Syria

Clinton Insists Syria No-Fly Zone Would Save Lives, 'Hasten' End of Conflict

Says she acknowledges the risks but her policy preferences don't indicate she does.

|

ImagesLive/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Hillary Clinton reiterated her desire for the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone in Syria at the third presidential debate, saying it "could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict" even as she insisted she understood the "really legitimate concerns" about such an action drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict (as Chris Wallace noted that President Obama worried) or start a war with Russia and Syria (as Wallace noted that the joint chief of staff chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, worried).

Once again, Clinton used the viral photo of a wounded 4-year-old boy at a hospital in Aleppo, calling it "haunting," to defend her decision to support accepting more Syrian refugees (her current position differs from her position while she was Secretary of State, when the U.S. accepted virtually no Syrian refugees, something it would continue to do until last year). But she did not talk about how escalating the U.S. role in the conflict in Syria was likely to exacerbate the refugee crisis, as did U.S. interventions in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, nor how her preferred course of action would lead to more civilian casualties in Syria, which she admitted in a private speech to Goldman Sachs in 2013, when Russia was not as involved yet and Syrian forces were not as entrenched in the conflict as they are now.

"They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports," Clinton said back then. "To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk—you're going to kill a lot of Syrians." Clinton continued in the Goldman Sachs speech: "So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

At the debates she has ignored this private idea, treating U.S. intervention glibly and ignoring the civilian casualties she so easily uses to justify her policy positions when the casualties are not U.S.-caused. There is not a widespread awareness of the situation in Syria, let alone widespread support for further intervention. U.S. meddling in Syria so far has mostly just aggravated the conflict and introduced weapons that end up in the hands of Al-Qaeda and ISIS. There is not a clearly identifiable public constituency calling for war with Syria (except perhaps the mainstream media) so it's hard to take Clinton's enthusiasm for escalating U.S. involvement in Syria as anything but genuine. Clinton has not had to answer at the general debates why she was wrong on the Iraq war, or any questions about her role in pressing for intervention in Libya and the disastrous results there. For all the talk (including last night) of the prospects of Donald Trump deciding to start a nuclear war, Hillary Clinton seems to have a better grasp of the policy decisions that would lead there and a genuine fervor for advancing them.

NEXT: Jesse Walker to Speak in Baltimore About Conspiracy Theories and the Election

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. She’s going to be President.

    1. She has to prove she will be a tough first woman president.
      What better way to prove your toughness than the wanton killing of anonymous people for political gain?

      Because in America, whether or not you have a vagina is proof of your merit and intelligence.

      Actions, morals, and history don’t mean shit.

      So what the hell, let’s start world war three since we started the other four wars going on right now.

      At least she will have the support of all woman who have ever been felt up. If a few million people die and our economy implodes, is it not all worth it?

      Or are you just a privileged ist?

      1. WAR BONER!

        1. WAR SPLOOSH!

          1. We are sliding down the snail trail of war.

            1. It’s a lubricated slope.

              1. I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $120 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. Go to this web site and click Tech tab to start your work…. http://www.ImdbCash.tk

              2. That bitches needs lube. I’ll bet it looks like…..gross

                Anyway, pretty sure she has a pecker.
                As bad as both of them are, I just cannot stand to listen to that hag for 8 years. She is going to drive many more people to kill themselves than she already has.

    2. In the upcoming ‘Iron Sky 2’ Sarah Palin is President of the United States and deliberately leads it to global annihilation.

      Hollywood Progressives think that’s hilarious or something. Because there’s no way a female *Democrat* President could be a real hawk.

    3. …because reason refuses to shine the light of the O’Keefe videos on her criminality.

      1. The world is so lucky to have assange, snowden, and o’keefe.

  2. Hillary Clinton reiterated her desire for the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone in Syria at the third presidential debate, saying it “could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict”

    If that were true, what stopped them from doing it already?

    Oh, because it “Could” also not do that at all? It “could” mean de-facto war with Syria and Russia? Because that’s what it usually means when a country starts flying aircraft over foreign soil, insisting it will shoot anyone else down until it gets what it wants?

    The media is complicit in this bullshit by allowing them to pretend that their desire is something to do with ‘protecting civilians’. The US wants to oust Assad, and has been supporting the rebellion to-date to achieve that end. If the US wanted peace and stability, they’d never have gotten involved in the first place.

    1. “The US wants to oust Assad, and has been supporting the rebellion to-date to achieve that end. If the US wanted peace and stability, they’d never have gotten involved in the first place.”

      I’m the last person that would normally be on the side of dictators, but given a choice between the likes of Saddam, Qadaffi, and Assad, or the likes of what replaces them, I can’t for the life of me understand what the “wise” TOP MEN are thinking.

      I mean, if nothing else, how are they unable to learn from the examples of chaos following in every case where they decided to overthrow some secular asshole who was brutally keeping a lid on the 9th-century crazies? They are either actually even more slow-witted than I give them credit for, or they have some kind of profit to gain from all of it.

      It’s unbelievable to me that no major candidate (sorry, Gary, but at 5% you’re not major) and no one in the media even raises the alternative of staying the hell out of these conflicts instead of choosing sides — and choosing the wrong side to boot!

      1. I can’t for the life of me understand what the “wise” TOP MEN are thinking.

        Obama is simply carrying on the Bush-admin idea of ‘remaking the middle east’
        (which is unfair – Bush & co. didn’t invent the idea of ‘isolating iran’ by removing all its allies from power)

        What’s odd is that in the past we did it to help Israel, or to help the Saudis. I can’t for the life of me figure out who the hell they think they’re helping now.

        This is pretty much what Bacevitch said recently. Worth listening.

        1. White Man’s Burden, baby. The Brits once ruled the world with that idea but they proved not up to the task and now we’re staking our claim to be Numero Uno by taking up the challenge. We have to re-make the world in our image or how will we know our image is the best?

        2. What’s odd is that in the past we did it to help Israel, or to help the Saudis. I can’t for the life of me figure out who the hell they think they’re helping now.

          Really you don’t see who they are “helping”? In one of the batches of recently released emails it was very clearly articulated that the US went into Libya for the oil. Whether it was to help the Italians and French keep the oil that Qaddafi was ready to sell to the Chinese, or it was Hillary’s State Department working to get Blumenthal to make big buck, which then led to money for the Clinton foundation, it was all about enriching the people in charge.

          When the left accused Bush of invading Iraq to steal the oil, they didn’t do it out of any other reason then because that would have been what they would have done it for….

          1. You don’t spend a trillion dollars to ensure access to a few hundred billion in oil you don’t actually “need”.

            The Europeans need Libyan oil, but the fact is that their supplies are more jeopardized now by the chaos there than they were under Ghaddafi’s bad-deal-making.

            I find the whole one-dimensional, “its about oil” argument sort of silly. Syria has no oil to speak of, nor does yemen. But both are Iranian proxies (more or less). We’re trying to oust leadership in both places because we (and the Saudis) don’t want Iran to extend its influence beyond its now-doubled footprint in Iraq.

            If it were all about Oil, it makes you wonder why we handed control to Iraq over to Iran, more or less.

            1. I agree on the silly, but according to an email from Herself to Podesta:

              “These developments are important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to
              country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and
              strategic commitments in Jordan. ”

              link

              They were claiming “energy” as a reason for getting involved there. Makes no sense to me either. But neither does point 4 where it’s clear the Saudis are financing ISIL and we know about it when contrasted with our willingness to defend their excursion in Yemen.

              1. They were claiming “energy” as a reason for getting involved there

                If you mean Libya, I already pointed out that was a key nominal issue for the Europeans. There were tens of billions tied up in Libyan investments that Ghdf was uncertain to ever honor. But as already pointed out – the country is worse off now than before the revolution. Some of those assets have been entirely written off by now.

                My point was that the US eagerness to involve itself in the Middle East overall can’t exactly be reduced to “oil”; sure, it was a factor. but i doubt it was even primary.

                As also already noted = how exactly have Iraqi oil reserves been better-secured by handing control to Shiite groups largely beholden to Iran?

                We deposed a US enemy to limit his control of the 5th largest oil reserves on earth, and handed them…. to a US enemy.

                Not exactly 5th-dimensional chess here.

                1. I think we agree that it was a stupid approach, but I believe it (energy) was a large part of their approach nonetheless.

                  That and there seems to be a persistent belief in a moderate Islamic faction that doesn’t appear to exist anywhere in sufficient numbers to maintain stability. We can watch Turkey slide into fundamentalism but also insist that the FSA is somehow the answer to our problems in Iraq/Syria.

                  I read the articles you linked to a few days ago on ‘Romancing the Sunni’ and it makes sense but I get the feeling even that approach is reaching its limit. Our mid-east diplomacy all seems to be fighting the last war at this point.

                  1. That and there seems to be a persistent belief in a moderate Islamic faction that doesn’t appear to exist anywhere in sufficient numbers to maintain stability.

                    From what I’ve read it seems like Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, President of Egypt, and Abdullah II, King of Jordan, represent a moderate Islamic faction that does exist, however as neither of those men came to power through democratic means it is probably a safe bet that the moderate faction is a minority in the Middle East, so your point still stands.

      2. This is what I have been saying. In general, we shouldn’t be involved at all. But if we are, why the fuck would we fight AGAINST Russia, and for the fucking Islamists? There are no good guys in this war. Assad is a fucking butcher. But so are all the Islamist ISIS rebels (there are no rebels fighting for freedom). So if we are going to get involved, there should be some national interest. And it sure as hell isn’t in our interest to support Islamist radicals at the expense of going to war with Russia!!!!

        1. The WH has been very good at hiding the real reason we are risking WW3 in Syria, but there has been an agenda from the very start of this whole insane thig….

          1. needs more spooky music.

          2. And that is? I’d like to hear some coherent theory that ties together this shit show.

    2. Imposing and enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria would first require eliminating the multiple sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries the Russians have moved into heavily-populated areas, which would mean bombing the shit out of those heavily-populated areas.

      To save lives.

    3. The US wants to oust Assad

      While simultaneously shitting bricks over the specter of foreign interference in our own elections.

      1. yeah, i know. Its fucking absurd. The pants shitting the media has made about “Russian Hacking” seems to forget some very notable not-very-long-ago-news-stories

    4. The real question the media never fucking asks is ‘why the fuck do we want Assad out so badly?’

      I sure as hell don’t know. Sure he’s a fuckstain, but enough of one to be worth butting heads with Russia over? Especially when Syria is *extremely* important to Russia and has . . . basically no strategic value to us.

  3. A no fly zone will mean by necessity a war with Russia. You know, the world’s most nuked up nation who have figured nukes into their tactical and strategic thinking for quite a while? Really fucking bad idea.

    1. “Yeah, but SHE has experience, and Trump will just fire off nukes if some foreign leader insults him!! I’m scared that he will start WWIII.”

      –Typical Progderp, including all the journo-twits

      The intelligence deficits of these people never ceases to amaze me.

    2. Russia is already warning about a nuclear war. I haven’t heard that kind of talk in decades. And here is our future president pointing missiles at Russian planes. To me, that’s the scariest part of a Hillary presidency. But the press doesn’t talk about this, because DEMOCRATS GOOD! REPUBLICANS BAD!

      1. Trump is Slim Pickens, but Hillary is Dr. Strangelove…

        1. With Bill Clinton as Buck Turgeson: “Madame President! We cannot afford a mineshaft gap!”

  4. For all the talk (including last night) of the prospects of Donald Trump deciding to start a nuclear war, Hillary Clinton seems to have a better grasp of the policy decisions that would lead there and a genuine fervor for advancing them.

    “Trump talks big but isn’t even qualified to start WW3.”

    1. He doesn’t need to be qualified. He’ll bumble his way into it.

      Pretty much fucked either way.

      1. The more qualified Democrats are doing a fine job of that on their own.

  5. It’s a good thing that Congress has to declare war first before she could do something like this!

    Right?

    ….right?

  6. How the hell would a no-fly zone hasten the end of the conflict? Maybe she knows where Aleppo is but she plainly has no fucking idea what’s going on there.

    1. That’s what I was thinking. Unless the no-fly zone would allow the rebels to overwhelm the government forces – and I’m unaware of any evidence to make me think this is likely – it seems it would be much more probable that it would prolong the conflict in a stalemate. And even if the rebels did win quickly, there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t then begin fighting among themselves.

      1. It would enable ISIS…

        ISIS has an air force of drones they use for reconnaisance. The drones are so small and easily deployed and recovered that the U.S. air force will have a tough time denying them access to the air space above the battlefield.

        ISIS’ missiles (armored car filled with explosives with a human guidance system) are ground to ground, and indistinguishable from civilian traffic until after launch. Thus unaffected by the no fly zone.

        The Syrians, on the other hand, use piloted jets for reconnaiscance and to launch their missiles. Thus ISIS would be unhindered, but the Syrians would be deprived of a significant components of their military.

        Of course it’s all academic. The Russians are really itching to prove that their military equipment can hold its own against American equipment. And, in the past, when they have threatened armed conflict with the U.S, Hillary has always backed down.

        1. Russia can’t wait for the chance to shoot down a U.S. jet and further market their equipment for sale.

          1. Yep… and the Russians are not bumbling hapless fools.

            American politicians have fallen into the habit of thinking the U.S. military is the Harlem Globe Trotters and everyone else is the Washington Generals. The Russians are more like the San Antonio Spurs.

            1. The US is still far superior to Russia in materiel and capability. In an actual fully-prosecuted war the Russians would get rolled. Whether they would resort to nukes and risk retaliation in kind to avoid defeat in the middle east is an open question.

              1. They would get rolled. But they’re good enough to *hurt* us – even without going nuclear – and hurt us badly in the process. And if there’s one thing our civilian government has shown, its that it is afraid as fuck of the public seeing the caskets roll home.

                It’d be embarrassing as hell for an administration to get its chain yanked in the middle of prosecuting a ‘not war’ because the public didn’t have the stomach to handle casualties for another bullshit intervention.

                1. In the tactical setup that is Syria, Russians are in good shape to play some no-fly zone of their own. I believe they have S-400 batteries deployed there already, and that system basically denies vast swaths of airspace to everything but a (very) stealthy airplane. USAF would have to risk their fanciest airframes and electro-platforms to get those systems, USN/USMC airpower would depend on EA-18’s for survival.

                  The Russians (presumably) also were owners/operators of some kind of impressive highflier drone that back in August Israelis tried to intercept from Golan Heights with two Patriot rounds and an AMRAAM intercept attempt by F-16I, all of which failed.

                  Ace-in-the-hole for Americans for all this is supposed to be the F-22. Might get to see if that thing is as Buck Rogers as everyone claims. But that vehicle has some odd deficiencies – can’t fire off-boresight AIM-9X, no Link-16, no passive IR, and (oddly) a radar not as good as what one finds on updated F-15’s (APG63v). New thinking is ‘Raptor-Eagle teams,’ but such a team in S-400 airspace can pretty quickly lead to just a ‘Raptor team.’

                  Guess we’ll find out, being ready for Hillary and all.

                  1. can’t fire off-boresight AIM-9X, no Link-16

                    They can shoot off boresight, they just can’t take full advantage of the X’s full capabilities for lack of an HMD/cueing system

                    Correct, they do not have Link-16, but they are data linked between other F-22s.

                    a radar not as good as what one finds on updated F-15’s (APG63v)

                    I’m extremely skeptical of this.

                    1. I’m extremely skeptical of this.

                      USAF/Boeing Golden Eagle marketing machine is not skeptical about this at all…lol.

          2. Russia can’t wait for the chance to shoot down a U.S. jet

            That would be a neat trick.

              1. My point being, depending on the type of US jet, it is highly unlikely the Russians could shoot one down in an A-A engagement.

                SAMs would be another story.

                1. I was referring to SAMs, because in my limited understanding SAM’s are the threat, and “rogue” SAM’s and U.S. jets in the same area could easily lead to a jet being shot down, which would allow the Russians to market that technology to China, the Philippines, whomever else wants it.

                  1. Yeah, I had A-A on the brain, talking about a no-fly zone.

                    The SA-21 certainly could get the job done.

    2. The wanting to end the conflict part is a lie. The fastest way to end it and let Assad and Putin finish the headchoppers off.

    3. To stop ISIS’s massive air force of course!!

    4. To stop ISIS’s massive air force of course!!

  7. Is Hillary really willing to give the order to shoot down a Russian plane?

    1. Abso fucking lutely

  8. sometimes you drop bombs near kids to save kids, or something

    Good job, Ed.

  9. “could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict”

    Well, it could do a lot of things. And what conflict are we talking about hastening the end of? Getting into it with the Russians could end the long-term conflict between the US and Russia and perhaps the even longer-term conflict between human beings and Mother Nature if the warnings about what a full-scale nuclear exchange would mean for life as we know it are true. Or maybe Hillary agrees with the Muslim fanatics about what’s prophesied to occur at some point on the Plains of Megiddo and wants to hasten that end as well? It could be true!

  10. Clinton used the viral photo of a wounded 4-year-old boy at a hospital in Aleppo, calling it “haunting,

    She should use the photo of a flash-banged baby’s face in order to help end the drug war.

    1. She also wants to impose a no-fly zone over drugs, okay?

      1. And murderdrone all drug users, producers, and middlemen.

        It’s a war, people. You win when your opponents are all dead.

    2. She must have misplaced her Libya photos.

      1. Ask Huma-

        Oh, wait, you said LIBYA photos.

        1. What you did there, I see it.
          Unfortunately it can’t be unseen.

        2. That was excellent, I must say.

  11. Hillary Clinton seems to have a better grasp of the policy decisions that would lead there and a genuine fervor for advancing them.

    That’s why I’m with Her.

    1. Of course she doesn’t enjoy starting wars. No reasonable person enjoys starting wars. And she is very reasonable, and super serious. But she’s got to start the wars. If she doesn’t do it, Trump will, and he’s super not reasonable and very unserious. And when you have to do something anyway, you might as well try to enjoy it, right? So who can blame her for having a warboner?

  12. For once I want somebody to give me a good explanation as to why the fuck we’re involved in Syria at all. They’re not a threat to the US. Israel has more than enough military might to take care of herself. There are absolutely no US interests involved at all. So… why?

    1. Do you want a made up rationalization that sounds good? Or the actual reason?

      1. I usually get the made up rationalization. They think it’s an actual reason though.

        And, of course, Hillary HAS to be a warmonger or people wouldn’t take her seriously, because sexism.

        1. The actual reason is that the Arab Spring upset the middle eastern political order. The U.S. was losing influence because the popular rebellions were sweeping arab-secular-nationalist dictators out of power. The U.S. govt was being accused of allowing the region to go Islamist.

          And so American leaders sought to look like they were influencing events by toppling some regional hostile dictatorships. They didn’t care about the outcome so much as presenting a non-helpless face to a domestic audience.

          It literally is the same path that led to 50,000+ american deaths in Vietnam.

          1. “The U.S. was losing influence because the popular rebellions were sweeping arab-secular-nationalist dictators out of power. The U.S. govt was being accused of allowing the region to go Islamist.”

            And the best way to reject the accusation of letting the region go Islamist is to start aiding the Islamists in overthrowing Arab-secular-nationalist dictators? Sure, that makes a lot of sense!

            “No, we’re not letting the Islamists take over…We’re making sure they take over!”

        2. I understand Russia’s interest there. They have a naval facility/port in Syria, one of only two warm-water ports. Maintaining naval bases in places that don’t get cold like the coast off Siberia has been one of their main strategies since the time of the Czars. On top of that, Assad and his father before him have made sure Syria has remained a good client state.

          WTF the U.S. stands to gain is beyond me. About the best I can come up with is that more chaos in the region = more terrorists, which will ultimately be used to justify further expansions to the surveillance state and, ultimately, a completely repeal of 2A — because, “Anybody who values privacy or thinks they should own a gun must be a terrorist!”

          I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but that’s honestly the only logical rationale I can come up with for why we must be there.

          1. A bigger reason than the warm water port, IMHO, is that Russia really doesn’t want a gas pipeline going to Europe that doesn’t have Gazprom’s name on it. I had thought that the Qataris were trying to run a pipeline either through Iraq or Syria to Turkey, thence to Europe, and thereby compete with Gazprom.

            If the Economist’s musings a year or two ago are right, petroleum prices are already low enough that Russia is expending a lot of their currency reserves to keep their economy afloat. Price competition for the gas they sell to Europe would exacerbate that problem.

            I think the US could declare a no-fly zone and make it stick. Not that the US would be thrilled trying to operate a/c in an S-300/-400 environment, but nothing says the US couldn’t also shoot down anything flying with any of the Aegis-equipped ships operating in the Eastern Med. IIRC, the ships can shoot SM-2/3/6 and hand them off to targets designated by either their own radars, or from, e.g., an AWACS several hundred miles away. So we wouldn’t be flying sorties over Syrian airspace, but then again, neither could the SAF or the Russians.

            Mentioned this last year or so when the U.S. was getting frisky with red lines and the like, but a bigger concern than the Russians popping a US plane or two is, what if they competently do what the Houthis have been blundering about for the last few weeks: try and sink a US ship or two with surface to surface missiles?

            1. Glad someone else knows about the gas pipeline. In my opinion it’s the keystone for our involvement in this war.

              1. So the Qataris (Clinton Foundation donors) want to run a gas pipeline through Iraq and Syria and into Turkey (NATO member) to compete with the Russians in supplying natural gas to Europe? The Russians want to protect their current monopoly… OK

                And Hitlery wants to go to war with Russia over that, meanwhile lying that really it’s to save Syrian children, which doesn’t even make sense.

                Tell me again how she is the smartest, most balanced candidate. If Russia’s monopoly is hurting Europe that badly, why are they less broke than the U.S. is, apart from Greece? And if the EU could benefit from some price competition in their energy sector (no doubt they would), why don’t THEY get involved?

                Last time I checked, the U.S. had more than enough natural gas to get by for the next couple of centuries. It’s Europe that’s dependent on others for their supply.

                Am I missing something here?

                1. And Hitlery wants to go to war with Russia over that

                  I have no idea why Hillary wants to sabre-rattle with the Russians on this. Knowing her M.O., it’s because someone is paying her to take that position. I do not know whether Qatar/KSA/the rest of the Gulf feels they could make enough money from adding Europe as a customer for a gas pipeline (as opposed to shipping it LNG) that bribing Hil to advocate a Syrian governmental solution that would allow such a pipeline makes economic sense.

                  I also don’t know how much money the EU would save by such price competition, and whether those savings would be meaningful enough for them to also lobby Hillary to urge such a project to completion. I do know that the EU’s conventional power projection capabilities in the Eastern Med are probably insufficient to decide the issue for one belligerent or another. Can you really see France or Germany invading Syria?

                  I just feel that both Russia and Hillary Clinton are getting entirely too comfortable these days, talking about shooting and or/nuking one another.

    2. They don’t even pretend like it is a humanitarian effort, which I think would be the only reason, although “a little boy looks sad and dusty, so we’re going to destroy all planes and missile batteries” is not a good argument.

    3. Shit JB’s prog friends say, when I asked this question elsewhere:

      The US is barely interfering in Syria. The Russians are doing the ones interfering.

      1. JB’s prog friend is a useful especially idiot.

    4. We Must Do Something. That’s the whole purpose of government, to do something. To say that somehow it’s none of our business is to admit that there are some things the government has no role to play in, some things that are not within the purview of government, and that’s a place you dare not go. It’s the principle of the thing and it’s one of the few principles Hillary and her ilk hold dear – absolutely everything is our goddamn business.

  13. In an alternate universe where the 2016 election was Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, and Jeb Bush was proposing a no-fly zone while Clinton opposed it, Bush would be getting hammered for being a reckless warmongerer willing to risk war with Russia.

  14. becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians

    Whatever euphemisms she can use to avoid the word kill. I’m sure she’ll sleep soundly regardless. I’m pretty sure that if you know ahead of time that the result of your military strategy is going to end up in the deaths of many civilian non-combatants, we call that a war crime. It’s one thing if it happens by accident. It’s another if you choose it.

  15. So,the anti Christ comes in the form of a women? Who knew? Evil bitch.

    1. Come and behold ,a ashen horse,and she who rode on it had large cankles and wore a pants suit.it’s name was Hillary. And death followed it.

  16. “Clinton used the viral photo of a wounded 4-year-old boy at a hospital in Aleppo”

    How the hell does the US get away with demonizing another country for bombing innocent children in pursuit of terrorists??

  17. “Sure I’d be putting thousands of other people’s lives at risk, but that’s a chance I’m willing to take.”

  18. This was actually a pretty well done article with lots of points of hypocrisy.

  19. Please explain how we would install a no-fly zone over top of Russia’s Advanced Surface to Air System

    1. Magnets.

    2. Easy. Carpet-bomb the entire area until the sand glows in the dark, just as Ted Cruz suggested, but she will do it humanely because she’s not nasty like he was.

      And Hillary will save all those kids caught in the crossfire by blowing them all up.
      And unlike that crazed Trump, she will not start a war with Russia by shooting down their jets.

      She has the experience and the right temperament, Steve. That’s makes her magic!!

      1. Sounds like a great episode of GI Zapp!

    3. I want to say one word to you, Steve, just one word…

      Plastics.

    4. Of course those batteries would need to be destroyed first. By bombing. In the middle of densely-populated areas.
      To save lives.

  20. I’ve been becoming increasingly concerned about this situation. Russia has legitimate reasons to interfere in Syria, mainly, Assad is their ally, and they have a warm water port there.
    America has no legitimate reason to interfere.
    Further, the Ruskies have moved in antiaircraft missile systems. ISIS doesn’t have an air force. Those missiles are for shooting down US planes. And when that happens, the American people will demand war.
    Hillary Clinton is going to start WWIII.

    1. The only part of your comment that I could possibly disagree with is the last line, and that’s because I’m a hopeless optimist.

    2. What’s almost as scary about WWIII as Russia’s nukes is the idea of who would be fighting once the conflict gets past of the point of the current all-volunteer forces being adequate.

      Can you imagine today’s college idiots on the front lines? What would they do when they discover the only safe space is a foxhole? How will they handle being triggered when they’re forced to actually touch one of those icky assault rifles they’ve had nightmares about?

      Imagine the likes of PFC Pajama Boy and Master Sgt. Mattress Girl and how they’d handle themselves in combat.

      Will they be able to handle a conflict potentially even more harrowing than getting word that Anne Coulter will give a speech on campus?

      1. #HandsUpDontShoot

      2. As long as they have Verizon coverage in their foxhole they might be OK with it. Got to be able to check Facebook you know.

      3. What’s almost as scary about WWIII as Russia’s nukes is the idea of who would be fighting once the conflict gets past of the point of the current all-volunteer forces being adequate.

        A large plurality of the armed forces is still made up largely of middle- and working class whites from the South. Can you imagine the reaction if Hillary–who’s largely despised by most of the military in general–provoked a no-shit shooting war with Russia or its proxies? This is already a military force that’s burned out by 25+ years of high ops tempo in the Middle East, and has been undermanned for the demands asked of it for about 15-20 years.

        What’s Hillary going to do if/when that plurality start leaving the military in response to her warmongering? Rely on the Diversity Brigades that are left to pick up the rifles? As you mentioned, her base of support consists of people who can’t even have someone tell them they’re wrong without whining and throwing fits. What are people like that going to do against an Arab or Russian who’s main priority is to kill them on the spot? Throw their lattes at them and yell, “Go away, you cis-hetero shitlords!”?

        Best thing to ask some of these Ready for Hillary! women is if they’re prepared to send their son or daughter to die in combat against Russia and Syria. The way things are going, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that things are going to get hot again.

        1. Great analysis.

          “Best thing to ask some of these Ready for Hillary! women is if they’re prepared to send their son or daughter to die in combat against Russia and Syria.”

          –I can picture these women answering that it might be okay as long as all their kids get medals for participating, just like they received when they played those no-score-keeping, everybody-gets-a-turn-to-kick soccer games… And then reality will set in and they won’t be able to deal with it.

    3. This,so much this.

  21. “”””becomes an American and NATO involvement “””

    Will NATO become involved, that requires all 28 countries to agree.

  22. Sure it’ll hasten the end of the conflict, by hastening the end of the human race via nuclear war. Good thinking.

  23. Says she acknowledges the risks but her policy preferences don’t indicate she does.

    Look, she takes *full responsibility*. FULL. For the consequences. What more do you want?

  24. . . . or start a war with Russia and Syria

    Someone remind me – how is a ‘no-fly zone’ *not* an act of war with Syria at a minimum. If Mexico imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ over the Southwest we’d consider ourselves fully justified to shoot down their crop-dusters no matter how many UN resolutions they had supporting it.

    1. It’s different when we do it because shut up.

      1. Unspoken arrangement of nations is analogous to baseball: There is a farm system, there is a major league, and in said majors some markets are bigger than others. China is re-learning this in first island chain by the day.

  25. For all the talk (including last night) of the prospects of Donald Trump deciding to start a nuclear war, Hillary Clinton seems to have a better grasp of the policy decisions that would lead there and a genuine fervor for advancing them.

    No Hat tip, Ed?

    Just kidding. Nice job.

    Related:

    I don’t know if there’s any reason to doubt that HRC would use the CNAS outline with regard to her strategy:
    Defeating the Islamic State

    In western Syria, a more radical shift is needed. Rather than focusing first on coming to a political agreement, the United States should emphasize arming and training local groups that are acceptable to the United States regardless of whether they are fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or ISIS. The purpose of this effort is not just to defeat ISIS but to have these groups marginalize other extremist actors and to leave in place an acceptable sustainable long-term governance and security situation, which eliminates future terrorist safe havens and marginalizes al Qaeda’s influence and presence.

    1. The United States should also be willing to increase its use of military coercion in the west and be willing to threaten and execute limited military strikes against the Assad regime in order to protect these actors while signaling to all of the key external actors in Syria, including both its Middle Eastern partners as well as Russia and Iran, that it is willing to get more engaged.

      1. ^^^^ blockquote fail (everything after the link is from the report)

  26. I find it odd that the emotional impact of a four year old boy dazed from artillery (or a toddler dead on a shoreline) results in a demand for more conflict and not allowing refugees into our country.

  27. I find it odd that the emotional impact of a four year old boy dazed from artillery (or a toddler dead on a shoreline) results in a demand for more conflict and not allowing refugees into our country.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.