| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| U.S. Military Plan to Arm Rebels Includes No-Fly Zone in Syria |
| 2013-06-14 |
| [ONLINE.WSJ] A U.S. military proposal for arming Syrian rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced from Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there, according to U.S. officials. Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria, military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border. To do that, the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials. The White House is currently considering proposals to arm the rebels in Jordan, according to U.S. officials. White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden declined to comment on the details of those deliberations. The limited no-fly zone wouldn't require the destruction of Syrian antiaircraft batteries, U.S. officials said. Officials said the White House could decide to authorize the U.S. to arm and train rebels in Jordan without authorizing the no-fly zone recommended by military planners. A White House announcement could come soon, officials said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #10 BHARAT RAKSHAK > [Reuters = Chicago Tribune] WHITE HOUSE SAYS SYRIA NO-FLY ZONE WOULD BE COSTLY + DIFFICULT. As DARTH VADER may say, "Difficult ... most difficult'! Japan? ROK? Philippines? Vietnam-ASEAN? Guam? Hawaii? US West Coast? * SAME > [WSJ.com] US MILITARY SEES [Limited, Jordan-based] NO-FLY ZONE IN SYRIA. * SAME > [The Times.UK] US-FRANCE TALKS GO AHEAD AS SYRIA NO-FLY ZONE IS PLANNED. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-06-14 22:57 |
| #9 Certainly not at first. However, once they power up their fire-control radar, the question becomes a little more interesting and immediate. That all depends on the Rules of Engagement.... and if our pilots are allowed to defend themselves. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-06-14 22:25 |
| #8 As per RENSE, Artic says it will cost US$50.0Milyuhn per day for the Bammer's NFZ. Despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the US + NATO-EU = Russia = China = Israel = Saudi Arabia are ironically on the SAME SIDE when it comes to denying control or domination of Syria to Radical Islam includ but not limited to Iran. IMO the above are all quietly giving out a deep sigh of relief that Baby Assad is winning in Syria, until such time the Rebs are willing to accept anti-Radicalist, moderate or liberal, pro-secular + pro-democratic Islamic rule. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-06-14 19:53 |
| #7 The limited no-fly zone wouldn't require the destruction of Syrian antiaircraft batteries, U.S. officials said. Certainly not at first. However, once they power up their fire-control radar, the question becomes a little more interesting and immediate. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2013-06-14 16:24 |
| #6 What is the Champ gonna do when Iranian missiles start hitting those airbases in Jordan? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2013-06-14 11:42 |
| #5 Backing the taliban and making it a no fly zone for Russians in Afghanistan didn't backfire... Different sort of civilian and military administrations back then. Most likely what one will see is Arabs doing the actual supplying with the US playing the vendor. Contractors likely will be doing the training. No-fly zone was enforced in Afghanistan using Stingers; a few ended up with the Iranians. I'm not sure you'll see MANPADS supplied this time around. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-06-14 11:41 |
| #4 Desperate to divert attention to so many failures. Obama is not the right stuff. Count on him to muck it up. All the domestic surveillance programs except for Muslims, Mosques. Heaven forbid profiling for them. This shows is is really in control. Not Obama. Everyone is doing their own thing. Data mining for control of future elections and money period. |
| Posted by: Dale 2013-06-14 09:40 |
| #3 Backing the taliban and making it a no fly zone for Russians in Afghanistan didn't backfire... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-06-14 08:24 |
| #2 None of what is going on in Syria is a threat to the national security of the United States. This is a "wag the dog" [grab the nightly news] initiative which has the potential go to very badly for our military. Backing either side is backing the wrong party, something historically, we appear to excel at. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-06-14 04:48 |
| #1 When was it ever a good idea to give arms and ammunition to allies of Al Qaeda? Making announcements of future half-hearted military plans is a good way to get into an war unintentionally, though. |
| Posted by: Whatadeal 2013-06-14 04:33 |