Bombshell Report Confirms US Coalition Struck A Deal With ISIS

Tyler Durden's picture

At a moment of widespread acknowledgement that the short-lived Islamic State is no longer a reality, and as ISIS is about to be defeated by the Syrian Army in its last urban holdout of Abu Kamal City in eastern Syria, the US is signalling an open-ended military presence in Syria. On Monday Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon that the US is preparing for a long term military commitment in Syria to fight ISIS "as long as they want to fight."

Mattis indicated that even should ISIS loose all of its territory there would still be a dangerous insurgency that could morph into an "ISIS 2.0" which he said the US would seek to prevent. “The enemy hasn’t declared that they’re done with the area yet, so we’ll keep fighting as long as they want to fight,” Mattis said. “We’re not just going to walk away right now before the Geneva process has traction.”


Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stands in front of a map of Syria and Iraq.

Mattis was referring to the stalled peace talks in Geneva which some analysts have described as a complete failure (especially as the Geneva process unrealistically stipulates the departure of Assad), as the future of Syria has of late been increasingly decided militarily on the battlefield, with the Syrian government now controlling the vast majority of the country's most populated centers.

Ironically just as some degree of stability and normalcy has returned to many parts of the county now under government control, Mattis coupled the idea of a permanent US military presence with the goal of allowing Syrians to return to their homes. He said, “You keep broadening them. Try to (demilitarize) one area then (demilitarize) another and just keep it going, try to do the things that will allow people to return to their homes.”

Meanwhile Turkey once again reiterated that the US has 13 bases in Syria, though the US-backed Syrian YPG has previously indicated seven US military bases in northern Syria. The Pentagon, however, would not confirm base locations or numbers - though only a year-and-a-half ago the American public was being assured that there would be "no boots on the ground" due to mission creep in Syria.

During the last year of the Obama administration, State Department spokesman John Kirby was called out multiple times by reporters for tell obvious and blatant lies concerning "boots on the ground" in Syria. 

Remember this? "We are not going to be involved in a large scale combat mission on the ground in Syria. That is what the president [Obama] has long said."

Last summer, in a move that angered the US administration, Turkish state media leaked the locations of no less than ten small scale American military bases in northern Syria alone (revelations of US bases in southern Syria began surfacing as well). As another recent Pentagon press conference further acknowledged, these bases - though likely special forces forward operating bases - require a broad network of US personnel operating in various logistical roles inside Syria and likely now includes thousands of US troops deployed on the ground, instead of the Pentagon's official (and highly dubious) "approximately 500 troops in Syria" number. 

What makes even the timing of Mattis' declaration of an open ended military commitment in to supposedly fight ISIS is that it came the same day that the BBC confirmed that the US and its Kurdish SDF proxy (Syrian Democratic Forces) cut a deal with ISIS which allowed for the evacuation of possibly thousands of ISIS members and their families from Raqqa. 

According to yesterday's bombshell BBC report:

The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of Islamic State fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city. A convoy included some of IS's most notorious members and - despite reassurances - dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.

Though it's always good when the mainstream media belatedly gives confirmation to stories that actually broke months prior, the BBC was very late to the story. ISIS terrorists being given free passage by coalition forces to leave Raqqa was a story which we and other outlets began to report last June, and which Moon of Alabama and Al-Masdar News exposed in detail a full month prior to the BBC report. 

And astoundingly, even foreign fighters who had long vowed to carry out attacks in Europe and elsewhere were part of the deal brokered under the sponsorship of the US coalition in Syria. According to the BBC report:

Disillusioned, weary of the constant fighting and fearing for his life, Abu Basir decided to leave for the safety of Idlib. He now lives in the city. He was part of an almost exclusively French group within IS, and before he left some of his fellow fighters were given a new mission.

 

"There are some French brothers from our group who left for France to carry out attacks in what would be called a ‘day of reckoning.’”

 

Much is hidden beneath the rubble of Raqqa and the lies around this deal might easily have stayed buried there too. The numbers leaving were much higher than local tribal elders admitted. At first the coalition refused to admit the extent of the deal.

So it appears that the US allowed ISIS terrorists to freely leave areas under coalition control, according to no less than the BBC, while at the same time attempting to make the case before the public that a permanent Pentagon presence is needed in case of ISIS' return. But it’s a familiar pattern by now: yesterday's proxies become today's terrorists, which return to being proxies again, all as part of justifying permanent US military presence on another nation's sovereign territory.

America's Syrian adventure went from public declarations of “we’re staying out” to “just some logistical aid to rebels” to “okay, some mere light arms to fight the evil dictator” to “well, a few anti-tank missiles wouldn’t hurt” to “we gotta bomb the new super-bad terror group that emerged!” to “ah but no boots on the ground!” to “alright kinetic strikes as a deterrent” to “but special forces aren’t really boots on the ground per se, right?” to yesterday's Mattis declaration of an open-ended commitment. And on and on it goes.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SHEEPFUKKER's picture

We don't negotiate with terrorists...said every US president ever. 

ne-tiger's picture

We don't negotiate with terrorists, we help and arm them...


Killtruck's picture

LEAVE?! YOU LET THESE FUCKERS LEAVE?! Cornered like fucking rats ready to be rounded up and machinegunned in a ditch, and you "cut a deal" to let them walk all over the damn place like Johnny Appleseeds, causing more trouble wherever they go and planting the seeds for the next round of this fucking shit to start ten years from now.

It's almost as if you want MORE of this shit to go on and on, justifying more wars and more suffering and more....wait.

dammit.

tmosley's picture

House to house fighting against desperate men interspersed with civillians?

Nightmare situation.

Troll Magnet's picture

Why is this news? Israel has been our BFF forever.

chumbawamba's picture

Well color me nigger.

I am Chumbawamba.

ali-ali-al-qomfri's picture

 that's redundant,

if I say nigger, you have already made a color specification.

similiarly;

if I say honkey, you have already made a color specification.

isn't language fun!

 

now about those chinks......

 

auricle's picture

This is about as bombshell as reporing an employer payed its employees. 

ThanksChump's picture

"If forced to choose, which weevil would you pick?"

"If I HAD to, I'd pick the larger weevil. It's stronger, more likely to win in a fight or a race."

"No! Anyone will tell you that you should always pick the lesser of two weevils."

 

The easiest and safest way to get them out was to promise them safe passage. They're out. Very few lives lost in the effort.

 

Now, an evil person would promise ISIS a safe escape, then strafe them from the air as they left.

 

So, the takeaway from all that: I guess I'm evil.

Got The Wrong No's picture

But then again, there are white niggers. Was his statement redundent? 

nope-1004's picture

Ya.... that "black market" for oil that was funding ISIS was my first clue.  The US imposes economic sanctions at will and manipulates global interest rates and futures markets, but that damn black market for oil is completely out of their reach.  LMFAO.

The entire thing was and is a lie.

 

auricle's picture

Never forget the black market oil that Russia came in and turned off. Once that was revealed you knew the US intentions were a complete and total lie to the American people.

NoDebt's picture

Perhaps we could refrain from using the word "bombshell" in the title of articles like this.

 

Chupacabra-322's picture

Bombshell?

How is this breaking Fuckimg News. Those of us paying attention know full Damn well the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA / State Dept. have been arming, funding & training terror organizations since the days of the Mujahaideen.

ISIS = I CIA SIS = Mossad.

Rubicon727's picture

You forgot to target the other criminal class: the US military.

These are despicable acts because they've caused thousands murdered, severely wounded, hungry innocent people. 

Every last one of these perpetrators should be thrown in a federal prison to let them starve to death.

pods's picture

Oh, just like we did to the German Army after WWII?

pods

ne-tiger's picture

More like we are their bitch

falak pema's picture

stalingrad. didn't stop the victors who wanted nazi blood.

WTFRLY's picture

JOOMINATI GONNA FUCKIN JOO. ARE JOO SURPRISED?

BrownCoat's picture

@ tmosley,

War is a "nightmare situation."

What is your solution? Obama's was to import ISIS fighters into the US and Europe!

Cynicles II's picture

Not surprising they are more loyal and supportive to their terror field army than US vets.

EddieLomax's picture

If we did not let them leave then other potential jihadi's would look at this and think "screw this" and stay in the west to commit their terror attacks.

This way we ensure a stream of Islamic nutjobs from the west, who got mysteriously radicalised in some sort of process that is nothing to do with going to a mosque and believing in Islam.

Its a great way to siphon off a few of the more devout Muslims from our rapidly growing Muslim populations in the west.

What could possibly go wrong?

small axe's picture

we are the terrorists, in the eyes of a good portion of the world

Chupacabra-322's picture

Al-Qaeda = Al CUA duh = ISIS = I CIA SIS = Mossad = Israeli Secret Intelligence Service.

shimmy's picture

More like "we are the terrorists"

shovelhead's picture

Just the "good" ones. The moderate terrorists.

Secret Weapon's picture

Maybe, just maybe, WE are the terrorists.

earleflorida's picture

it's tyme to wake-up america, Tyler

SafelyGraze's picture

another yuuge success for lavar ball

eclectic syncretist's picture

As much as I would be proud to have my future generations serve in the Military I have to encourage them not to because of bullshit like this. Obviously, there is no interest in victory or peace, and the policy is more along the lines of "keep the bullets flying" in order to provide cover/distraction for some more nefarious shit that the deep state is up to. Matteis and others at his level are the ones who need to be under fire.

To Hell In A Handbasket's picture

Fuck you and don't bend that knee. Send your kids to the slaughter for the ZOG and the Christian Zionists will pray for you. Israel has enemies and they need fighting and financing.

God bless Merika.

 

 

Spanky's picture

So, you're proud of raising cannon fodder (by filling their young minds with "patriotic" bullshit) but, now, only reluctantly encourage them not to join because... this time it's different?

I can understand being proud of raising a son (or daughter) who defends hearth and home if the necessity were ever to arise, but wars for empire don't count... When I see the whites of their eyes on our shores, me and mine will step up. Till then, just say NO.

earleflorida's picture

this creature we call [our] 'praying mattis' should have a few collateral-damaged [freshly`dead'd childrens heads trebled hooked to his baggy-eyes as a snack when his montrous appetite for death vacates to africa where the meat has a higher protein of minerals!  

Ghost of PartysOver's picture

Some things are beyond belief.   To this day I am still waiting for some gov't official to explain in detail why Assad had to go.

Bastiat's picture

I'd like an explanation of how we are there, univited, an invading force essentially at war with the State of Syria, now declaring we will stay as long as we, in our own discretion, think it's "necessary."  Maybe Sessions could look into that?

Spanky's picture

To this day I am still waiting for some gov't official to explain in detail why Assad had to go. -- Ghost of PartysOver

Because he's bad -- really, really bad. It goes without saying, of course. Clear enough?

exi1ed0ne's picture

Because Israel (chaos cover for douchbaggery) and the EU (muh Russia energy security) told us to.  Same as with everything in the ME.

Grimaldus's picture

Because in Hillary's mind that would be "presidential". And afterward she would "spike the football" like she did with Qaddafi.

Standing armies in foreign countries is anti-American. The colonies really hated the British army stationed among them.

https://www.fff.org/2013/03/04/gun-control-and-the-dangers-of-a-standing...

"Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Is there any doubt that tyrannical and bloody progressives have usurped the US FEDGOV?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grimaldus

 

 

 

rpboxster's picture

because we were told he gassed some people

Mr. Universe's picture

We are just giving our boys a chance to go home...

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

People have been so bombarded with ISIS fake news/reports they no longer can recognize what's true, most probably never did

Spanky's picture

We don't negotiate with terrorists...said every US president ever. -- SHEEPFUKKER

Nope, the USG doesn't negoiate with terrorists... It just arms them and points them in a certain direction.

On a related note: The USG reminds me of a (uninvited) guest who hangs around and refuses to leave when the party is over.

HRClinton's picture

"We don't negotiate with terrorists."

"We don't have to. We give them equipment and marching orders instead." Is the unspoken truth.

Mine Is Bigger's picture

So you consider Obama a U.S. president?

VladLenin's picture

Who's the bigger threat again? 

Washington DC or ISIS