So it wouldn’t just be a no-fly zone, but a safe zone? What would that entail, exactly? Neither Clinton nor any of the Republicans proposing some version of this ever elaborate. So, OK, hostile aircraft can’t fly in this safe zone (meaning Assad’s planes, since IS doesn’t have its own air force). What about ground forces? If IS moves ground forces into this zone, they get bombed? What about Assad’s ground forces? What about Al Nusra? How do you decide which factions are allowed to operate in this territory and which aren’t?
All pertinent and important questions of course. The idea is to have the States in the area contribute most of the boots on the ground, supported by Nato firepower, and logistical support. Whether that is really workable or not, is an open question. The idea of the Saudis, Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt et al. working effectively together does seem highly problematical. And the US public really does not want US troops in large numbers getting in the way of the internecine fighting over there once again, unless things get really dire.
