« "US troops in northern Syria came under direct attack" - TTG | Main | Adversarial games »

30 August 2017




What about the famous "deconfliction" process between the US and Russia. Did this deal not come under that agreement?



The de-confliction process exists to prevent engagements between US side and Russian forces. I would expect that this would have gone through that process. pl


The convoy was moving on Syrian territory under an agreement with Syrian and Lebanese governmental parties.

It is straightforward to interpret the bombing as an attempt to sabotage any agreement that is made independently from the USA. The message to the Syrians and Lebanese: "You make no deal without us -- even regarding territories that we do not control". The message to ISIS: "If you want to make a deal, you must ultimately make it with us -- even in territories where we are not present". The message to other parties: "Do not even think about sidelining us in any deal -- whichever territory it may concern".


Colonel -

My understanding is that the Coalition cut the road that the buses would have had to take to get to al Bukamal. There was consideration of striking the buses but it was ruled out due to potential civilian casualties.

There is widespread anger in Iraq that the Hezbollah/Lebanese/Daesh deal would put those Daeshis right smack on the Iraqi border across from al Qaim. Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi spoke out against it as well as many others. Saying Iraq would never export terrorist to another country's border.


The NYT report claims the convoy was not hit, just blocked. I did not see where all this is supposed to have occurred - anyone here know?
The US obviously does not view agreements made by other parties as binding which is going to make it difficult for the R+6 to continue its policy of separating jihadis, from less radical tribals, which has been working well at regaining territory and concentrating diehard jihadis where they can be exterminated without too much collateral damage.
pl - I have posted this as a reply to your comment only because typepad is not giving the post or preview buttons if try posting as an original comment.



Are those actual quotations or are you just pulling them out of the air? Do I understand that you think IS is a US puppet and the US is screwing them to demonstrate its authority? If so, then you prove my point that the facts will be tortured enough to make existing illusions continue. pl



I am told that there are 17 buses and that the number of people given in the press is about right. The US says that we have not yet struck the buses themselves, but the convoy is stuck out in the desert and CENTCOM has no idea what to do about it. pl


The U.S.did not bomb the convoy but a small bridge in its way. The convoy reached its target. The convoy included 308 ISIS fighters and some 500 civilians including small children.

The deal was made with Lebanon, Hizbullah and Syria on one sided and ISIS central(!) on the other. Iraq and Russia were informed. The deal was made on behest of the Lebanese army and government. Within it the corpse of killed Lebanese soldiers were recovered. A further fight for the Lebanese army was avoided. Last time I looked the Lebanese were a U.S. ally and the army supplied by it.

The U.S. has MANY times let corridors open for ISIS to escape towards Syria. Fallujah and Mosul are only two examples. In Raqqa it let ISIS intentionally escape towards Palmyra. Russia officially protested. In Manbij (August 2016) the U.S. made a deal with ISIS and let some 200 ISIS and additional civilians retreat towards Turkey.

To now come up against this deal has obviously NOTHING to do with the U.S. being averse to such deals or its willingness to fight ISIS. It has ALL to do with playing up its own role to justify its further presence in Syria.

One sentence in the CentCom statement makes that clear: "This is just further evidence of why Coalition military action is necessary to defeat ISIS in Syria."

From the Syrian military standpoint it is logical to concentrate ISIS in the Deir Ezzor desert. This will free up troops currently bound around small opposition and ISIS areas around the country. ISIS concentrated in one area will make it much easier to fight, especially from the air. The same logic applies to al-Qaeda in Idleb.


I thought they were stranded in town of Hamimah and had not yet been handed over to Daesh escorts?

Anger continues in Iraq about this deal. Great satire about the event from Iraqi artist Ahmed Falah. Shows two buses, one wrapped as a gift to Daesh, the other draped in an Iraqi flag similar to a flag draped on a coffin. The cartoon is titled "Eidiyah", reportedly meaning the tradition of exchanging gifts during Eid.




To the person who wrote to give me a sermon about "my country right or wrong." My record of public opposition to the Iraq War speaks for itself. What I object to in this is the moronic idea that the US created and operates IS as a proxy force. That notion is just stupid and born of hating America. pl


They didn't bomb the convoy, only the road they were taking to Deir Ezzor. In effect, they prevented them from being subject to air attacks at their destination.


b -

There has been some Arab components within the SDF that made deals with local tribal elders in Manbij and elsewhere to release men that had been forcibly conscripted by Daesh.

On the other hand the Coalition has never a party to that and they have never made a deal with Daesh. Any BS to the contrary is more agitprop.

The Porkchop Express

The buses are sitting in the desert while drones and jets circling.


The US did tacitly support Islamic State. I wouldn't go so far to suggest they directed and outright created ISIS; however, it's clear the US had a relative tolerance for ISIS as an ally in the fight against Assad. Moreover, the US played a significant role in creating the basis that allowed IS to come about. I concur with General Flynn, it was a willful decision to allow a group like IS into being. And I wouldn't begrudge anyone if they held suspicions that there are those in the US who advance interests that don't put American and/or moral interests first.



I thought you were one of the sane people here. Is it the Greek mentality that inclines you to conspircy theories. It is true that US ineptitude in Iraq created the conditions that made the rise of IS possible but no more than that. We never made cpommon cause with IS against Assad, AQ yes, but not IS."It's clear?" How is it clear? Is there anything other than your fevered imagination that makes it clear? Flynn did not say, as you imply, that the Obama Administration wifully allowed IS to come into existence. He told them that they were no doing enough to stop its rise. There is a big difference. pl


PE and b

"The buses are sitting in the desert while drones and jets circling" Thank you. I guess they did not reach their destination as b thought. pl


JJackson -

Road was cut on this road near T2. Buses still at Humayah:



What's next? Are the nihilistic barbarians going to blow themselves up?

Peter in Toronto

I find it disappointing that the Syrians and Lebanese even agreed to such an arrangement, rather than spending a few more days and destroying them in their nests.

It's a shame the US showed this much restraint and did not engage the buses directly.

IMO, the only way to deal with the Jihadist mentality is to wage total war against anyone carrying such thoughts. Destroy the combatants and their families, IMO.

Trump's Pentagon is showing some encouraging signs, for a change.


sorry, but "What I object to in this is the moronic idea that the US created and operates IS as a proxy force." is just as much a falacy.

there is alot of evidence that the united states was not very troubled by the rise and spread of ISIS and that its existence did serve goals of the united states, and that the main supporters and (the source of all their preachers) are close us allies.

there is a big difference between saying ISIS was woven out of whole cloth by the united states, and saying it was US policy that created the conditions necessary for it, and then US policy was decidedly lookwarm at best in their desire to see them defeated(and at least some portion of the us governement see saw them as a benefit).

"“We have recently seen an attack on Iran, and the Iranian government, the mullahs, believe that Sunni forces have attacked them. This may signal a ratcheting up of certain commitments by the United States of America. As far as I’m concerned, I just want to make this point and see what you think, isn’t it a good thing for us to have the United States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us? Isn’t that a good thing? And if so, maybe this is a Trump — maybe it’s a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another, considering that you have two terrorist organizations.”"

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) June 2017



"there is alot of evidence that the united states was not very troubled by the rise and spread of ISIS and that its existence did serve goals of the united states," No, there is not a lot of evidence and you have produced none. The Saudis and Qataris supported IS. Yes, they probably did. do you think they take orders from Washington?

It is true that abolishing the old Iraqi Army, thereby throwing a lot of officers penniless out on the street. When many of them joined the resistance to occupation some ended up in Camp Bucca where in a massive display of ignorance of the local culture the camp authorities send Baghdadi around to preach in the different sub-camps in the stupid belief that this would make the inmates "calmer." Some of the ex-officers saw in his preaching a way to acquire another army and joined as soon as released.

I have tried to explain here that ineptitude an ignorance are much more likely causes of historical disaster than any kind of conspiracy but the message does not resonate.

Rohrbacker is a dumbbell and know nothing. pl


The satellite photos of the caravan of ISIS oil tanker trucks lined up to sell their oil to Turkey that the Russians eventually bombed to smithereens that the USA did not publicize or bomb or prevent in any way is proof enough for me that USA wanted ISIS to do their dirty work in Syria....and when ISIS started to get their ass kicked by Russia, USA turned-tail, didnt want to get too embarassed/exposed and started to turn on ISIS.

Just like Al Quida, we support them when we need them, then kill them when we don't.



Now this is the first intelligent and telling point made about this. I will ask if there is a good explanation and let you know. As I recall, the argument made at the time was that the US did not want to destroy Iraq ad Syria's oil infrastructure and that it too a while to figure out how much oil Erdogan was being allowed sold through Turkey. pl

The Twisted Genius

Peter in Toronto,

"It's a shame the US showed this much restraint and did not engage the buses directly."

If anyone under my command every tried to do such a thing, I would have them locked in irons. I've done a lot worse to atrocity committers in my youth. Wrong is wrong, my friend, and it can never be tolerated.


My recollection is that the Defense Department said that the USAF couldn't bomb the ISIL oil tanker trucks because they were being driven by civilians.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad