I've heard a bit of clarification on this, and apparently what's happening isn't a strict no-fly zone, but rather a zone where they've instructed Russian and Syrian planes not to fly. The distinction seems to be in how no-fly zones are patrolled and defended, and this area is less fortified than that. I wonder, though, whether the method of implementation (highly secured with aerial patrols, versus not as secured and maybe only scrambling to defend) ought to change how we call what is still effectively a territory within a foreign country's borders occupied and defended by American troops. Or is the terminology becoming slippery again? This isn't a no-fly zone, but it's that place where they aren't allowed to fly? Kind of like how there are no wars anymore, just operations?
