Advocacy for a no-fly zone is not the same as advocacy of war.
A Voiceless Nation
214

“Advocacy for a no-fly zone is not the same as advocacy of war.”

Per definition it literally is. Taking out the air capabilities of a sovereign nation and controlling their airspace is intrinsically an act of war. What would you call it if China installed a no-fly zone over Washington? Read this 2013 article from the New York Times about the debate of a no-fly zone; this was back before the Russian air force was added to the equation, and already it would have required 70,000 troops to invade Syria and cripple Assad’s air capabilities. But no, that’s not advocacy of war, right? Perfectly normal diplomatic business as long as it’s the US doing it, right? That’s American privilege at its most pernicious.

“Clinton’s stance was further explained with emphasis on negotiation, planning, and the avoidance of war.”

Just like she did in Libya, right? Oh no that’s right, she plunged the nation into chaos, created a collapsed state where terrorism and slavery now reign, then laughed at Gaddafi’s mutilation. She both loves war, and sucks at it. You don’t get to be president when you’re that kind of person.

There is no basis for claiming we could have trusted such a person to negotiate a no-fly zone in a region where the air force of a nuclear superpower is conducting operations.

“Also, the current administration is looking into no-fly zones with a receptive Russia.”

Collaborating with Russia to create safe zones from jihadist factions is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as the no-fly zone the US government has been debating. Russia and Syria have been allies for generations and they’re working closely together; Putin isn’t talking about taking out Assad’s air force and shooting down his planes.