each article on a given subject. You can usually find out more details in regard to his various plans and positions if you watch his interviews (at least if the interviewer is any good)—and, of course, he has position papers on his website for certain topics.