As SouthFront reported on August 13, the “final liberation” of Manbij was the result of an agreement between the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the ISIS terrorist group. Now, the information is officially confirmed by Pentagon.
Manbij was a key logistical hub and major stronghold of the ISIS terrorist group. US-led coalition forces spent almost three months conducting air strikes and storming it.
US Army Col. Carver, a spokesman for the US-led coalition fighters, told reporters that the SDF gave ‘several hundred’ vehicles containing 100 to 200 ISIS fighters a free passage out of the Syrian city of Manbij. According to Col. Carver, the decision was made by commanders of the SDF and pursued the goal to avoid casualties, adding ISIS had civilians in each of the vehicles. He noted that some civilians were likely hostages, but didn’t denied that civilians could been in the cars voluntarily.
“They kept throwing civilians to basically walk into the line of fire, trying to get them shot to use that potentially as propaganda, we think,” said Col. Chris Garver.
The pentagon official added that terrorists surrendered their weapons before they were given a free passage. The ISIS terrorists left Manbij on August 12 under watch of coalition drones to ensure they didn’t regroup and try to return to the city.
Col. Carver emphasized that it was the first such agreement with ISIS.
This nice story provided by Pentagon raises few questions:
- Do guys in Pentagon really believe that somebody is ready to accept the version with ISIS fighters that laid down arms in the center of Manbij (where the last clashes were ongoing) and then were given safe passage by the SDF after 3 month of heavy clashes and air strikes in the city? After hundreeds of SDF fighters that lost their lifes in this operation the group’s commanders just opened a free passage for “unarmed” ISIS militants?
- Did 3 month of airstrikes on the residential areas of Manbij pursued the goal to avoid “civilian casualties”? Why “civilian casualties” stopped the coalition on August 12?
- “Some” civilians in ISIS vehicles were “likely” hostages. How did “unarmed” ISIS fighters hold them?
- If ISIS militants surrendered their weapons, why did Pentagon expect that they could regroup and return to the city?
The only logical answer to these questions is that the 100 to 200 ISIS fighters that leaved Manbij were fully armed. They did not surrender their weapons to the SDF and they didn’t intend to do this. Unfortunately, it was very bad for the US and the SDF public image. This is why Col. Carver decided to “improve” the real story.
In all fairness, Assad’s SAA has made similar arrangements in the past with both Al Nusra and ISIS for similar reasons. How is this case different from that one?
The cost / benefit of allowing 150 ISIS fighters to leave depends on how many civilians were still at risk. I never got a clear picture of how many civilians were left in Manbij. By some accounts, 10’s of thousands by others, a few thousand.
The point of the article is the statements made by the Pentagon. (The title of the article reflect this as well.)
The Pentagon peddles nonsense once again. And it is important from the point of view of understanding their mindset. What they claimed was utter nonsense; it was merely grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical.
While these statements are targeted at the domestic and allied (Western) audience, it is important to note that if the Pentagon (and the U.S. government in general) can get away with such statements, it means that they not only suppose, but actually *rely* on their populace to have fecal matter in their cranial cavities.
Sitting far away it’s easy to comment and criticise. What SDF has done is for the best interest of the people of Manbij and Kurds overall. They are doing their best to undo the disasterous Sykes-Picot (secret agreement by UK, France and Russia and later inherited and maintained by USA) What’s funny is the idea that people prefered ISIS over SDF…. That deserves some laughter….
Only ISIS sympathisers and linkmen who are afraid for their future in liberated Manbij would voluntarily leave with ISIS, and any sympathy towards them by any media (MSM or internet based) is sure sign of concern for the likes of me.
You apparently failed to get the point of the article. The point of the article is not any criticism of the SDF’s strategy and tactics, but the statements made by the Pentagon. The title of the article reflect this as well.
The point of the article is that the Pentagon peddles nonsense once again. And it is important from the point of view of understanding their mindset. What they claimed was utter nonsense; it was merely grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical.
While these statements are targeted at the domestic and allied (Western) audience, it is important to note that if the Pentagon (and the U.S. government in general) can get away with such statements, it means that they not only suppose, but actually *rely* on their populace to have fecal matter in their cranial cavities.
And this reveals their mindset and provides us with unique insights into it…
We will be seeing them again. In Europe planting bombs, or just fighting elsewhere in Syria. And their kids in those cars. Future european citizens.
and no wonder if Obama, along with the traitors Merkel and Hollande party up with their zionist masters at seeing the european civilization slaughered by fundamentalist headchoppers
Kurds fighting with the SDF made a statement about their offer to let IS troops leave the city many days ago. I think there was a previous mention of it on this site. Letting a garrison leave unharmed to avoid continuing a costly siege is a pretty old tactic, and I don’t think there is anything suspicious about it. SDF gets the strategic location now, rather than in however many days it would have required them to take it, with less loss amongst their personnel and less civilian casualties, in exchange for a couple of companies of IS troops who apparently weren’t motivated enough to stay and die for Allah. That doesn’t seem unreasonable. It’s more advantageous for SDF than IS.
However, I recall no mention of IS surrendering weapons in the SDF account, so that was probably added in by Carver and the DOD’s propaganda wing, much as alleged above. Carver is just a mouthpiece reading prepared statements, and little he says has any worth. That’s been well established.
USIS