Instead is a call to launch attacks!
Read on, read on.
What will be called "no fly" will actually be the launch of an air campaign against the Syrian people.
Slaughter from the air.
The destabilization/overthrow of Syria is unfolding along the Libyan guidelines/parameters.
First we get the destabilization on the ground, promoted via "social media"
And armed insurrection
The narrative picked up on by western media outlets, who report unsubstantiated "news" as if it is the gospel truth. Of course never bothering to verify anything.
The formation of a "transitional" government-chock full of all the right people ie: connected to western intelligence/think tank etc.,
To the latest, taken from the plunder Libya playbook- A NO FLY ZONE
Straight from a Council of Foreign Relations mouthpiece- Micah Zenko
Picked up by CNN, of course.
I won't post the entire piece, go to the link and read it.
I will however post the "how to" of the No Fly Zone
There are two reasons put forward for why a NFZ is needed in Syria.
First, some opposition members contend that it will protect civilians. Senator Joe Lieberman, (that name should speak volumes about who is behind this push) who already supported a Syrian NFZ six months ago, more recently endorsed “safe zones inside Syria, particularly along the Turkish and Jordanian borders,” (which coincided nicely with Turkey's move to place troops at the border) which would be enforced through a NFZ.
Second, as one Syrian activist claimed yesterday, a NFZ would compel more members of the army to defect and “would allow them to organize.”
However, there are a few points to bear in mind before the international community proceeds toward imposing a NFZ over Syria.
The overwhelming number of civilian casualties are not the result of strikes from above. As was true in Libya, (but that didn't stop the NATO goons from imposing a no fly zone) the vast majority of deaths are in urban areas, and are caused by soldiers on the ground, tanks, short-range artillery, and snipers. While the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that the Syrian Air Force has 555 combat capable aircraft - including 150 fighters and 289 fighter ground attack planes - they have not yet been used against civilians. Given that the real problem for civilians is persistent oppression from ground forces, a NFZ would have little or no impact in protecting the vulnerable.
On a handful of occasions, Syrian security forces have unleashed helicopter gunships against civilian protestors, or in coordination with armored ground forces against rural villages. Enforcing a NFZ against helicopters is an operational challenge, which would require a significant commitment of surveillance and strike aircraft, since helicopter gunships can quickly take off, fly low, launch airstrikes, and land. Regime-directed helicopters repeatedly violated the NFZs over Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iraq, and to a limited extent in Libya, without being attacked because it was difficult to distinguish between civilian and military helicopters, and there was insufficient air assets or political will.
Lastly, the NFZ in Libya did not protect civilian populations;(of course it didn't, that was not the intent. Who is this guy kidding?) it was actually the use of close air support against Gadhafi regime forces on the ground. The Pentagon defines close air support (CAS) as “air action by fixed-and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.” (If interested to learn more, you can read the official joint doctrine publication for CAS here.) To successfully implement CAS against Syrian ground forces, boots will be on the ground as well, since western air forces generally will not provide CAS in contested, urban environments without on-the-ground assistance from trusted forward air controllers and intelligence agents, as was true in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Libya.
When Syrian opposition members, exiled activists and U.S. Senators call for a no-fly-zone over Syria, what they are actually proposing is close air support.
READ- Close Air Support- defined above to understand what is really being proposed
CAS is a different military mission from NFZs, and requires a different campaign plan, detailed mission plans, personnel, ordinance and surveillance and attack assets. Furthermore, CAS is a tactic that can be used to protect civilians, or to support regime change that requires an armed opposition on the ground. Neither the Syrian opposition, nor anybody else, has adequately explained how a CAS military mission will be integrated into a broader strategy of either civilian protection or toppling Assad.
Nine days before the international community intervened in Libya, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton testified before the House Appropriations subcommittee, warning: “I want to remind people that, you know, we had a no-fly zone over Iraq. It did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground, and it did not get him out of office.” Secretary Clinton’s words of caution were prophetic. It was not a no-fly-zone, but rather close air support that played the decisive role in getting Moammar Gadhafi out of power. If that military mission is required in Syria, we should identify it appropriately, and consider the operational requirements and political will that will be required.