Air Force had over 3, fighter aircraft in , when the Iraq no-fly zones were put into place. Today, that number is less than The result is that implementing a no-fly zone in one part of the world will limit our options in other areas.
Despite this, decision makers should know they assume many types of risks when implementing a no-fly zone. There will be significant risks to U. Because of this, we may need to execute an operation to negate or destroy air defenses before we can start enforcing the no-fly zone.
Given the increasing sophistication of air defenses around the world, this initial attack will not be a cakewalk. It will require a major offensive operation over many days of hundreds of high-risk sorties expending thousands of expensive munitions. Once air superiority is established and the no fly zone in place, we must continue to stay alert to developments as the adversary learns and adapts to our tactics. They may try to establish ruses or deception plans to embarrass or attack us.
In the s, for example, Iraqi aircraft would violate the no-fly zone to lure us into the engagement envelope of a surface-to-air missile system they had recently repositioned.
If the adversary does shoot down one of our aircraft—or one goes down due to mechanical failure—there is a real possibility that our people will be captured and exploited. This will be difficult to resolve. It is quite possible that an unscrupulous adversary will torture or kill a prisoner in a gruesome, provocative way as the Islamic State did when it burned alive a captured Jordanian pilot.
Depending on the circumstances, expansion of the mission may be the right thing to do, but it leads to a final question…. The logical ending to a no-fly zone is when the situation on the ground changes so that it is no longer necessary. We will probably not be able to force this change, as there is generally not a direct link between implementing the no-fly zone and achieving lasting political outcomes.
We are attracted to the no-fly zone option partly because it is limited in scope and risk. Therefore, a no-fly zone is best used as a part of a comprehensive political and military strategy. The eight-seat recreational airplane, a single-engine Gippsland Airvan, is cruising peacefully over southern Maryland on a hazy June afternoon, pilot and passengers enjoying the view from 4, feet, where the Nanticoke River runs into the swamplands at the edge of the Chesapeake Bay. A trademark shape most of us encounter only in the movies or at airshows darts underneath the knot pleasure craft, then carves a semi-circle in the sky in front of it.
You are in violation of restricted airspace. Do you require any assistance? No response from the Airvan. A minute or two later, the fighter is back, aiming for a more dramatic impression. You have been intercepted. Please acknowledge or rock your wings. A general aviation airplane without a flight plan, chugging into restricted airspace, does not take long to stick out from the herd. The government may not use the No Fly List to prevent U. The information below is based on instructions the government has given the ACLU when we seek to help travelers return home, and the experiences of those travelers.
The duty officers at the OCS should be able to help you. If for any reason they do not help you, go to the U. Tell the officer that you were denied boarding on a flight when seeking to return home to the United States by plane, that you seek assistance with repatriation, and that you would like to coordinate your return travel by plane with the government. Normally, the OCS official will also ask you to identify one or more itineraries for travel to the United States on a U.
Thus, to facilitate your return:. Be aware that FBI agents or other U. You have the right to decline any request for a voluntary interview. You also have a right to be represented by counsel during any interview or interrogation in which you voluntarily participate, including while you are abroad, and you may assert that right. FBI or other U.
It is a highly qualified and conditional interventionist position. That Resolution itself must be opposed on various grounds including the normative principle embodied in Position III. Position III is in my view the best of the three positions but it is not without its own ambiguities and moral dilemmas. This particular dilemma is a highly hypothetical one since no such truly impartial force exists or is likely to come into existence in the foreseeable future given the existing realities of imperialism and its cohorts on the ground.
Israel has made Gaza a prison which it will bomb from the air but not send in ground troops, whereas in the West Bank it is a physically present as an occupying force. Israel is not engaged in a civil war but is illegally occupying, controlling, oppressing and blockading territories and doing so in part collaboration with the PA. The Palestinians can certainly call for preventing any kind of incursion in the occupied or blockaded territories. So yes, one can support the principle of a no fly zone for Israel over Gaza.
But who is going to implement it?
0コメント