Despite demands, Syria no-fly zone a no-go for US

What to do..? What to do, ATS...? There are increasing demands for the creation of a secure buffer on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey. However, doing so would means "Boots on the ground..." A move Obama has long resisted. No matter how he goes about this conflict in the M.E. things won't end well, and we'll be engaged in conflict for a long-long time; whether we put boots on the ground or not.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration's promise to limit U.S. military engagement against Islamic State militants makes it difficult to accept Turkey's terms for joining the fight in neighboring Syria.

Turkey and other American allies want the U.S. to create a no-fly zone inside Syrian territory. Yet doing that would mean embracing one of two options President Barack Obama long has resisted: cooperating with Syrian President Bashar Assad's government or taking out its air defenses, an action tantamount to war.

War is imminent and Obama is trying to hold it off by keeping his promise. He seems to be the only thing standing in the way from all out conflict. However, will his refusal to enter the M.E. conflict(s) only serve to make things worse in the end? I think we should not get involved right now. War at this time would be a distraction for the US and its allies, allowing for rogue groups; such as ISIS, to get a leg up on their corrupt intentions. There may be more issues in play which I am not privy to that could be deciding factors in how things are done. What says ATS?

io9.com...

If Turkey and others allies want to make a no-fly zone, why don't they just do that.

Looking at Turkeys current stance and actions, they are almost supporting ISIS.

a reply to: bhaal

Good point. Turkey is in NATO but their actions don't always seem like that of a friend.

There are over 40 nations involved right now with airstrikes on ISIS.

Why does it have to be the US to take the lead in a no fly? Any number of other countries can push that idea.

Secondly I would not expect a lot of posts in this thread since the action of the US / article cant paint the US as being the aggressor.

Am I missing something or just unknowledgeable...

a no-fly zone in Syria would be grounding the Assad Government air-forces (and anything the IS-ISIS could pilot)
But the coalition, including 5 Arab nations, would command the skies over Syria-Iraq... correct ?

asking/telling/imposing a no-fly-zone over Syria airspace would be helping out the ISIS pockets of local supremacy from air attacks by both the Syrian AF & the Coalition AF... it would not make any sense to me

an increased air campaign by all anti-ISIS airforces would logically keep the 'Boots-on-the-ground' from the Western coalition nations from being needed....
the only way to 'degrade' IS-ISIS without ground troops is to air attack their positions with piloted and Drone aircraft

a reply to: St Udio

Your right and also a no fly zone would be helping the Islamists. The only way to defeat ISIS is to help Assad.