Christie Brinkley
10-25-2015, 04:44 PM
The recent Russian airstrikes in support of the Syrian government have pushed the west into ever desperate measures and ideas with ever increasing calls to establish safe zones within Syria which seems the only viable option left to save ISIS/Al Nusra and other terrorist organisations in the goal of balkanising Syria and overthrowing the Assad government.
The first calls of a 'safe zone' began to circulate in Turkish media in July (http://beta.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-says-west-euphrates-red-line-northern-syria-3972) with the Turkish government considering this option to secure supplies to the terrorists by making sure Kurdish forces did not cut off the supply line into terrorist held territory to the south of Turkey. The Turkish government used 'civilians' and 'refugees' to make their proposal sound 'humanitarian' to gain more support for their plans.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7837&stc=1
The Turkish government strayed away from the phrase 'buffer zone' but instead called them 'safe zones' for refugees.
The Brookings Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution)- a corporate funded policy think-tank described the nature of these 'buffer zones' in a recent paper (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/06/30-deconstructing-syria-ohanlon) which states:
the idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces.
The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.
During a US senate committee on Armed Services hearing retired US army general John Keane promoted the idea of 'free zones' (http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/12/us-senate-hearing-discusses-using-refugees-as-human-shields-in-syria/) also adding that refugees could be used to stop Russian airstrikes, in other words using refugees as human shields to secure supply lines to terrorist organisations.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7839&stc=1
This incursion will probably take place after the Turkish elections with the support of US airstrikes in the selected area.
Military action in Syria will probably be voted on again in the UK parliament most likely being approved in expanding air strikes from Iraq into Syria as well.
The action will only result in a more prolonged and bloody conflict which has already lasted over 4 and a half years.
I will be doing more in depth analysis in the coming weeks so stay tuned.
The first calls of a 'safe zone' began to circulate in Turkish media in July (http://beta.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-says-west-euphrates-red-line-northern-syria-3972) with the Turkish government considering this option to secure supplies to the terrorists by making sure Kurdish forces did not cut off the supply line into terrorist held territory to the south of Turkey. The Turkish government used 'civilians' and 'refugees' to make their proposal sound 'humanitarian' to gain more support for their plans.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7837&stc=1
The Turkish government strayed away from the phrase 'buffer zone' but instead called them 'safe zones' for refugees.
The Brookings Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution)- a corporate funded policy think-tank described the nature of these 'buffer zones' in a recent paper (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/06/30-deconstructing-syria-ohanlon) which states:
the idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces.
The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.
During a US senate committee on Armed Services hearing retired US army general John Keane promoted the idea of 'free zones' (http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/12/us-senate-hearing-discusses-using-refugees-as-human-shields-in-syria/) also adding that refugees could be used to stop Russian airstrikes, in other words using refugees as human shields to secure supply lines to terrorist organisations.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7839&stc=1
This incursion will probably take place after the Turkish elections with the support of US airstrikes in the selected area.
Military action in Syria will probably be voted on again in the UK parliament most likely being approved in expanding air strikes from Iraq into Syria as well.
The action will only result in a more prolonged and bloody conflict which has already lasted over 4 and a half years.
I will be doing more in depth analysis in the coming weeks so stay tuned.