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. 

Mattis' declaration of an open ended military commitment in Syria 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.
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?

BrownCoat's picture

@ EddieLomax,

"This way we ensure a stream of Islamic nutjobs from the west"

Your idea makes an invalid assumption that *all* the nutjobs will be killed in Syria. Most will survive. They will have combat experience and military training. And if they get to Europe, those EU government will feed and house them!!! The US will most likely feed and house the ISIS fighters (and their offspring) too.

 

 

Glasnost's picture

And yet so many fools here continue to spew bullshit about 'all muslims are evil' or whatever other idiocy.

When really it's the Americans and their government who work with terror cells to radicalize people (with the incentive of money or glory or life purpose etc.) and increase these stupid perceptions that a large amount of Muslims are 'radical' by helping these terrorists commit acts of violence. 

 - EDIT: I didn't make it clear why this is beneficial for the US Government.  It's because giving people the overarching threat of 'terrorists' allows a government to more easily creep on liberty in the name of security.  "We've always been at war with Eastasia".

When it's actually more like an absolute maximum of 'radicals' at 3.125% of the those who follow Islam (if one makes the strech of a conclusion that all Salafists are radical).  Radical here being defined as a desire for Sharia law.  When one defines Radical as willing to use violence to reach that goal, the % drops to somewhere around 0.1% of those who follow Islam. 

I'm pretty sure that more than 0.1% of Americans have used violence to reach their goals.  Like by serving in the army to 'serve their country', a.k.a. secure oil deposits for their corporate sponsors.  So if 'all muslims are evil', then I guess we could also conclude that all Americans are evil?

 

And yes it's the American people as well who are at fault for this.  Because those lazy fat fucks do nothing, don't get involved in their political processes, and don't hold politicians accountable.  The best answer they can give is 'Trump'.  An egotist solves nothing, only cool-headedness and sensibility like that of Ron Paul's would solve anything.

But the Americans refuse this level of actual thinking, and the rest of the world suffers for it.

Sweet Chicken's picture

Not one mention of IsraeHELL in this entire article. I guess they aren't a player in all of this. /sarc

Beowulf55's picture

but, butb, but....I thought we were at war with terrorist.

 

Ah man, the bullshit piles up so fast in Vietnam...eh Syria, you needed wings to stay above it.

 

GreatUncle's picture

Seems the new UK defence secretary believes in droning the fuckers...

I was astonished ... I kind of like the guy on that alone.

You would be surprised how many people feel the same way.

 

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

RTP's picture

Isis  can stay..as long they want to fight, but...Assad must go!

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.

 

 

mkkby's picture

We need a new "Trump doctrine". Go back to pre-WWI isolationism, where the military exists to protect America ONLY.

Tell allies, we'll be there for you -- but it might take a year or two to mobilize. During that time, you can have all the weapons and supplies you can pay for in hard currency. That means, you need to be able to hold off an initial attack yourself. If you choose to put your head in the sand, suffer the consequences.

Under this plan, all carrier groups are to stay near our shores. No army is needed except for state national guards. The marines are the only permanent ground force needed. Carriers have enough air power to protect the US. The air force only needs a few strategic bombers to maintain the nuclear deterrent, along with subs.

This should produce an immediate budget surplus, with the debt entirely paid off in a decade or 2.

Then the drugs wore off and I woke up.

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.

HRClinton's picture

80% who enlist, have no choice.  They are economic refugees and job desperadoes, for they cannot find comparable lifestyle (food, shelter, medical, dental, pay, training and future prospects for jobs.gov) in the Private sector. That is the unspoken, but 100% unvarnished truth.

10% are psychos, for whom the military is the perfect cover.

10% are Kool-Aid(DS)(K) guzzling Patriots, who end up bleeding at the Front -- to serve the Global-lust interests of their ultimate (((Masters), not the interests of USA Main St or the Constitution.  Were it so (that they serve the interests of USA Main St and the Constitution), they'd point their scope at their leaders in DC, and their bosses in NY.  Useful Idiots! 

   Where (DS) = Deep State, and (K) =Kosher.  Both are (((Global-lust Zionist))) approved.

Fucking GLORIFIED MERCS, the lot of them!

BrownCoat's picture

"80% who enlist, have no choice."

BS. Everyone who enlists has a choice. The problem is their minds have been toyed with by what passes for the "education" system in this country.

RafterManFMJ's picture

Ever wonder why combat units are 90% White, while the cooks and trucks and support are 90% Black?

And you thought Blacks were stupid! :D

Only Whitey is dumb enough to murder for banks.

EddieLomax's picture

For a long time I have had the suspicion that our goal in these middle eastern countries is to siphon off the more devout Muslims from western countries so that they can be violent and destructive over there.

At least that would explain the string of countries from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya, Syria, Iraq and now Syria.  One crises country at a time, whether it was planned or just fell that way there is no real will to stamp the fires out over there, because they know we'll have fires quickly start up over here.

Snípéir_Ag_Obair's picture

Mattis may be as stupid as the average Marine brass (The Peter Principle... is cherished, from my observations in 3 different shitholes) but he is not *this* stupid.

He has joined the bankers and war profiteers and Transnational Zionism against the American people, against civilians, and against peace.

He has no honor - none at all.

His life, consequently, is a threat to the very Marines he pretends to care about.

And it is a threat to Army Rangers, Delta, Greens... not to mention SEALS and the Air Force Combat Control.

So, naturally, are the actions of the CIA-SAD, whose leadership should and increasingly will be regarded as unlawful, enemy combatants.

tick tock...

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?

BrownCoat's picture

I'd like an explanation of:

1. Why Bush Junior has not been charged with inciting a war.
2. Why Syria and Lybia were immediate threats to the safely of the United States.
3. What was the justification based on the US Constitution to bomb in Africa. 

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

 

 

 

EddieLomax's picture

The colonies as in what became the USA did dislike the standing army, but mainly because we were forcing the economy to be reliant on the UK and enforcing a ban on manufacturing.

The shock of 1776 sent a message back to the UK which was well learned, colonies will eventually get their independence.  The Victorians knew and expected this, we got caught up in the hubris of empire in the Edwardian age and WW2 sped up the end of empire.

But South Africa only narrowly voted to join us in WW2, New Zealand, Australia and Canada voted as well, they were already semi-independent.  The British empire was really just India and some colonies, all the other countries around it were there to safeguard the route between UK and India, and India was getting close to ungovernable before WW2, short of a miracle we would likely have lost it anyway by 1960.

rpboxster's picture

because we were told he gassed some people

khnum's picture

basically because Assad wouldn't sell out Syria to Genie oil and gas which is run by Dick Cheney,Rupert Murdoch Lord Rothschild et al

Conscious Reviver's picture

Mattis is a dog all right.

"US Defense Secretary James Mattis has recently claimed that Washington received a mandate to operate in Syria from no less than the UN itself. The problem is the UN never did any such thing as it does not even have any legal capacity to do so. "

https://www.rt.com/usa/409881-mattis-us-syria-un/

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.

GreatUncle's picture

I liked the product so much I bought the company.

Braun advert from the 70's ... i did not know it applied to ISIS.

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?

SHsparx's picture

Fake decoy explannation: "You let them leave! What? How incompetent can you be!"

The REAL explannation: US supports, arms, and funds ISIS to use them as terrorist mercenaries in the mid east to take down regimes they don't like, and as an extra bonus, they can fearmonger US citizens about ISIS boogiemen out to get them so they get the funds they need for military and intelligence agencies and can get the policies they want passed without any complaint.

Cloud9.5's picture

Pretext Syria is one of the seven countries on the list to be invaded. 

DeputyDan DistronMan's picture

Oh no...the radical Christian state is fighting the radical Islamic state.  They means the non-religous state is fucked.