By Natalia Castro
“It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no-fly zone.”
That was not Donald Trump blasting Hillary Clinton. It is not from the right at all. That was a warning from Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Oct. 12, and for possibly the first time, she is correct.
And her warning goes a step farther, Stein predicts we could “slide into a nuclear war very quickly” with Clinton’s imposition on a no-fly zone in Syria.
Stein isn’t the only one who feels this way about Clinton’s risky foreign policy standpoint on Syria, across the board generals and even the Obama administration have ruled this out as an option. Yet Clinton has reminded us consistently that despite all doubt she believes this is best, and therefore she will impose it.
During the second presidential debate Clinton was asked directly about her policy initiatives with Syria, she explained that “when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need some leverage with the Russians, because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution, unless there is some leverage over them.”
Just a few weeks earlier the U.S. Marine Gen. James Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, had testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that “for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.”
That was on Sept. 22. Still, on Oct. 9 Clinton took up for the no-fly zone on the debate stage anyway.
Also this month, Russia made their stance on the issue very clear. The Telegraph of Oct. 6 explains that this bold action will not bring Russia to the negotiating table, but instead push them into war. Russia’s own Major General Igor Konashenkov issued a statement noting that “Today, the Syrian army has effective S-200, Buk and other air defense systems, which have undergone technical renovation in the past year. I remind U.S. strategists that air cover for the Russian military bases in Tartus and Hmeymim includes S-400 and S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems, the range of which may come as a surprise to any unidentified flying objects.”
His ultimate warning was for U.S. military planners to “carefully consider the possible consequences” of attempting to control air spaces over Syria.
Once again, just weeks later, when Chris Wallace moderated the final presidential debate, he directly asked Clinton about a no-fly zone, even reminding her that “President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it’s going to draw us closer and deeper into the conflict.” Once again Clinton did not carefully consider the possible consequences.
Clinton happily replied, “I think a no-fly zone could save lives and hasten the end of the conflict.”
Despite constant warning from domestic military leaders and foreign actors urging Clinton to understand the ramifications of her quest for air space control over Syria — risking war with Russia — she has ignored every single warning.
Now it is up to Trump to sound the warning alarm before it’s too late. In Florida on Tuesday, Trump warned that the risks of Clinton’s plan in Syria, saying, “You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk.”
The generals have said it, the Kremlin has implied it, and even the Green Party is fearing if Hillary Clinton does what she says she will do in Syria, it will become a nuclear catastrophe. If that doesn’t give the American people cause for concern about Clinton, perhaps nothing will.
Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.
