Hillary Clinton ridiculing Donald Trump at the Al Smith dinner said that he was "the strong horse that Vladimir Putin rides." Why did she say that? Principally because Trump is opposed to confronting Putin over Syria by creating a no-fly zone. But wouldn't that make Barack Obama another horse that Putin's riding? For like Trump he too opposes a no-fly zone.
If you want to know why reckless, extremist, war mongering neo-cons like Bill Kristol prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump to be the next Commander-in-Chief then read this exchange between Chris Wallace and Hillary at last week's debate on the issue of imposing an aerial blockade or no-fly zone over Syrian airspace. It's mind-boggling:
Secretary Clinton, you have talked about in the last debate and again today that you would impose a no-fly zone to try to protect the people of Aleppo and to stop the killing there. President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it’s gonna draw us closer and deeper into the conflict. And General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you want to impose a no-fly zone, chances are you are going to get into a war, his words, with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is first, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?
Well Chris, first of all, I think a no-fly zone could save lives and hasten the end of the conflict. I am well aware of the really legitimate concerns you have expressed from both the president and the general. This would not be done just on the first day.This would take a lot of negotiation and it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose is to provide safe zones on the ground. We've had millions of people leave Syria, and those millions of people inside Syria who’ve been dislocated. So I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the Russians and Syrians that this was something that we believe the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria. It would help us in the fight against ISIS.
For those of you who may not know, a no-fly zone (NFZ)is defined as a territory over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. It is a demilitarized zone or red line in the sky that prohibits military aircraft of a billigerent power from operating in that area. Aircraft that break the NFZ are shot down.That's it.
Russian bomber in Turkish air space being blown out of the sky. Will President Hillary do this to Russian planes violating her Syrian NFZ?
In March 2011 Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and NATO (backed by neo-cons Kristol, John McCain and Lindsey Graham) imposed a NFZ over war torn Libya where there was an Arab Spring uprising against dictator Muammar Kaddafy. What was the reason for the NFZ? To provide "safe zones" on the ground for anti-Kaddafy rebels and civilians-to protect them from being targeted by Kaddafy's air force. So for whom does Hillary want to create "safe zones" in Syria with a nationwide NFZ? Like in Libya anti-regime rebels and innocent civilians. And to keep them safe from whose air force? Not ISIS' or al-Qaida's (they have no military planes); but from Putin's and Assad's deadly bombers.
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogen in Moscow apologizing to Putin for shooting down Russian plane.
As General Dunford warns, Hillary's plan would likely lead to war with Russia (Iran and Hezbollah). Once the NFZ is established it is nearly certain that Putin would test it like he did Turkish airspace last November (see) daring Hillary (as he did Erdogen) to shoot down his planes. If Hillary (like Marco Rubeo, see) is betting against Putin breaching her red line in the sky fearing a war with the US then she is insanely mistaken. When Turkey downed the Russian jet Putin, retaliating with punishing economic sanctions, practically brought Erdogen to his knees; and because Turkey is a NATO member this diplomatic victory increased Putin's growing international prestige. But if Putin were to intrude into Hillary's NFZ and loses one or more planes he'd have no choice but to respond militarily; for Russia has no economic leverage over the US like it does with Turkey. That Putin would likely risk a full-blown war and nuclear confrontation with the US is the position of General Dunford and others including, apparently, Barack Obama; for he fought with Hillary for years over her idea for a Syrian NFZ and rejected it as too risky.
Not only does Hillary differ with Obama on imposing a NFZ over Syria, but unlike Obama she is threatening war with Iran to enforce the nuclear arms deal.
Indeed, after Obama's and Hillary's humiliating failure of resetting relations with Russia (predicted by me HEREand HERE) through idiotic, butt kissing appeasement which emboldened Putin anti-Russian hawk Hillary is on the warpath against him. It appears that as President, Hillary will be intent on doing what Obama attempted and failed to do with sanctions: put neo-imperialist Putin in his place and hopefully bring him down. This has been her steadfast position for years and has nothing to do with alleged Russian hacking of the DNC or Putin preferring Trump to her in this election (who can blame him?); these have served to aggravate Hillary's animus toward Putin who repeatedly betrayed her and Obama with Edward Snowden, the Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, nuclear cheating, and now with Syria-and short lived designed to fail cease fires. In short, hawkish, neo-con Hillary Clinton is on a personal mission to topple Putin and bring down Assad; and that makes her, as I've said, extremely, recklessly dangerous.
The reality is this: Bashar Assad is here to stay. Both Putin and Iran are hell-bent on keeping Assad, their strategic ally and partner, in power and obliterating the rebels aligned against him-that's non-negotiable. And if that means turning Aleppo or other Syrian cities into rubble (and killing thousands more civilians on top of the 500,000 already savagely killed) then so be it. Donald Trump accepts this reality, Hillary clearly does not. Trump wants to de-escalate tensions with Russia, make peace with Syria, bring order and stability back to the country and stop the refugee crisis. Hillary, on the other hand, is betting that she can beat Putin in a showdown over an aerial blockade of Syrian airspace like JFK bested Khrushchev with a naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis; and that she could bring down both Putin and Assad-as Kennedy brought down Khrushchev.
Hillary Clinton must not be President. Like neo-con war hawks George Bush, Bill Kristol, John McCain and Lindsey Graham she is clearly too interventionist, dangerous and insane. The new cold war she started with Russia as Secretary of State would likely, if she were President, turn into a devastating hot war. As Green Party candidate Jill Stein warns: 'Hillary's militant hostility toward Putin, fixation on a Syrian NFZ and willingness to chance nuclear war makes her unfit for the Presidency.'