O'Malley is right on no-fly. Hillary is also way too hawkish across the board.

For her warmongering on having a no fly zone where Russian planes are flying. Obama, Sanders, O' Malley, and I believe Webb and Chafee as well all agree that a no fly zone is dangerous warmongering. Completely unacceptable in a Democratic nominee.

I've waited for YEARS for her to adopt approaches of her 'friend' (and my former #1) Wes Clark on such matters, but she's failed in that regularly.

Here's what he's said recently about this situation:

'In such circumstances, the U.S. has three alternatives:

Maintain our limited involvement, continuing minimal airstrikes against ISIL and working to strengthen Iraqi ground forces, whatever their putative relationships with Russia and Iran and continuing support for Kurdish fighters in Syria.

Intervene more forcefully, to include substantial ground forces inserted through Turkey into Syria to crush ISIL at its base, deprive it of its economic resources and then work against remaining strongholds in Iraq.

As a middle course, create a safe zone in northern Syria, secured by U.S. air power and some international ground presence, to nurture a new Syrian leadership. . .

No course of action is without risk. Maintaining the present strategy — the first course of action — risks ceding Russia a new, more powerful role in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. This isn't helpful to Europe, Israel or our Sunni friends. It virtually ensures Assad's continuation in power or his replacement by a like-minded authoritarian. And it also ensures continued refugee flow toward Europe.

The second course of action is big, expensive and slow. It risks substantial U.S. ground combat, including losses, in an effort to finish off ISIL in Syria, and in so doing strengthen the moderate Syrian opposition, provide assurances to minorities and generally undercut Assad's ability with Russian help to reestablish control over the region. It also poses a direct obstacle to Russian designs. It provides bargaining leverage for an eventual diplomatic settlement that includes Assad's departure. It will be complicated by massive civil affairs, refugee and migrant issues.

The third alternative — establishing a safe zone in northern Syria, accommodating refugees under protection, building the Syrian opposition — also has risks. Terrorist organizations such as the al-Nusra Front can be expected to resist. Russia will be tempted to encroach. Airspace and terrain must be protected, even with risk to U.S. forces and the danger of inadvertent encounters with the Russian military.

Of the three, the last alternative, forging a safe area, probably with NATO engagement and participation of both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, offers the best, lowest cost and the surest means of regaining some stability in the region. A safe zone, secured by NATO, assisted by other international organizations, and housing the nascent Free Syrian government and its military arm, would provide maximum diplomatic leverage as well as point toward the eventual destruction of ISIL. >>>

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/08/russia-syria-islamic-state-assad-iran-wesley-clark-column/73593886/

I posted this in Good Reads, to little attention: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016134062

Stay out of it and let the Syrians and neighboring countries fix the region.

We really need to stop play global police force.

He is absolutely right about no fly zones being hard to enforce..

Unfortunately none of the candidates will
draw the final line telling us that we created
enough of a mess in the ME and should leave.

However, I know that that would be political
suicide.