by Aya Burweila
Senior Researcher & Public Policy Officer @SolidarityNow

Last month on the campaign trail, democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for a no-fly zone over Syria:
“I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air…”
In practice however, a no-fly zone imposed over Aleppo today will grossly undermine efforts to end the war and cause more civilian casualties both in the short term and long term. As posturing politicians and cocktail party strategists demand to make an already bad situation worse, it is crucial that civil society understands what a No-Fly Zone truly entails:
·         If not a “gateway drug” to a full-fledged war with Russia, the establishment of a NFZ will require an indefinite military engagement and escalation of conflict. For example, after the first Gulf War, the two no-fly zones imposed over Iraq not only remained in place for twelve years, but ended only with an ill-fated, full scale invasion.

• According to Col. Mike Pietruchia and Major Mike Benitez, there exists no real precedent showing the successful establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone against an adversary capable of meaningful resistance such as the Syrian regime and its allies: NFZs are only effective when the purpose is containment and the adversary is greatly overmatched.
• Fending off attacks against friendly aircraft in the sights of game-changing Russian air defense systems like the S-300 and S-400 SAM which can “blanket” most of Syrian airspace with missiles is an effort of fantastical magnitude. Or in the words of John Kuehn, a retired navy officer who flew no-fly zone missions over Bosnia and Iraq, “it’s going to be a disaster.”
• Rendering the purpose of a no-fly zone largely obsolete, most civilian casualties in Syria are not caused by air strikes. In fact, it is possible that in lieu of air strikes, the Syrian regime will simply increase its ground operations. Meanwhile, the process of establishing a NFZ itself will endanger the lives of civilians while unintentionally providing aid and comfort to other lethal actors in the conflict such as the Islamic State and Jabhat al Nusra.
• Without clearly defined objectives, a Day-After plan, and forces on the ground to protect civilians from the Syrian regime, rebel militias and jihadist entities like the Islamic State, a NFZ is only a cosmetic measure with high costs and little results. For example, the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 where over 7,000 Bosnians were killed is one among many examples where the presence of a NFZ did not preventa humanitarian disaster.
• Furthermore, the most recent NFZ imposed on Libya in 2011 proved to be the midwife for foreign-sponsored regime change whose aftermath President Obama himself described as the ‘worst mistake’of his presidency. Instead of saving lives, Libya today, like Iraq, is a crucible of chaos, death and violent extremism while both Iraq and Syria have become hosts to the world’s latest genocide.
• The cost of implementing an NFZ in Syria is estimated to be between $1 billion and $10 billion dollars. Such funds would be better allocated to humanitarian aid, not to enhancing human misery.

Ironically enough, the most pertinent argument against a Syrian no-fly zone was presented by its most vocal proponent today. In a paid speech to Goldman Sachs in June 2013, Hillary Clinton herself pointed out how establishing an NFZ will endanger rather than protect Syrians:

“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…”

Contrary to popular misconception, establishing a no-fly zone is neither a passive nor peaceful act but an aggressive military intervention that requires the commitment of huge military and financial resources and a 24hr occupation of Syrian airspace. Worse, this fundamentally self-defeating measure is all but guaranteed to kill more civilians and spawn yet another failed state in the MENA region. As such, it is important for civil society to understand that a NFZ cannot be considered a viable, stand-alone measure to protect civilians or a replacement for a comprehensive political settlement. A cure worse than the disease, a no-fly zone must be seen for what it is: another misguided step towards perpetual war.

The above article has been published at Huffington Post Greece