The Trump administration caused major consternation amid the pro-Syria community when it announced, in the context of Trump’s executive order on refugees, that it was directing the Pentagon and Department of Defense to begin drawing up a plan to create “safe zones” in Syria under the guise of repatriating refugees that have settled in the United States and other countries. Trump’s plan sounds eerily similar to the many names given to the concept of a “No-Fly Zone” in Syria, a plan which will amount to nothing short of war with Syria and most likely Russia if ever implemented.
The terminology of the previous administration has changed several times; from No-Fly Zone, to ISIL-Free Zone, to Safe Zone but it always meant the same thing – Libya 2.0.
This is why even more puzzlement appeared with headlines suggesting Russia was willing to go along with the Trump administration plan so long as it provided that the Syrian government is a part of its implementation.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cautiously stated that “If this is about the people who were forced to leave their homes by the conflict, […] getting their basic needs covered, […] then I think that the idea to create areas within Syria for those internally displaced could be discussed with the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees and other organizations.”
Lavrov noted that the proposal would require careful negotiation with the Syrian government to ensure its implementation. He also mentioned that the United Nations must be involved as well.
Hours after Lavrov’s statement, Syrian state-run news agency, SANA, ran a report with a statement from the Syrian government stating that any attempt to implement such zones in Syria without the consent of the legitimate government of Syria would be a violation of Syria’s national sovereignty, a statement that can scarcely be denied.
But Lavrov also stated that the safe zones being discussed by the Trump administration were not the same as the safe zones put forward during the time of the previous administration. “There have been ideas of creating some areas where an alternative Syrian government could sit, and use those areas for regime change,” he said, reminding everyone of what happened in Libya under Obama’s No-Fly Zone and similar proposals made for Syria during the reign of the same regime.
“As for the idea of the creation on Syrian territory of security zones, we will be clarifying this issue in the course of our dialogue with US counterparts,” Lavrov told reporters.
Interestingly enough, a later comment on the statement by the Kremlin suggested that the United States has not consulted with Russia on the proposal with Dmitry Peskov saying that it is “important to make sure that this does not further aggravate the situation with refugees.”
Trump’s position on Syria has been contradictory and, at the very least, confusing. On the campaign trail, Trump criticized warmonger Hillary Clinton’s plan as a recipe for World War Three yet he also stated clearly that he wanted safe zones to be implemented.
That “No-Fly Zones” are an act of war is undeniable. Such has even been admitted by top U.S. Generals when explaining exactly what a No-Fly Zone would entail. As General Carter Ham stated,
We should make no bones about it. It first entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel.
General Philip Breedlove also echoed this description when he said,
I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is . . . it’s basically to start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and kinetically take out their air defense capability
When Senator Roger Wicker asked Gen. Joe Dunford what it would take to impose a No-Fly Zone upon Syria, the General responded, “Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.”
The question now, however, is whether or not or the “safe zone” plan being discussed is, in reality, a “No-Fly Zone” or whether it is simply a manner of repatriating refugees with the cooperation of both the Russian and Syrian governments. In other words, the question is whether or not the U.S. government has had a change of heart as a result of a new administration in regards to its campaign of war and destabilization waged upon the government and people of Syria. Only time will tell and we are getting much closer to finding out.
If America wants to stop terrorism in Syria, it need only stop funding it, supporting it, and directing it. It’s that simple. The U.S. could also call on its allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, U.K., France, Qatar, and Israel to do the same. It could work with Russia to eliminate the remnants of terrorist forces and it could provide information and coordinates to both Syria and Russia on the whereabouts of terrorists and terrorist forces. At this point, legitimate refugees would no longer have a reason to leave and refugees taken in by the U.S. could be shuttled back to their home countries with no fear of them returning to war.
Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
Great article. I believe the Dems were hoping to pull a ‘Libya’ on Syria and reinvigorate their global crisis and power grab. It would be a good thing to see coordination and safe zones established
Not sure why the UN is such a requirement, since they’ve been part of the problem and not the solution. I couldn’t agree more with that last paragraph, and those responsible for funding, training, and supplying ISIS are guilty of the murder of 500K people.
A Safe Zone is not a No Fly Zone. As I understand the intention, it is to create a series of tent cities to house refugees in their own country. Safe from persecution by religious fanatics, cut-throats or militias not from their own government. The logic is impeccable. If there is a place for refugees to go that is safe from war and meets their physical needs, they don’t have to migrate to Europe or the US. The trick will be pulling it off. Defending, policing, and maintaining facilities large enough to house hundreds of thousands will be no small chore. Providing food, water, medical and social services will require huge amounts of money and effort. Could we have finally found a place MSF can operate without being bombed? Could the UN have finally found a purpose? A truly intriguing proposition. The devil will definitely be in the details.
I can only hope the great bear will become an ally of the USof A