Why is a no-fly zone so popular?
Why is a no-fly zone so popular?
In our recent research on Syria we found that, while just 24% of likely voters would support sending weapons and military supplies to the Syrian rebels, a much larger 54% would support the UK and other countries enforcing a no-fly zone over the country.
Why is a no-fly zone more popular than arming the Syrian rebels?
In our recent research on Syria we found that, while just 24% of likely voters would support sending weapons and military supplies to the Syrian rebels, a much larger 54% would support the UK and other countries enforcing a no-fly zone over the country.
A no-fly zone over Syria is a much larger commitment than supplying weapons, it?s more expensive and much more dangerous to British servicemen and women, particularly given the recent news that Russia has been supplying advanced air defence technology to the Syrian government.
So why is it more popular than sending weapons to the rebels?
I?d say it comes down to two reasons:
- The first is that the public?s knowledge of no-fly zones is largely based on Libya in 2011. That operation involved no loss of life on the UK?s part* and although expensive, the conflict did not involve ?troops on the ground? and is ultimately seen as successful. Indeed when we asked people whether they opposed or supported the Libya no-fly zone in hindsight, 46% were supportive while 32% were opposed. Hardly overwhelming numbers but considerably more than the 30% who support the UK?s involvement in Afghanistan and the 28% supporting the UK?s involvement in Iraq.
- The second is probably due to semantics. Put simply, a no-fly zone is probably more popular because the wording of it doesn?t imply that people will be killed whereas sending weapons and military supplies conjures up images of what those weapons are and what they will do.
The no-fly zone in Libya was able to draw support because the basic premise of the action was defending embattled rebels from Colonel Ghadaffi?s air force. Ignoring the fact that even a protective action like a no-fly zone still involves dropping bombs and killing people, the wording of it sounds less aggressive than sending weapons to one side in a conflict. Sending weapons to the rebels could be interpreted as putting a finger on one side of the scales whereas a no-fly zone implies (however inaccurately) that we would be evening them.
It certainly highlights the importance for the government of explaining foreign policy more clearly and making sure the public are aware of exactly what their actions will potentially involve.
*One British airman was killed in an road accident in Italy as part of a convoy supplying the RAF for the operation.
